§ 524(c)(6)(A)

In re Henderson

Before the court for approval consideration in these five cases were debtors' reaffirmation agreements.
Ruling: 
Reaffirmation agreements disapproved as not in best interests of debtor.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Henderson. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on May 22,2013, LexisNexis #0613-129

In re Lynch

Bankruptcy debtors proposed to reaffirm a debt to a creditor secured by the debtors' fishing boat, and the debtors sought approval of a reaffirmation agreement with the creditor.
Ruling: 
Reaffirmation agreement for debt secured by fishing boat disapproved as not in debtor's best interests.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Lynch. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on November 07,2012, LexisNexis #1112-124

In re Vosburg

A chapter 7 debtor sought to reaffirm his obligations on commercial loans secured by several properties. In support of the reaffirmation agreements, the debtor set forth several factors to overcome the presumption of undue hardship that arose under 11 U.S.C.S. § 524(c)(6)(A). No creditor objected to the reaffirmations, and the bank that issued the loans supported reaffirmation.
Ruling: 
Reaffirmation agreements approved given rebuttal of presumption of undue hardship and approval of debtor's attorney.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Vosburg. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on March 30,2012, LexisNexis #0412-120

In re Bartz

Movant, the chapter 7 debtor and a carpenter/construction worker, sought to reaffirm the debt securing his 2009 Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck. According to debtor's filed reaffirmation agreement, the presumption of undue hardship arose under 11 U.S.C.S. § 524(c)(6)(A).
Ruling: 
Reaffirmation agreement could not be approved due to failure to rebut presumption of undue hardship.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Bartz. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on February 17,2011, LexisNexis #0311-055

In re Blakeley

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).
Ruling: 
Bankruptcy court declined to authorize reaffirmation agreement regarding loan secured by debtor's vehicle as not in debtor's best interests.
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

In re Donald

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.
Ruling: 
Reaffirmation agreement was approved since it was in best interest of debtors and was required for debtors to retain car.
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
Subscribe to § 524(c)(6)(A)