tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-118397982024-03-06T00:32:45.676-05:00Florida Bankruptcy Attorney Blog Florida Bankruptcy Attorney Jordan E. Bublick - Telephone: (407) 205-4954 and (305) 891-4055Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08016625780337683235noreply@blogger.comBlogger364125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-82752595475580037112022-08-11T10:51:00.000-04:002022-08-11T10:51:18.553-04:00Chapter 13 Bankruptcy <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bfZ2jSOx2-4/VYDEuhEklNI/AAAAAAAABxc/SBST08VLfRQ/s1600/chapter%2B13%2Bbankruptcy.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bfZ2jSOx2-4/VYDEuhEklNI/AAAAAAAABxc/SBST08VLfRQ/s200/chapter%2B13%2Bbankruptcy.jpg" title="chapter 13 bankruptcy" width="200" /></a>Chapter 13 bankruptcy is used to reorganize a person's financial affairs while under the protection of the Bankruptcy Court. <div><br />
<u><b>Chapter 13 Plan</b></u><br />
<br />
Under Chapter 13, an individual is given the opportunity to propose a Chapter 13 plan to reorganize their debt including taxes, car loans, IRS debt, and credit cards.<br />
<br />
The Bankruptcy Code classifies debt into three classes:<br /><ol><li>Secured Claims - such as mortgages and car loans</li>
<li>Priority Unsecured Claims - such as certain IRS debt and child support</li>
<li>General Unsecured Claims - such as credit cards</li>
</ol>
<div>A typical Chapter 13 plan has a term of three to five years. The payments under a chapter 13 plan are normally made from the Debtor's regular wages or other source of income. The Chapter 13 plan payments are made to the Chapter 13 trustee who disburses the payments to creditors in accordance with the Chapter 13 plan.</div>
<br />
<u><b>Chapter 13 Plan Confirmation</b></u><br />
<br />
The Bankruptcy Code also provides the requirements to be met for a Chapter 13 plan to be confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08016625780337683235noreply@blogger.comFlorida, USA27.6648274 -81.5157535-2.7882099373706026 -116.6720035 58.1178647373706 -46.3595035tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-49010046260711297532022-07-25T09:55:00.000-04:002022-07-25T09:55:31.571-04:00Chapter 7 and 13 Personal Bankruptcy in Florida<u>What types of bankruptcy are available?</u><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhddL8Eh4oJhOAu6rIDZA2PTonKCWraV1YvvUUAKB9AjA0Xp3zH0RMvew15PP5rBfqpe7kldAOcYGT0kwfbJwe7sCS_WiPEolR-7GYG77CdAR9SWADUht-DMorOJIZpdRA5RYh4/s1600/personal+bankruptcy.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="132" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhddL8Eh4oJhOAu6rIDZA2PTonKCWraV1YvvUUAKB9AjA0Xp3zH0RMvew15PP5rBfqpe7kldAOcYGT0kwfbJwe7sCS_WiPEolR-7GYG77CdAR9SWADUht-DMorOJIZpdRA5RYh4/s200/personal+bankruptcy.jpg" width="200" /></a><u><br /></u><a href="https://bublicklaw.com/chapter-7-bankruptcy/">Chapter 7</a> bankruptcy and <a href="https://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy/">chapter 13</a> bankruptcy are the two types of bankruptcy most often used by consumer. Chapter 7 is typically used by those with little non-exempt property and less than median income. Chapter 13 is often used by consumers who desire to propose a chapter 13 plan of reorganization to provide for their various debt over a 3 to 5 year plan of reorganization.<br />
<br />
<u>How does a person decide which chapter is best?</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
Various items need to be considered in determining whether to file for bankruptcy under chapter 7 or chapter 13. One item to be reviewed is the "mean test" which was added to the bankruptcy code in 2005. Also, if a person has substantial property in excess of that which is "exempt," filing under chapter 13 would likely be appropriate. If a person is behind with their mortgage or in a foreclosure, they would consider using chapter 13 to propose a plan to reinstate their mortgage.<br />
<br /><u>May a person file for bankruptcy for just some of his debt?</u><br />
<br />
A person is required to list all of his or her debt in the bankruptcy case. Those debts that are dischargeable will be discharged. A person though is free to voluntarily repay any debts if they should so desire.<br />
<br />
<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-91858613675181389252022-06-20T11:04:00.000-04:002022-07-04T16:38:53.848-04:00Bankruptcy Creditors' MeetingIn a Chapter 7 or <a href="https://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy" target="_blank">Chapter 13</a> bankruptcy case, a "creditors' meeting" (or "341 meeting") is held about six weeks after the bankruptcy case is filed. Although called a "creditors' meeting," in most cases, no creditors take the opportunity to attend.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5u3aSCDteBkALZ0quh9vfNY6WwTeAlVdUkPaoawB27tnuVfQxJ_OF9C_Obn5lKtMosbZXHPCYlAEtUB78-R40YxkmjLHb_gMLVDJH8IL_Sx3HdElbH9mI_-V0R7jaOFyfGA/s1600/creditors+meeting+341.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="140" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5u3aSCDteBkALZ0quh9vfNY6WwTeAlVdUkPaoawB27tnuVfQxJ_OF9C_Obn5lKtMosbZXHPCYlAEtUB78-R40YxkmjLHb_gMLVDJH8IL_Sx3HdElbH9mI_-V0R7jaOFyfGA/s200/creditors+meeting+341.jpg" width="200" /></a>A Chapter 7 creditors' meeting is usually presided over by the Chapter 7 trustee and a Chapter 13 creditors' meeting by the standing Chapter 13 trustee. The debtor is required to attend to creditors' meeting unless there are special circumstances to excuse attendance.<br />
