Source: http://www.georgiabankruptcyblog.com/
Timestamp: 2016-05-02 01:21:51
Document Index: 347335151

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1334', '§303', '§523', '§523', '§1692', '§44', '§ 44', '§550', '§109', '§523', '§1328']

By Scott Riddle on April 11, 2016 Posted in Eleventh Circuit Cases	In a published opinion entered on April 8, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that District Courts are obliged to use and apply the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure rather than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when trying a case that “arises under” Title 11 (28 U.S.C. §1334). In Rosenberg v. DVI Receivables, LLC, et al., No. 14-14620, 2016 WL 1392642 (11th Cir. April 8, 2016) (click here for .pdf of opinion), the issue before the Court was the timeliness of the Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law after a jury trial. Pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 50(b), the deadline to file the Motion was 28 days after the entry of judgment. However, under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9015(c) the deadline is reduced to only 14 days after the entry of the judgment. The Defendants’ Motion was filed 28 days after the judgment against them was entered, making it timely under the Civil Rules, but not the Bankruptcy Rules. The District Court granted the Motion on the merits, and the Plaintiff appealed.
The underlying case involved an involuntary petition filed against the Plaintiff by the Defendants. The case was dismissed, but the Bankruptcy Court retained jurisdiction to determine damages pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §303(i). Plaintiff filed an adversary proceeding to recover damages, and requested a jury trial. The District Court withdrew the reference and conducted a jury trial that resulted in an award of $1,120,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000,000 in punitive damages. Defendants subsequently filed their Motion 28 days after entry of the judgment. The District Court granted the Motion on the merits, and the Plaintiff appealed and argued the Motion was filed out of time. Continue Reading
Tags: Bankruptcy Rules, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, involuntary bankruptcy, New Trial	11th Circuit Issues Important Opinion On What Constitutes A “Return” For Purposes Of Determining What Taxes Are Dischargeable Pursuant to §523(a)(1).
By Scott Riddle on April 8, 2016 Posted in Eleventh Circuit Cases	The question of what constitutes a tax “return” for purposes of 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(1) has been the subject of conflicting Circuit Court cases the last several years. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue in In re Justice, No. 15-10273, 2016 WL 1237766 (11th Cir. March 30, 2016) (click for .pdf of opinion). The Debtor sought to discharge taxes for tax years 2000-2003, but had filed the returns for those years several years late and only after the IRS had issued notices of deficiency and assessments. The Bankruptcy Court held that the taxes were non-dischargeable and the District Court affirmed.
The question that has led to conflicting Circuit opinions is the definition of “return.” Continue Reading
Tags: Discharge, Internal Revenue Service, Nondischargeable Debts, Tax Returns, Taxes	11th Circuit: FDCPA Requirements Apply Equally To Communications with Debtor’s Lawyer
By Scott Riddle on April 6, 2016 Posted in Consumer Bankruptcy Guide, Eleventh Circuit Cases	The Eleventh Circuit recently addressed three issues of first impression in the Circuit regarding the application of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) to letters to consumers’ lawyers. Not surprisingly, the court ruled in favor of the consumer although the arguments made by the collector did seem somewhat weak. In Bishop v. Ross Earle & Bonan, P.A., — F.3d —-, 2016 WL 1169064 (11th Cir. 2016) (click here for .pdf) the Debt Collectors (on behalf of an HOA) sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff’s attorney rather than the Plaintiff debtor. The letter informed the Plaintiff that she had 30 days to dispute the debt, but it did not specifically inform her that the dispute must be in writing as required by §1692g of the FDCPA.
Tags: Debt Collection, FDCPA	Georgia Supreme Court: Foreclosure Confirmation Requirements Can be Waived By Borrowers And Guarantors
By Scott Riddle on March 2, 2016 Posted in Consumer Bankruptcy Guide, Georgia State Cases, Miscellaneous Cases	Did the Georgia Supreme Court effectively repeal the foreclosure confirmation statute by affirming the rights of lenders to include waivers in their standard loan documents for both borrowers and guarantors? That appears to be the case. In PNC Bank, NA v. Smith, No. S15Q1445, 2016 WL 690406 (GA 2016) (download .pdf), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia asked the Georgia Supreme Court to answer two questions regarding the Georgia foreclosure confirmation statute (O.C.G.A. §44-14-161):
(1) Is a lender’s compliance with the requirements contained in OCGA § 44–14–161 a condition precedent to the lender’s ability to pursue a borrower and/or guarantor for a deficiency after a foreclosure has been conducted?
