Skip to main content

§ 524(c)

In re Parker

Jul
23
2007
Ruling
Court denied approval of reaffirmation agreement that created an undue hardship for debtor and was not filed with court prior to discharge.
Procedural posture

The debtors filed for relief under the Bankruptcy Code, a discharge was entered on July 16, 2007, and the case was closed. The day after the case was closed, the debtors submitted a reaffirmation agreement with a creditor.

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

opinion summary, case decided on July 23, 2007 , LexisNexis #0807-116
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

In re Isom

Jul
17
2007
Ruling
Reaffirmation agreement approved upon debtor's certification that there was no undue hardship.
Procedural posture

A debtor filed a petition under chapter 7 and filed a motion which asked the court to approve a reaffirmation agreement. The court held a hearing on the debtor's request.

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

opinion summary, case decided on July 17, 2007 , LexisNexis #0907-048
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

In re Huffman

Jun
25
2007
Ruling
Case could not be reopened to allow for approval of reaffirmation agreement that was not entered into prior to discharge.
Procedural posture

The debtors had filed for relief under chapter 7, and the debtors'case was closed in May, 2007. The debtors filed a motion to reopen, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105, a motion to reconsider an order discharging the debtors.

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

opinion summary, case decided on June 25, 2007 , LexisNexis #0807-079
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

In re Cottrill

Jun
19
2007
Ruling
Debtor could not reaffirm debts post-discharge where no action had been taken within 30 days of creditors'meeting.
Procedural posture

The debtors filed for relief under chapter 7 and they received a chapter 7 discharge in December, 2006. In February, 2007, the debtors filed reaffirmation agreements, with respect to two vehicles owned by the debtors and financed by the creditors, to waive the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(1). The court denied the motions at a hearing and set forth a memorandum opinion memorializing its ruling.

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

opinion summary, case decided on June 19, 2007 , LexisNexis #0707-075
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

TD BankNorth v. Ewing (In re Ewing)

Mar
29
2007
Ruling
Forebearance agreement was essentially a reaffirmation and did not comply with necessary requirements.
Procedural posture

Plaintiff creditor filed an adversary proceeding against defendants, debtors, seeking a determination that its debt was nondischargeable both because it did not arise before entry of the order for relief and, in the alternative, under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3) due to the debtors'failure to schedule the debt. The creditor filed a motion for summary judgment.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of TD BankNorth v. Ewing (In re Ewing) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on March 29, 2007 , LexisNexis #0507-021
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

In re Blakeley

Feb
21
2007
Ruling
Bankruptcy court declined to authorize reaffirmation agreement regarding loan secured by debtor's vehicle as not in debtor's best interests.
Procedural posture

Creditor filed a motion to authorize a reaffirmation agreement with pro se chapter 7 debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(6)(A).

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

opinion summary, case decided on February 21, 2007 , LexisNexis #0407-037
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

In re Riggs

Oct
12
2006
Ruling
Court refused to approve reaffirmation agreement that would place undue hardship on debtor.
Procedural posture

Debtor filed a statement of intention with her petition, stating she intended to reaffirm the debt to creditor car dealership. She then signed and filed a reaffirmation agreement pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 524(c) for a debt with an annual percentage rate of 18.9 percent and requested that the court approve the agreement.

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

opinion summary, case decided on October 12, 2006 , LexisNexis #1106-041
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

Pratt v. GM Acceptance Corp. (In re Pratt)

Sep
01
2006
Ruling
Creditor's refusal to release valueless auto lien unless outstanding balance was paid was coercive and violated discharge injunction
Procedural posture

Chapter 7 debtors, husband and wife, appealed a decision from the District Court for the District of Maine affirming a bankruptcy court ruling that creditor, a car financing corporation, did not violate the discharge injunction by declining to discharge its lien on debtors'automobile until they paid the remaining balance due on their prepetition car loan.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Pratt v. GM Acceptance Corp. (In re Pratt) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
opinion summary, case decided on September 01, 2006 , LexisNexis #1006-021
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

In re Donald

Jun
12
2006
Ruling
Reaffirmation agreement was approved since it was in best interest of debtors and was required for debtors to retain car.
Procedural posture

At a discharge hearing pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 524(d), the court had to consider whether to approve a reaffirmation agreement between the chapter 7 debtors and a secured creditor under section 524(c)(6)(A) as being in the best interest of the debtors. The debtors argued that they could retain their car by making their payments even if the court disapproved the reaffirmation agreement, thereby making it unenforceable.

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

opinion summary, case decided on June 12, 2006 , LexisNexis #0706-042
LexisNexis Article
Learn More
Subscribe to %1