News + updates + recent press
PLG Win: Bankruptcy Court Affirms Debtor Cannot Modify Plan & Vacate Confirmation Order Nearly Seven Years Later
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida solidified that a debtor is unable to modify a plan and vacate a confirmation order, nearly seven years after the plan was confirmed, to strip a mortgage creditor’s lien.
PLG, via its attorney Seth J. Greenhill, Esq., sustained a significant victory for its client in bankruptcy court. On August 3, 2023, the Court issued its published opinion, In re Gilbert, 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 1952, whereby the Court correctly found that the Debtor was unable to use §1329 to modify a plan to strip a junior lien when plan payments were completed; and (2) the Debtor could not use §105(a) to vacate a confirmation order nearly seven years after the order was entered. It is worth noting that PLG took an aggressive approach by taking the Debtor’s deposition (i.e. Rule 2004 Examination) in order to lock in her testimony and show that she knew about the lien, yet failed to include it. This strategy, which Attorney Greenhill has successful deployed in past litigation, proved useful in this case and was, ultimately, advantageous to the Client in that it secured pivotal testimony later used by Creditors’ counsel.
Do You Need to Change Your Monthly Statements? A Recent Ruling May Impact Monthly Statement Formatting
While the Orlansky v. Quicken Loans, LLC, No. NV-22-1181-GCB, 2023 WL 2947616, at *1 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.) (not for publication) case is not published, the Court’s decision is important. The fact that it is not published means that it cannot be cited as precedent. However, that does not mean that debtors will not reference it in an attempt to influence court decisions.
As with many cases that impact the contents of a mortgage monthly statement, this case has very specific facts. After filing a Proof of Claim, Rocket fka Quicken Loans, filed Notice of Post-Petition Fees for the fees associated with the filing of the Proof of Claim and reviewing the Chapter 13 Plan.
In the Winter 2021, I wrote an article warning about the statute of limitations in Washington where it had been erroneously determined that the statute of limitations begins to run with the discharge in bankruptcy upholding Edmundson v. Bank of America, 378 P.3d 272, 278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). In March 2022, I followed it with a case law update which was the beginning of the end of Edmundson. In Copper Creek Homeowners’ Association v. Wilmington, No. 82083-4-I, slip op. (January 18, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the State of Washington Division I gave the servicing industry an end to the misunderstanding created by the various interpretations of Edmundson. On Thursday, July 20, 2023, The Supreme Court of Washington put the final nail in the coffin of Edmundson with its opinion in Merritt v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 2023 Wash. LEXIS 376 where the running of the statute of limitations was returned to its correct origination point of the date of default.
In the Winter 2021, I wrote an article about how Edmundson v. Bank of America, 378 P.3d 272 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) caused the statute of limitations to being to run upon a debtor’s discharge from bankruptcy in Washington. In March 2022, I wrote a follow up article detailing how the Court of Appeals for the State of Washington Division I gave the servicing industry an end to the misunderstanding created by the various interpretations of Edmundson in Copper Creek Homeowners’ Association v. Wilmington, No. 82083-4-I, slip op. (January 18, 2022). On April 24, 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court avoided the disaster that is Edmundson.
In United States Bank N.A. v. Silvernagel, 2023 CO 17, the Colorado Supreme Court circumvented the use of Edmundson in Colorado. In 2006, Silvernagel obtained a second mortgage. In 2012, Silvernagel received a bankruptcy discharge after filing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. If these facts sounds familiar, they are. They start the same way that Edmundson did as well as all the cases that followed using it as a basis for the holding. In 2019, US Bank allegedly threatened to foreclose. To avoid foreclosure, Silvernagel filed a case seeking declaratory relief on the basis that US Bank’s interest had been extinguished by the statute of limitations. Colorado has a six year statute of limitations like Washington and most of the states in the region.
Introduced in the Senate on March 23, 2023, and referred to committee on March 29, 2023, Ohio Senate Bill 94, known in short form as the Bill that “regards the Treasurer of State, recorded instruments, liens, etc.,” sponsored by Senators Andrew O. Brenner (R) and Al Landis (R), seeks to amend numerous sections of the Ohio Revised Code related to recorded instruments, but also to enact section §5301.234, thereby codifying the doctrine of Equitable Subrogation.
The legal doctrine of equitable subrogation permits one mortgagee to replace another mortgagee in lien priority and is typically claimed refinancing lenders who pay off the original mortgage and want to have the same priority as that lender. The doctrine seeks to prevent unjust enrichment and promote equity.
Introduced in the Senate on January 23, 2023, and referred to committee on February 8, 2023, Ohio Senate Bill 25, known in short form as the Bill that “regards real property foreclosures,” sponsored by Senator Bob D. Hackett (R), seeks to alter the procedures for foreclosure sales.
Chapter 2329 of the Ohio Revised Code currently governs execution upon judgments, including sales of real property resulting from foreclosure actions. SB25 proposes four significant changes to the foreclosure sale process that could result in a reduction in the length of time and cost of the foreclosure sale process:
PLG BLOG DISCLAIMER
The information contained on this blog shall not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. The existence of or review and/or use of this blog or any information hereon does not and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Further, no information on this blog should be construed as investment advice. Independent legal and financial advice should be sought before using any information obtained from this blog. It is important to note that the cases are subject to change with future court decisions or other changes in the law. For the most up-to-date information, please contact Padgett Law Group (“PLG”). PLG shall have no liability whatsoever to any user of this blog or any information contained hereon, for any claim(s) related in any way to the use of this blog. Users hereby release and hold harmless PLG of and from any and all liability for any claim(s), whether based in contract or in tort, including, but not limited to, claims for lost profits or consequential, exemplary, incidental, indirect, special, or punitive damages arising from or related to their use of the information contained on this blog or their inability to use this blog. This Blog is provided on an "as is" basis without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of title or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.