This area is intended for the exclusive use of attorneys. You know the drill – do your own due diligence. We make no representations as to the accuracy or current status of any information cited herein.
If you are NOT an attorney it is important to educate yourself, but this is not the place to do it. You must obtain legal advice from an experienced attorney familiar with your unique situation. Fixing unintentional errors will cost far more than doing it right the first time; if it can be fixed at all.
The information in this web site is not intended to constitute legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.
CHAPTER 20 or 26 (MULTIPLE BANKRUPTCY CASES)
IMPORTANT: This firm makes NO representations as to the accuracy or current status of any law, case, article or publication cited herein or linked to. Warning – some of these references are pre-BAPCPA.
CHAPTER 20 (7 + 13)
Debtor can file a chapter 13 following a chapter 7.
In re Aleli Hernandez 9th Cir. BAP No. 16-1228, (2/25/19) Asset Management Holdings (AMH) appeals the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of AMH’s motion
to dismiss Debtor’s Chapter 13 petition on eligibility grounds. “1. AMH argues that the bankruptcy court erred by not counting AMH’s lien against Debtor for the purposes of determining eligibility under 11 U.S.C. § 109(e). AMH is mistaken.”
“2. AMH also argues that the bankruptcy court erred in concluding that Debtor filed her petition in good faith. AMH is wrong.”
CHAPTER 20 & LIEN STRIPPING
FILING POC IN 13 AFTER DISCHARGED IN 7 “CHAPTER 20”
In re Washington, BAP NO. CC-18-1206-LKuF (July 30, 2019) Debtor Gwendolyn Washington obtained a chapter 7 discharge, which extinguished her personal liability on the debt secured by a junior lien on her residence. About five years later, she filed a chapter 13 case; she obtained an order valuing at zero the junior lien held by Option One Mortgage Corporation, serviced by Real Time Resolutions, Inc. (“RTR”). RTR filed an unsecured claim in the full amount of the debt it believed it was owed; Ms. Washington objected on the ground that her personal liability had been discharged. The bankruptcy court overruled the objection, concluding that the discharge did not fully eliminate the claim and that the plain language of § 506(a) required the allowance of RTR’s unsecured claim in the amount of $307,049.79. We REVERSE. BAP finds that a debtor may employ so-called chapter 20 to strip off an underwater subordinate mortgage while simultaneously avoiding personal liability for the debt.
In re Boukatch, Az-14-1483 (9th Cir BAP, 7/9/15) Chapter 13 debtors, Serge M. Boukatch and Lori J. Boukatch (“Debtors”), appeal an order denying their motion to avoid a lien on their principal residence. The bankruptcy court determined that, as a matter of law, a “chapter 20” debtor is not entitled to avoid a wholly unsecured junior lien under §§ 506(a) and 1322(b)(2) against the debtor’s principal residence when no discharge will be entered in the pending chapter 13 case. On this issue of first impression, we REVERSE and REMAND. (Good discussion on Nobelman and anti-modification provisions.)
We conclude that § 1328(f)(1) does not prevent Debtors’ ability to strip off MidFirst’s wholly unsecured junior lien in their chapter 13 plan, because nothing in the Bankruptcy Code prevents chapter 20 debtors from stripping such liens off their principal residence under §§ 506(a)(1) and 1322(b)(2). We further conclude that plan completion is the appropriate end to Debtors’ chapter 20 case. Unlike a typical chapter 13 case, the lien avoidance will become permanent not upon a discharge, but rather upon completion of all payments as required under the plan. In reDavis, 716 F.3d at 338; In re Frazier, 469 B.R. at 900; In reBlendheim, 2011 WL 6779709, at *6; In re Okosisi, 451 B.R. at 99-10 100; In re Frazier, 448 B.R. at 810; In re Tran, 431 B.R. at 235.
DISCHARGE IN 7, BUT THEN WANT TO CONVERT TO CHAPTER 13
These cases hold that a debtor can convert to 13 after a 7 discharge. In re Oblinger, 288 BR 781 (Bkrtcy. N.D. Ohio, 2003); In re Carter, 285 BR 61 (Bkrtcy. N.D.Ga. 2002); In re Mosby, 244 BR 79 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Va. 2000). In one attorney’s opinion it shouldn’t be necessary to vacate the chapter 7 discharge. But others don’t agree.