[Kingside]

The article states most of the usual arguments that the lender side tends to make in opposition to allowing cram downs in chapter 13 cases. Those are nothing new.

I agree with the statement that cram down provisions could only be feasable in the context of some broader bankruptcy reform for different reasons then she states.

Under current law, wholly unsecured junior mortgages can be stripped away and put into the unsecured classification (meaning little or no pay out) when approving chapter 13 plans. But under current law, a debtor may proceed under chapter 13 only where the debtor’s unsecured debts total less than $336,900.

So what you see now is that debtors are in a Catch 22. Yes, they are permitted to strip away junior liens as unsecured at the conclusion of their plan where the property has tanked under chapter 13, but often as soon as they elect to do so their unsecured debt exceeds $336,900 and they no longer qualify for chapter 13 relief and their case gets dismissed.

Unless this limitation was increased (a new and different legislative battle) allowing senior liens to be crammed down would result in the same problem. Chopping a portion of 1st lien debt into unsecured status would often result in too much unsecured debt to qualify for Chapter 13 relief.

[Kingside]

The article states most of the usual arguments that the lender side tends to make in opposition to allowing cram downs in chapter 13 cases. Those are nothing new.

I agree with the statement that cram down provisions could only be feasable in the context of some broader bankruptcy reform for different reasons then she states.

Under current law, wholly unsecured junior mortgages can be stripped away and put into the unsecured classification (meaning little or no pay out) when approving chapter 13 plans. But under current law, a debtor may proceed under chapter 13 only where the debtor’s unsecured debts total less than $336,900.

So what you see now is that debtors are in a Catch 22. Yes, they are permitted to strip away junior liens as unsecured at the conclusion of their plan where the property has tanked under chapter 13, but often as soon as they elect to do so their unsecured debt exceeds $336,900 and they no longer qualify for chapter 13 relief and their case gets dismissed.

Unless this limitation was increased (a new and different legislative battle) allowing senior liens to be crammed down would result in the same problem. Chopping a portion of 1st lien debt into unsecured status would often result in too much unsecured debt to qualify for Chapter 13 relief.

[Kingside]

The article states most of the usual arguments that the lender side tends to make in opposition to allowing cram downs in chapter 13 cases. Those are nothing new.

I agree with the statement that cram down provisions could only be feasable in the context of some broader bankruptcy reform for different reasons then she states.

Under current law, wholly unsecured junior mortgages can be stripped away and put into the unsecured classification (meaning little or no pay out) when approving chapter 13 plans. But under current law, a debtor may proceed under chapter 13 only where the debtor’s unsecured debts total less than $336,900.

So what you see now is that debtors are in a Catch 22. Yes, they are permitted to strip away junior liens as unsecured at the conclusion of their plan where the property has tanked under chapter 13, but often as soon as they elect to do so their unsecured debt exceeds $336,900 and they no longer qualify for chapter 13 relief and their case gets dismissed.

Unless this limitation was increased (a new and different legislative battle) allowing senior liens to be crammed down would result in the same problem. Chopping a portion of 1st lien debt into unsecured status would often result in too much unsecured debt to qualify for Chapter 13 relief.

[Kingside]

The article states most of the usual arguments that the lender side tends to make in opposition to allowing cram downs in chapter 13 cases. Those are nothing new.

I agree with the statement that cram down provisions could only be feasable in the context of some broader bankruptcy reform for different reasons then she states.

Under current law, wholly unsecured junior mortgages can be stripped away and put into the unsecured classification (meaning little or no pay out) when approving chapter 13 plans. But under current law, a debtor may proceed under chapter 13 only where the debtor’s unsecured debts total less than $336,900.

So what you see now is that debtors are in a Catch 22. Yes, they are permitted to strip away junior liens as unsecured at the conclusion of their plan where the property has tanked under chapter 13, but often as soon as they elect to do so their unsecured debt exceeds $336,900 and they no longer qualify for chapter 13 relief and their case gets dismissed.

Unless this limitation was increased (a new and different legislative battle) allowing senior liens to be crammed down would result in the same problem. Chopping a portion of 1st lien debt into unsecured status would often result in too much unsecured debt to qualify for Chapter 13 relief.

[Kingside]

Well Congrats Pemeliza.

I spoke to the appraiser responsible on my appeal a few days ago, and I don’t think I am anywhere near resolution. My property has some very complicated factors and I think the appraiser is overwhelmed.

Meanwhile, having to pay the supplemental installment due in a few days is a bit painful.

[Kingside]

Well Congrats Pemeliza.

I spoke to the appraiser responsible on my appeal a few days ago, and I don’t think I am anywhere near resolution. My property has some very complicated factors and I think the appraiser is overwhelmed.

Meanwhile, having to pay the supplemental installment due in a few days is a bit painful.

[Kingside]

Well Congrats Pemeliza.

I spoke to the appraiser responsible on my appeal a few days ago, and I don’t think I am anywhere near resolution. My property has some very complicated factors and I think the appraiser is overwhelmed.

Meanwhile, having to pay the supplemental installment due in a few days is a bit painful.

[Kingside]

Well Congrats Pemeliza.

I spoke to the appraiser responsible on my appeal a few days ago, and I don’t think I am anywhere near resolution. My property has some very complicated factors and I think the appraiser is overwhelmed.

Meanwhile, having to pay the supplemental installment due in a few days is a bit painful.

[Kingside]

Well Congrats Pemeliza.

I spoke to the appraiser responsible on my appeal a few days ago, and I don’t think I am anywhere near resolution. My property has some very complicated factors and I think the appraiser is overwhelmed.

Meanwhile, having to pay the supplemental installment due in a few days is a bit painful.

[Kingside]

For anyone who wants to go through the necessary brain damage to analyze these issues, a good read is the bankruptcy case of In re: Hwang:

http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/2008_bankr__lexis_2969hwang.pdf

Judge Bufford, the author of the decision is well regarded in the legal community.

[Kingside]

For anyone who wants to go through the necessary brain damage to analyze these issues, a good read is the bankruptcy case of In re: Hwang:

http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/2008_bankr__lexis_2969hwang.pdf

Judge Bufford, the author of the decision is well regarded in the legal community.

[Kingside]

For anyone who wants to go through the necessary brain damage to analyze these issues, a good read is the bankruptcy case of In re: Hwang:

http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/2008_bankr__lexis_2969hwang.pdf

Judge Bufford, the author of the decision is well regarded in the legal community.

[Kingside]

For anyone who wants to go through the necessary brain damage to analyze these issues, a good read is the bankruptcy case of In re: Hwang:

http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/2008_bankr__lexis_2969hwang.pdf

Judge Bufford, the author of the decision is well regarded in the legal community.

[Kingside]

For anyone who wants to go through the necessary brain damage to analyze these issues, a good read is the bankruptcy case of In re: Hwang:

http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/2008_bankr__lexis_2969hwang.pdf

Judge Bufford, the author of the decision is well regarded in the legal community.

[Kingside]

The Sulak case (there were actually three separate appeals in the case) is an unpublished decision which means that it cannot be cited as authority in California cases for any legal proposition.

You tend to see the MERS issue come up more in bankruptcy cases because the standard for “standing” to get relief from stay to foreclose is much more restrictive than when a non-judicial foreclosure takes place under California State law outside of bankruptcy.

I wouldn’t say the defenses that may arise in connection with MERS are useless in California. They are alive and well in bankruptcy cases, and may be available to a borrower in State Court to at least get a long postponement of foreclosure and negotiation leverage with the right set of facts. The borrower needs the wherewithal and resources to properly present them in order to obtain an injunction though. Its no slam dunk.

[Author]

Posts