top of page

The Bankruptcy Firm

Internal Wiki

In Re Kofford

In re Kofford stands for the premise that payments have to go up when direct pay car loans or 401k loans.


Based on a review of the case, it may not apply in 100% cases and maybe $0 return to unsecured cases for below median Debtors, particularly if there is large priority debt.


The case is here.



Is Comcast a Utility Under Section 366?

Not if it is cable television:  In Re Darby, 470 F.3d 573 (5th Circuit)



The word "utility" as it is used in § 366 is not defined within the statute, but some guidance is provided by the legislative history of the provision. Both the House Judiciary Report and the Senate Report on the provision state in relevant part:


This section gives debtors protection from a cut-off of service by a utility because of the filing of a bankruptcy case. This section is intended to cover utilities that have some special position with respect to the debtor, such as an electric company, gas supplier, or telephone company that is a monopoly in the area so that the debtor cannot easily obtain comparable service from another utility.


More interesting argument if it is Internet or telephone.  Wireless providers?  Comparing services available for the debtor.  High speed internet may essentially be a monopoly.  An additional argument could be made if it is a regulated industry.

FDCPA Violations For Stale Claims

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act—Filing proof of claim for time-barred debt: Several recent cases have held that a creditor's filing a proof of claim for a time-barred debt violates, or at least may violate, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See Patrick v. Quantum3 Group, LLC, 2015 WL 627216 (S.D. Ind., Feb. 13, 2015) (case no. 1:14- cv-545); Patrick v. Worldwide Asset Purchasing II, LLC, 2015 WL 627376 (S.D. Ind., Feb. 13, 2015) (case no. 1:14-cv-544); Elliott v. Cavalry Investments, LLC, 2015 WL 133745 (S.D. Ind., Jan. 9, 2015) (case no. 1:14-cv-1066); In re Brimmage, 523 B.R. 134 (Bankr. N.D. Ill., Jan. 9, 2015) (adv. proc. no. 1:14-ap-674); Grandidier v. Quantum3 Group, LLC, 2014 WL 6908482 (S.D. Ind., Dec. 8, 2014) (case no. 1:14- cv-138); and Patrick v. Pyod, LLC, 39 F.Supp.3d 1032 (S.D. Ind., August 20, 2014) (1:14-cv-539). A smaller number of courts have disagreed. See Robinson v. eCast Settlement Corporation, 2015 WL 494626 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 3, 2015) (case no. 1:14-cv-©National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center 8277) and In re LaGrone, --- B.R. ----, 2015 WL 273373 (Bankr. N.D. Ill., Jan. 21, 2015) (adv. proc. no. 1:14-ap-578).


Means Test Income -- Received Not Earned

Means test—Current monthly income: A debtor's income need only be received, not both received and earned, during the applicable six-month lookback period in order to constitute "current monthly income" under Code § 101(10A). In re Schuldt, 2015 WL 1010882 (Bankr. W.D. Mich., Feb. 13, 2015) (case no. 1:14-bk-7149). 

Simultaneous Cases

Simultaneous cases: On an issue on which the courts are divided, the court held that there is no per se prohibition of a debtor's having simultaneous open bankruptcy cases, although the second case is always subject to a requirement of good faith. However, courts do agree that a debtor may not file a second bankruptcy case before entry of the discharge order in the first case, and that a debtor may not seek to treat the same debt in two pending bankruptcy cases. In re Montes, --- B.R. ----, 2015 WL 849259 (Bankr. D. N.M., Feb. 25, 2015) (case no. 1:14-bk-13043)

Case Law Split on Stripping Federal Tax Lien

Stripping unsecured lien—Federal tax lien: A federal tax lien attaches to a debtor's real and personal property; in two cases, the courts disagreed as to whether a Chapter 7 debtor (in a circuit that allows Chapter 7 debtors to strip wholly-unsecured liens) may strip a tax lien from the debtor's home, while the lien remains attached to the debtor's personal property, where there is no equity in the home to support the lien. Compare In re Gonzon, 2015 WL 535482 (Bankr. S.D. Fla., Feb. 5, 2015) (adv. proc. no. 1:14-ap-1584) (lien may be stripped) with In re Blackburn, 525 B.R. 153 (Bankr. N.D. Fla., Feb. 3, 2015) (case no. 3:12-bk-31658) (lien may not be stripped).

In Re Dugan (Dgaun vs. US Bank)

This is an Arkansas case that holds that the seizure of business assets is not prohibited by the automatic stay or the co-debtor stay when an individual files.

In Re Dugan (Non-filing Spouse Income Version)

So a local attorney asked for the Dugan case -- maybe it was this one on whether a non-filing spouse's income should be included in the means test if the income is not used for household purposes.

Please reload

  • Wix Facebook page
  • Wix Twitter page
  • Wix Google+ page
bottom of page