<br />
At the creditors' meeting the person who filed for bankruptcy - the debtor - is placed under oath and the case and filed bankruptcy schedules are reviewed.<div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08016625780337683235noreply@blogger.comFlorida, USA27.6648274 -81.5157535-2.7882099373706026 -116.6720035 58.1178647373706 -46.3595035tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-88574677314072193522022-06-19T11:00:00.000-04:002022-07-04T16:40:00.654-04:00Exemption of Annuities in Florida <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj99jAFVSQI538Sd01IxCis3TLMDoOEf6Iwz-d_Sbbr860XY6Tzx60Jhjg6PgFsFzKHXDZHQczdUkw6_eDDFtobg_rjR6j081NHs7u44V-o0S5n63ZjiitvDFdp9UI4VZ1fxw/s1600/images.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj99jAFVSQI538Sd01IxCis3TLMDoOEf6Iwz-d_Sbbr860XY6Tzx60Jhjg6PgFsFzKHXDZHQczdUkw6_eDDFtobg_rjR6j081NHs7u44V-o0S5n63ZjiitvDFdp9UI4VZ1fxw/s200/images.jpg" title="exemption of annuities in Florida" width="200" /></a></div>
Florida law provides a certain exemption for annuities. Florida Statute section 222.14 provides that "<span style="text-align: justify;">the proceeds of annuity contracts issued to citizens or residents of the state, </span><span style="text-align: justify;"> upon whatever form, shall not in any case be liable to attachment, garnishment ...</span><span style="text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="text-align: justify;">or legal process in favor of any creditor ... of the person who is the beneficiary </span><span style="text-align: justify;">of such annuity contract, unless the ... annuity contract was effected for the </span><span style="text-align: justify;">benefit of such creditor.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="text-align: justify;">One requirement is that the annuity must be issued to a "<span style="text-align: start;">citizen" or "resident" of Florida. </span></span><span style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: start;">Sometimes there is a question of whether the item in question actually </span></span><span style="text-align: justify;">constitutes an "annuity" and whether the involved person is a "beneficiary" within the meaning of the statute. </span><br />
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08016625780337683235noreply@blogger.comFlorida, USA27.6648274 -81.5157535-0.64540643617884541 -116.6720035 55.975061236178846 -46.3595035tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-37424045341017244782022-06-16T19:29:00.001-04:002022-07-08T18:59:50.814-04:00Unsecured Debt in Chapter 13: How Much Must You Pay?<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The amount you are required to pay back to your general unsecured creditors in a<a data-mce-href="http://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy%20" href="http://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy%20" target="_blank"> </a><a href="https://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy" target="_blank">Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case</a><a href="http://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy/" target="_blank"> </a>depends on various factors. It can range from only about a few pennies on the dollar to 100% of the debt. The amount required to be paid must be the higher of the "means test” (projected disposable income) and the amount of the chapter 7 liquidation test.</span></div>
<h2 style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">Means Test</span></h2>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The amount you are required to pay back must be at least the amount of your "projected disposable income" as calculated by the "means test" used in <a href="https://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy" target="_blank">Chapter 13</a>. Basically, your monthly income is calculated and your expenses are deducted, leaving the "projected disposable income."</span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">For purpose of this test, your income is based on the income for the six months period prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case. The expenses used in these test are not your actual living expenses, but they are amounts based on the IRS collection standards for certain items and actual mortgage and car loan debts.</span></div><div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The amount of expenses is deducted from the income leaving the monthly "projected disposable income." Debtor with income less than median income will only be required to pay for three years, but over-median income debtors are required to pay for five years.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
