Skip to main content

§ 506(d)

Quinones, In re--Quinones v. United States

Ruling
Court stripped off creditor's tax lien over various properties as creditor had no equityavailable. (Bankr. D.P.R.)
Issue(s)
Determination of Secured Status; Liens Securing Disallowed Claims Void.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Quinones, In re--Quinones v. United States 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
Consumer opinion summary, case decided on May 14, 2007 , LexisNexis #0218-017

In re Gamble

Ruling
Lien securing claim paid in full was not released upon dismissal of first bankruptcy case and could be reasserted in debtor's subsequent case.
Procedural posture

The debtors objected to a creditor's secured claim in their second chapter 13 bankruptcy case.

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

opinion summary, case decided on March 22, 2007 , LexisNexis #0507-041

Concannon v. Imperial Capital Bank (In re Concannon)

Ruling
Appellate panel affirmed ruling that the debtor could not use section 506(d) to remove a creditor's judgment lien and that the lien would pass through the bankruptcy case.
Procedural posture

Appellee creditor sought relief from an automatic stay to foreclose its judgment lien, and appellant debtors defended the motion in their chapter 7 case by seeking a valuation of their rental property encumbered by the lien and avoidance of the creditor's lien pursuant to former 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) and (d). The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona granted the creditor's motion and lifted the stay. Debtors appealed.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Concannon v. Imperial Capital Bank (In re Concannon) 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 February 07, 2006 , LexisNexis #0306-048