Recent Case Clarifies What it Means to Surrender a Vehicle

If you file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and are required to surrender your vehicle as part of a payment plan, what happens if the car gets stolen? It might seem like an odd question, but it is one that became a significant issue in a recent case before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the North District of Illinois. In short, a debtor is not required to physically deliver a vehicle “when she is incapable of doing so through no fault of her own,” according to Judge Timothy A. Barnes. Let’s take a closer look at this recent bankruptcy case.
Learning the Facts of In re: Ware
In order to understand why the court ultimately decided that the debtor’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan could be confirmed despite the fact that she could not physically deliver her vehicle (as required by the plan), we should examine the facts of this case, In re: Ware.
Back in early 2011, the debtor bought a 2006 Chevrolet Monte Carlo from a lender, Santander. The purchase agreement came with an interest rate of 24.99% and equal monthly payments of $475.92 to be paid to the lender. The debtor made payments on the vehicle, but in October of 2012, she reported the vehicle stolen from a parking lot in Chicago. The debtor filed a police report and filed an insurance claim. The insurance claim was denied. The debtor still informed the lender of the theft of her vehicle and her subsequently filed police report, as well as the insurance company’s denial of her claim. At that point, the debtor stopped making payments to the lender.
For about two years following the insurance claim denial, the lender did not try to contact the debtor about the vehicle and the payments she owed. The lender also failed to “commence any action in state court for the recovery of the vehicle or for collection of the underlying debt.” In addition, the lender did not try to file a claim with the debtor’s insurance company.
In early February of 2015, the debtor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The debtor’s initial schedules and payment plan did not address the vehicle or any money the debtor owed to Santander. The lender “filed its secured claim as to the vehicle in the amount of $18,806.67 and objected to confirmation of the plan on the grounds that the plan omitted its claim.” The debtor then modified her plan to include this language: “Debtor hereby surrenders the 2006 Chevrolet Monte Carlo to Santander Consumer Usa [sic] in full satisfaction of its secured claim.”
The lender argued that the requirement of “surrendering” property under section 1325(a)(5)(C) of the Bankruptcy Code requires actual physical delivery of the property, while the debtor argued that the law does not require actual physical delivery. As such, the court had to determine the meaning of the word “surrender” as it pertains to this section of the Bankruptcy Code.
Defining “Surrender” in Bankruptcy Law
To determine how “surrender” should be construed in this section of the Bankruptcy Code, the court looked to ordinary meanings of the word, meanings of the word in other parts of the Bankruptcy Code, and legislative intent with similar terms in the Bankruptcy Code.
Among a variety of points, the court reasoned that, in other parts of the Bankruptcy Code where physical delivery of property is required, “Congress elected to use the word ‘deliver.’” The court also emphasized, in looking at other case law, that “surrender is not, within the bankruptcy context, synonymous with actual delivery, but is better seen as a version of constructive delivery.” The court discussed situations in which surrendering property generally has referred to “relinquishment of all rights in property . . . even if such relinquishment does not always require immediate physical delivery of the property to another.”
Because the debtor’s plan required her to turn over her interests in the vehicle to the lender—even though she was not able to physically deliver the vehicle—the court concluded that the debtor had complied with the condition of “surrendering” the vehicle.
Do you have questions about filing for personal bankruptcy or concerns about the court’s confirmation of your Chapter 13 payment plan? Contact an Oak Park bankruptcy lawyer today to discuss your situation.
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