(2) If so, can borrowers or guarantors waive the condition precedent requirement of such statute by virtue of waiver clauses in the loan documents?
Tags: Confirmation, Deficiency Claim, Deficiency Judgment, Foreclosure, Foreclosure Confirmation, Foreclosure Sale	Bitcoin – Currency or Commodity For Purposes of §550 And Avoidance Actions? What About Claims?
By Scott Riddle on February 29, 2016 Posted in Corporate & Fiduciary Litigation, Miscellaneous Cases, News and Comments	Bitcoin – currency, the equivalent of U.S. dollars, or a commodity more similar to a product or stock? (What is Bitcoin?). If a Trustee sues to avoid and recover a transfer of Bitcoin, is the claim amount for the value of the transfer at the time of the transfer, or increased (or decreased) value at the time of the proceeding? That is the question in the adversary proceeding of Hashfast Technologies, LLC v. Lowe, Adv. Proc. No. 15-03011 (Bankr. N.D. Ca. filed February 17, 2015).
According to the Complaint, the Debtors “design, develop, manufacture and sell certain computer chips and equipment, including Application Specific Integrated Circuit, or ASIC, semiconductors, for the sole purpose of auditing transaction data for the Bitcoin networks, also known as ‘Bitcoin mining.‘” Defendant Lowe, a medical doctor, purchased “four terra-hash per second of hashing power through the acquisition of eight GN1 chips or three to four fully assembled BabyJets (the “Computers”) for the sum of $36,000, inclusive of sales tax—a $7,150 discount off of the list price (the ‘Sale’). The Defendant paid the discounted purchase price for the Computers by personal check dated July 29, 2013.‘” Defendant also agreed to promote the Debtors’ products on online forums (including bitcointalk.org) in exchange for 10% of the gross sale proceeds of the first 550 “BabyJets” sold by the Debtors, payable in Bitcoin (“BTC”). At the time, the BabyJets sold for $5,600, or 56 BTC. Continue Reading
Tags: avoidance actions, Bitcoin, Fraudulent Transfers, Preferences, Preferential Transfers	Arrested For Not Paying Student Loans? No – The Paul Aker Story Was Essentially Fabricated
By Scott Riddle on February 17, 2016 Posted in Miscellaneous Cases, News and Comments	“Believe it or not, the US Marshals Service in Houston is arresting people for not paying their outstanding federal student loans.” So says Fox 26 Houston reporter Isiah Carey. The problem is, this statement is absolutely false. Paul Aker owed student loans, and was apparently in default. Paul Aker was sued for the student loan debt, and a judgment was entered. Paul Aker was later arrested by the U.S. Marshal’s Service. From there, a gullible, incompetent or dishonest reporter filled in a few details of his own, ignored the actual facts that were easily available online to anyone, and simply created a story whereby Aker was arrested merely because he was not paying his student loans on time. Of course, the story then exploded over the internet, as such stories tend to do, and were even picked up by national agencies and reporters who could not be bothered to check out the basic facts before passing them off as the truth. How did Fox 26 in Houston and their reporter Isiah Carey come up with the false details to make their story when the basic facts are easily available online and virtually any lawyer could have explained the situation to them (had they been interested in the true story)? Here we go… Continue Reading
Tags: Fox 26, Isiah Carey, Paul Aker, Student Loans, US Marshalls	Filing Proof Of Claim For Time Barred Debt Violates FDCPA, Says Eleventh Circuit, But They Leave An Escape Hatch.
