In Re Klaas, PICS Case No. 17-0960 (3d Cir. June 1, 2017) Krause, J. (26 pages).
District Court properly affirmed bankruptcy court's granting of a grace period to debtors who made the final payment on their base plan a few weeks after the end of the 60-month period because the bankruptcy court had the discretion under the code to grant a reasonable grace period for debtors to cure an arrearage. Affirmed.
June 23, 2017 at 12:28 PM
4 minute read
Chapter 13 • Motion to Dismiss • Sixty-Month Period • Complete Discharge
In Re Klaas, PICS Case No. 17-0960 (3d Cir. June 1, 2017) Krause, J. (26 pages).
District Court properly affirmed bankruptcy court's granting of a grace period to debtors who made the final payment on their base plan a few weeks after the end of the 60-month period because the bankruptcy court had the discretion under the code to grant a reasonable grace period for debtors to cure an arrearage. Affirmed.
Appellee debtors filed a voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in 2009 and proposed a plan that required payments of $2,500 per month for 60 months. The bankruptcy court confirmed the plan, debtors made consistent monthly payments and after 60 months had paid more than their projected plan base. Sixty-one months after the start of the plan, appellee trustee filed a motion to dismiss the case under 11 US.C. §1307(c) alleging that her final calculations showed that debtors still owed $1,000 to complete their base plan. Debtors cured the arears within 16 days and trustee withdrew her motion. However, by that time, trustee's motion had been joined by appellant creditor and creditor argued the last payment was invalid because the plan and code required all payments to be completed within 60 months. The bankruptcy court found that the failure to completely fund the plan base within 60 months was a material default but the default was not the result of unreasonable delay by debtors, that debtors promptly corrected the deficiency, that the delay did not alter the timing of plan distributions to creditors and the court denied the motion to dismiss. Creditor filed a complaint objecting to the discharge of debtors' debts and the bankruptcy court, relying on its past ruling and the law of the case doctrine, granted summary judgment in favor of debtors and issued a complete discharge. The District Court affirmed on appeal and creditor appealed.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOffit Kurman Scores Summary Judgment in Long-Running Legal Mal Suit Over Bankruptcy Fallout
3 minute readPhila., Del. Firms Handling UArts' Ch. 7 Petition Fall Far Below Top Bankruptcy Rates
3 minute readReal Property Sale Proceeds Must Be Paid First to Unavoided Portion of IRS Tax Lien
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250