Month: October 2020

In re Cheeks, 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 2530 (Judge Kenney) The Debtor, Ms. Cheeks, intended to be added to the title to the property. However, the Cheeks did not complete a condition precedent to that addition at the time they bought the home and, therefore, only Mr. Cheeks was on the property title.  The property of up for foreclosure and, Mr. Cheeks was under the mistaken belief that he was not able to file foreclosure again.  However, believing Ms. Cheeks to be on the title, she filed to prevent the foreclosure sale. The foreclosing trustee moved forward after the bankruptcy filing

In re Mammen, 2019 WL 2867103 (Bankr. E.D.Va 2019) (Slip Copy) Prior to the bankruptcy filing, the Debtors’ had a property which was foreclosed on. There was a deficiency balance in the amount of $294,380.21 plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs recorded in Loudoun County, which attached to the Debtors’ residence at that time. Union Bank argues that the Judgment Lien cannot be avoided under §522(f) alleging that a deficiency judgment “arises out of “ a foreclosure and the Code prohibits the foreclosure of such liens and that the Debtors’ motion came 8 years after the case was closed and

In re Love, 2019 WL 2427198 (Bankr E.D. Va., 2019)(Huennekens, J.) Debtor was in a car accident two years after filing Chapter 13 case.  Debtor voluntarily converted Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 and received a discharge.  Debtor never amended their schedules to disclose personal injury claim arising out of automobile accident.  Debtor filed a motion to reopen bankruptcy case and amend her schedules to add personal injury claim and exempt it from the bankruptcy estate. The Trustee filed an Objection to the Debtors Exemption of Personal Injury Claim arguing that upon the reopening of the case, the property became part

Morris v. State Employees Credit Union, 615 B.R. 189 (Bankr. D.Md. 2020)(Alquist, J.) Plaintiff/Debtor had a credit card through SECU, which was identified and listed as an unsecured creditor on the creditor mailing matrix.  The Debtor used an address for SECU identified on her credit report. In reality, SECU neither owns the address listed on the Plaintiff’s credit repot nor has a branch there. In the months leading up to the bankruptcy filing, SECU had sent credit card statements to the Debtor which identified the proper correspondence address for SECU.  All of the mail from the Court to SECU was

In re Alston, __ B.R. __, 2019 WL 7580136 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2019) Debtor’s Ch. 13 Plan paid Santander Consumer USA, Inc.’s, claim in full through the Ch. 13 plan. The Ch. 13 Trustee overpaid Santander by $1,815.61. Santander refused to return the overpayment. The Debtor’s counsel sought a refund of the overpayment as well as an award of attorney’s fees and sanctions against Santander.  The Court held that Santander willfully violated the terms of the debtors’ confirmed plan and as a remedy, it directed Santander to refund the overpayment and awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of