By Scott Riddle on January 25, 2016 Posted in Eleventh Circuit Cases, Miscellaneous Cases	In the last couple of years, claims against creditors for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) have become a hot item in Bankruptcy Courts. One such question is whether the filing of a proof of claim for a stale debt (i.e., one that has become unenforceable pursuant to the applicable statute of limitations) constitutes a violation. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to have answered the question for federal courts in Georgia, Alabama and Florida in the case of Crawford v. LVNV Funding, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014)(cert. denied) (read opinion here). According to the Court’s introductory paragraph (which provides a hint to the outcome), there had been a deluge of debt buyers “armed with hundreds of delinquent accounts purchased from creditors—… filing proofs of claim on debts deemed unenforceable under state statutes of limitations.”
The Court began by acknowledging the many courts that have held that the filing of a lawsuit by a collector to collect a stale debt was a violation of the FDCPA. Continue Reading
Tags: Debt Collectors, FDCPA, proof of claim, statute of limitations	Chapter 13 Debt Limits Apply Equally To Individual and Joint Cases, Says Judge Sacca
By Scott Riddle on December 29, 2015 Posted in Northern District Cases	In In re Pete, Ch. 13 Case No. 15-63725-JRS, 2015 WL 8540438 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2015), the debtor husband and wife filed a joint Chapter 13 case, disclosing a combined total of unsecured debt of more than $475,000. The Chapter 13 Trustee objected to confirmation and filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the debtors were ineligible for Chapter 13 because their unsecured debt was above the limit of section 109(e) ($383,175). The debtors countered that if each of their debt totals were considered independently, each would qualify for Chapter 13. The husband’s total individual and joint unsecured debts were about $285,000, and the wife’s total obligations were about $250,000 — both well below the limits of §109(e). Thus, the debtors argue that because they would be allowed to file separate cases, they should be eligible to file a joint case.
Tags: Chapter 13, Chapter 13 Plan, Debt Limits, Plan Confirmation, Unsecured Debts	Agreement To Pay Mortgage On Prior Marital Home Is Not Nondischargeable Domestic Support Obligation
By Scott Riddle on October 21, 2015 Posted in Northern District Cases	In In re Lawson, Ch. 13 Case No. 13-73476-WLH (click here for .pdf of opinion) the issue was whether a settlement agreement between the Debtor and his former spouse, whereby the Debtor retained (via quit claim deed) the marital home and agreed to make the loan payments, was a nondischargeable domestic support obligation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(5) and 11 U.S.C. §1328(a) or a dischargeable property division. Like many in his situation, the Debtor tried to refinance and sell the house to pay off the loans but was unable to do so. When he could not make the payments, he filed a Chapter 13 petition and his plan that provided for surrender of the house. His former spouse (who then bore the burden of the mortgage debt but no longer had ownership) then filed an adversary proceeding for a declaration that the Debtor’s obligation to pay the mortgage was a non-dischargeable support obligation. After a trial and a very fact-intensive analysis, Judge Hagenau ruled in favor of the Debtor and held that the debt was dischargeable. Continue Reading
Tags: Alimony, Discharge, Divorce, Domestic Support Obligation, Nondischargeable Debts, Property Division	Debtors Cannot Claim Homestead Exemption In Carve-out Funds Recovered By Trustee.
By Scott Riddle on July 16, 2015 Posted in Northern District Cases	In a July 2015 case the Chapter 7 Trustee sold a house that was underwater with three liens, and received a carve-out from the lender that held the second and third liens. The Debtors did not object to the sale, but to the Trustee’s Final Report because it did not allow for payment of their homestead exemptions from the carve-out funds. In re Diener, Case No. 11-83085-mhm (July 6, 2015). The house had a first priority loan of $227,000 and second and third liens (from the same lender) in the combined amount of $129,000. Presumably, the payments were not being made and the first lender was going to foreclose and wipe out the junior liens. The Trustee negotiated with the creditor holding the second and third liens and reached an agreement to sell the house and pay that creditor $9,000 from the sale proceeds. After the first lien was paid in full, closing costs were paid and the junior creditor was paid $9,000 it left about $25,000 for the Chapter 7 Estate. Debtors’ objection to the Final Report took the position that they were entitled to their $10,000 exemption from the proceeds even though there was no equity in the property and the funds were from the sale and carve-out. Continue Reading
Tags: Bankruptcy Exemptions, Chapter 7 Trustee, Exemptions, Homes, Homestead, Sale of Home	Older Posts ›