Skip to main content

§ 511

Villasenor, In re

Ruling
Courts turned to Illinois law to determine the rate of interest on creditor's tax claim. (Bankr. N.D. Ill.)
Issue(s)
Rate of Interest on Tax Claims; Nonbankruptcy Law Applies.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Villasenor, In re Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on December 05, 2017 , LexisNexis #0118-042

In re Bratt

Ruling
State statutory penalty for delinquent taxes classified as "interest" could not be enforced.
Issue(s)
Could state statute providing for postpetition "interest" on delinquent taxes be enforced in bankruptcy?

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Bratt Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on February 26, 2015 , LexisNexis #0315-114

In re Debenedetto

Ruling
Purchaser of real estate tax lien was a creditor with a valid tax claim.
Procedural posture

Chapter 13 debtors objected to claims filed in their respective cases by the purchaser of real property tax liens.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Debenedetto Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on July 23, 2013 , LexisNexis #0813-050

In re Curry

Ruling
Purchaser of tax sale certificate held valid tax claim.
Procedural posture

The debtor filed a voluntary chapter 13 petition. The purchaser of a tax sale certificate filed a secured proof of claim for unpaid delinquent taxes, plus interest, under 11 U.S.C.S. § 511.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Curry Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on May 21, 2013 , LexisNexis #0613-047

In re Princeton Office Park LP

Ruling
State tax sale certificate holder did not have a "tax claim" and was not entitled to anti- modification protections.
Procedural posture

The creditor filed a proof of claim in the amount of $ 1,775,791.33, citing "taxes" as the basis of the debt obligation, The debtor filed a motion to fix the claim amount, interest rate and payment terms. The debtor argued that the creditor's claim was not a "tax claim" under New Jersey law, and therefore was not entitled to the anti-modification interest protection of 11 U.S.C.S. § 511(a). The parties moved for summary judgment.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Princeton Office Park LP Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on February 17, 2010 , LexisNexis #0410-115

In re Cortner

Ruling
Chapter 13 debtor required to pay interest rate set at state tax certificate auction.
Procedural posture

A secured creditor of a chapter 13 debtor objected to the debtor's plan. The chapter 13 trustee objected to the proofs of claim of the creditor.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Cortner Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on February 04, 2009 , LexisNexis #0309-081

In re Soto

Ruling
State "tax lien" securing non-tax claim did not entitle creditor to contract rate of interest.
Procedural posture

The debtor moved for confirmation of his proposed chapter 13 plan and creditor objected. The creditor, after paying the debtor's taxes, held a claim that was secured by a tax lien authorized under Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 32.06. The plan proposed to pay the secured claim at the Till interest rate of seven percent. In its objection, the creditor contended that it was entitled to its contract rate of interest.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Soto Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on February 02, 2009 , LexisNexis #0309-114