U.S. Supreme Court Hears Consumer Bankruptcy Cases

During the most recent term, the U.S. Supreme Court heard multiple consumer bankruptcy cases that deal with bankruptcy and reorganization. The two most recent cases, Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank and Harris v. Viegelahn, concern Chapter 13 bankruptcy procedural issues.
Current Personal Bankruptcy Cases Being Heard
In Bullard, the Supreme Court will be deciding a procedural problem. In short, the primary issue in the case is whether a debtor who files for Chapter 13 bankruptcy can “appeal a bankruptcy court order that denies confirmation of a plan,” according to a recent post on ScotusBlog.com. In the second case, Harris, the Court must decide the disposition of undistributed funds in cases where the “debtor in good faith converts a bankruptcy case to Chapter 7 after confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan.”
How will the decisions affect consumers in the Chicago area? We’ll have to wait and see how the Supreme Court decides. In the meantime, we’ll look at one of those recent cases in depth.
Learning More About Harris
What facts do consumers need to know about the Harris case? In short, the facts begin back in 2010 when the plaintiff, Charles Harris, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Under the approved reorganization plan, the plaintiff was required to make 60 months’ worth of monthly payments to a bankruptcy trustee—the defendant in this case—as well as to his mortgage lender, Chase. Once the plaintiff’s mortgage debts and debt to his secured creditors were paid in full, his payments would go toward paying off his unsecured creditors.
The defendant ended up moving out of his house shortly after he began making payments under the Chapter 13 plan, at which point he converted his personal bankruptcy to a Chapter 7. Once the defendant converted to Chapter 7, the bankruptcy trustee used the money from the plaintiff’s payments to pay some of his creditors. According to the case as it’s described on Oyez.org, the plaintiff “sued for that money and argued that [the trustee] had no authority to disburse funds after conversion of the case.”
The bankruptcy court and district court both found in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the return of his funds. The Fifth Circuit reversed, however, ruling that “the undistributed payments that the Chapter 13 trustee holds at the time of the case’s conversion to Chapter 7 must be distributed to creditors pursuant to the Chapter 13 plan.” Now that the Supreme Court is hearing the case, the question comes down to how undistributed funds held by a Chapter 13 bankruptcy trustee should be used when the debtor converts to Chapter 7:
  • Should the funds be returned to the debtor; or
  • Should the funds be distributed to the creditors?
Depending on how the Supreme Court decides, the decision could have significant implications for Illinoisans who are considering Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
If you have questions or concerns about filing for personal bankruptcy, you should always talk with an experienced Oak Park bankruptcy attorney about your situation. Bankruptcy law can be extremely complicated, and it’s important to have an advocate on your side.
See Related Blog Posts:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Phantom Debt Collection Scams on the Rise in Illinois

Have you been contacted by a person claiming to be a debt collector who is seeking to recover a debt you allegedly owe? If so, you are not alone. According to a recent report from CBS Chicago , such parties claiming to be debt collectors are on the rise, and they are scamming Chicago-area residents. These alleged debt collectors are part of schemes known as “phantom debt collection scams,” since they involve the attempt to collect on a debt that the consumer does not actually owe. How can you avoid becoming a victim in a debt-collection scam ? What should you do if you have been targeted by a fake debt collector? How Do Phantom Debt Collection Scams Work? Now, you might be thinking to yourself: I would never agree to make payment on a debt that I did not owe. But the scam is not always that simple. Parties at the center of debt-collection scams often target consumers who do actually owe debts (to someone or to some entity), and they prey on the fact that these c...
Read more

Payday Lending and Predatory Lenders in Illinois

If you are in substantial debt in the Chicago area and are living in a paycheck-to-paycheck cycle, you may have taken out a payday loan to make ends meet. While payday lending is illegal in a number of states due to the predatory nature of these loans, it remains legal in Illinois. As a result, many debtors in the state have used payday lenders, and far too many of those borrowers cannot repay what they owe. According to a recent article from Progress Illinois , consumers have filed complaints about payday lenders in the state, illuminating a need for federal rules that address harmful lending practices . Predatory Payday Lenders and Protections for Consumers Due to the perceived predatory nature of payday loans, twelve states in the country have banned these lenders from operating completely, according to a fact sheet from loans.org . The states that currently have laws prohibiting payday lenders from operating include Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Mary...
Read more

New Information on Debts That Bankruptcy Cannot Discharge

If you are thinking about filing for bankruptcy in the Oak Park area, it is important to know that certain kinds of debts cannot be discharged in a bankruptcy case. Under U.S. bankruptcy law, these are known as non-dischargeable debts, or exceptions to discharge. There are certain types of debts that have long been identified clearly as non-dischargeable debts, while there are misconceptions about other types of debts that may or may not be dischargeable. As an article in CNBC discusses, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in the case of Bartenwerfer v. Buckley , which clarifies that debts incurred due to another party’s fraud cannot be discharged in an individual’s bankruptcy case. Our Oak Park bankruptcy attorneys can explain the Court’s recent ruling and provide you with additional information on dischargeable and non-dischargeable debts. Supreme Court Says Debt Incurred Due to Another’s Fraud is Non-Dischargeable The recent Bartenwerfer case involved a debtor attempti...
Read more