Congress added a provision to BAPCPA that appeared to be designed to protect auto lenders who financed cars for debtors within 910 days of the bankruptcy filing.
Committees
Bankruptcy Judge Donald Steckroth, recently handed down an unpublished decision that declared nondischargeable a debt for money taken by a caregiver-daughter from
“Subprime Mortgage Crisis!” “Predatory Loans!” These are headlines that have dominated financial news for months.
the court emphasized that the debtor's attorney's conduct in the case was above reproach (honest and straightforward), and held that it should not be inferred "as
Section 522(o) of the Bankruptcy Code seems to have the potential to significantly restrict pre-bankruptcy exemption planning for prospective debtors who choose st
(Norris v. Thomas, 216 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. 2007))
The volume of critics and supporters of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) has finally begun to settle down. There is an emerging issue that several national associations of debt and credit counseling agencies are possibly endorsing as a marketing tool for their membership.
In Perlin v. Hitachi Capital Am. Corp (In re Perlin),[1] the U.S.
Court rules for some states, such as Michigan, allow for a judgment creditor to seek judgment against a garnishee for failure to answer a writ of garnishment. Grounds for liability are based on contempt of court and damages incurred by the judgment creditor due to the garnishee’s failure to respond to the garnishment. (See M.C.R. 3.101).