Opinion ID: 63771
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Countrywide claim

Text: Having set out the relevant contractual and statutory provisions, we now turn to the first question raised in this appeal: when the Campbells failed to pay the escrow portion of their mortgage payment between January and April 2006, and then filed bankruptcy, were these unpaid amounts a claim which Countrywide was prohibited from recovering post-petition without authorization of the bankruptcy court? Countrywide alleges that it had no claim to the January through April escrow payments at the time that the Campbells filed bankruptcy. Instead, Countrywide argues that a claim for the unpaid escrow payments would only accrue when Countrywide paid an escrow expense, and there were insufficient funds in the escrow account to cover the expenses. For example, Texas property taxes are assessed and billed in October and become due in January. Countrywide argues that it had no claim to assert regarding the property taxes until its payment of taxes created a deficit in the Campbells' escrow account. Countrywide asserts that its position is supported by RESPA, which requires Countrywide to make payments from the escrow account for taxes as such payments become due. 12 U.S.C. § 2605(g). Countrywide's imaginative argument disregards its rights and the debtor's obligations under the loan documents. We have discussed that Countrywide had the contractual right to proceed against the Campbells upon a failure to pay monthly escrow payments. The touchstone of any `claim' is that there is an `enforceable obligation' of the debtor or an enforceable `right to payment' from the debtor. Carrieri v. Jobs.com Inc., 393 F.3d 508, 524 (5th Cir.2004). There was a right to the pre-petition escrow paymentswhich matured into a claim on behalf of Countrywide each time the Campbells failed to make the payment. Countrywide's argument that it had no rights against the Campbells until the escrow expenses were paid ignores the terms of the loan documents. Countrywide responds that the loan documents incorporate its rights under RESPA. It points to a provision in RESPA that a servicer such as Countrywide shall not be prohibited from requiring additional monthly deposits in such escrow account to avoid or eliminate such deficiency. 12 U.S.C. § 2609(a). Based on this contractual right, Countrywide argues that it is entitled to disregard the January through April escrow defaults, recalculate the monthly escrow estimates, and increase the mortgage payments post-petition in the manner that it did. Countrywide argues that any attempt by the bankruptcy court to modify its right to recalculate the escrow payments (and increase the mortgage payment post-petition) is a violation of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2), which provides that a bankruptcy court does not have the power to modify the rights of a secured creditor whose claim is secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor's principal residence. We agree with the bankruptcy court that the pre-petition escrow payments are a claim for purposes of the automatic stay, a holding that does not limit Countrywide's rights under RESPA or the Bankruptcy Code. The automatic stay operates to halt collection of pre-petition claims, even those claims held by a creditor protected by the anti-modification provision of Section 1322(b)(2): [E]ven if a claim secured only by a security interest in real property used as the principal residence of the debtor is not subject to modification under the chapter 13 plan by reason of section 1322(b)(2), the holder of such claim is nonetheless stayed from collection of its claim, from taking possession of the real property encumbered by the lien, and from enforcement of its lien. The holder of such a claim must obtain relief from the automatic stay before proceeding unless the stay does not come into effect or terminates because of a prior bankruptcy filing. 8 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1322.06[1][a] (15th ed. rev.2007). The stay does not determine a creditor's claim but merely suspends an action to collect the claim outside the procedural mechanisms of the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, staying Countrywide's attempt to collect pre-petition escrow amounts does not bar Countrywide from asserting its contractual rights in the bankruptcy court. Our decision is a narrow one. We determine only that unpaid escrow payments that accumulate pre-petition in the year that a bankruptcy petition is filed, and which the creditor had a right to collect under the loan documents, constitute a claim under the Bankruptcy Code. We do not address a right to recalculate the amount of escrow payments in subsequent years. In sum, we affirm the bankruptcy court's determination that the escrow obligations that arose pre-petition were claims of Countrywide as that term is utilized in the Bankruptcy Code. Countrywide could not attempt to collect those amounts post-petition. We now turn to whether the bankruptcy court properly held that Countrywide violated the automatic stay.