</div>
<h2 style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">Chapter 7 Liquidation Test</span></h2>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The amount required to be paid back in a <a href="https://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy" target="_blank">Chapter 13 </a>case must be at least as much as the "chapter 7 liquidation test" which is the amount that could be received on a hypothetical <a href="https://bublicklaw.com/chapter-7-bankruptcy" target="_blank">chapter 7</a> liquidation of your property.</span></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08016625780337683235noreply@blogger.comMiami, FL, USA25.7890972 -80.20404350000001225.5603297 -80.526767 26.0178647 -79.881320000000017tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-11766029471326930702022-06-16T10:12:00.000-04:002022-06-23T10:12:21.021-04:00Section 541(a) Has Extraterritorial EffectIn the case of <em>In re Rajapakse</em>, 346 B.R. 233 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Gla.2005)(Massey, J.), the Chapter 7 Trustee sought an order directing the <em>pro se </em>chapter 7 Debtor to turn over certain property located outside of the U.S. The Debtor claimed that the property was not property of the estate and was outside the Court's jurisdiction. The Court granted the Trustee's motion and directed the Debtor to turn over and account for all the foreign assets.<br />
<br />
Section 541 provides that the commencement of a case creates an estate comprised of property listed in Section 541(a) with certain exceptions, "wherever located and by whomever held." 11 USC 541 (a). The court noted that the phrase "wherever located and by whomever held" is extremely broad and could be interpreted to cover property owned outside of the U.S. The court pointed out though that Section 541 does <em>not </em>expressly state that it applies outside of the U.S. <br />
<br />
The court discussed that Congress has the power to enact a statute that applies beyond the territorial borders of the U.S, but that there is a presumption that Acts of Congress do not ordinarily apply outside the borders of the U.S. If a statute does not expressly state that is applies outside of the U.S., a court must determine whether Congress intended the statue to have extraterritorial effect. <em>E.E.O.C. v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., </em>499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991). <br />
<br />
The court concluded that while Section 541 is ambiguous regarding its possible extraterritorial effect, its legislative history is not. The court noted that the House Report accompanying a 1952 amendment to Section 541 makes its clear that a trustee in bankruptcy is vested with the title of the bankrupt in property within or without the U.S. The court noted that Collier on Bankruptcy confirms this interpretation that Section 70a of the Act was amended in 1952 to make it clear that a trustee in bankruptcy is vested with the title to property within or without the U.S. by the addition of the words "wherever located." Collier on Bankruptcy, Vol. $A, para 70.03, p. 35 (14th Ed. 1978). The court noted that other courts addressing this issue have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g. <em>H.K. and Shanghai Banking Corp. v. Simon,</em> 153 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir.1998), <em>GMAM Investment Funds Trust I v. Blobo Comunicacoes E. Participacoes S.S</em>, 317 B.R. 235 (S.DN.Y.2004), <em>Deak & Co. v. Soedjono</em>, 63 B.R. 422, 427 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1986), <em>Nakash v. Zur</em>, 190 B.R. 763, 768 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1996), <em>In re Yukos Oil Co.</em> 321 B.R. 396, 406 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2005).<div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comMiami, FL, USA25.7889689 -80.22643929999998125.5602014 -80.549162799999976 26.0177364 -79.903715799999986tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-68013954531086503012022-06-15T17:11:00.000-04:002022-07-14T15:26:45.829-04:00Mootness, Equitable Mootness, and Statutory Mootness <br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3u6pmBDYCA_ESoxSZ9XN3vSoJcTo3WZNnekg5BBfbyDkWYI_wUhtL2uZocw-uHVhg_R5BjY7yXyg1PabXYYJixrhoQ4Orlfh8YH5MCX-fziRYa7A2YGMF8h9PcOG1E6eJb-_Mpg/s1600/A_3rd_Judicial_Circuit-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3u6pmBDYCA_ESoxSZ9XN3vSoJcTo3WZNnekg5BBfbyDkWYI_wUhtL2uZocw-uHVhg_R5BjY7yXyg1PabXYYJixrhoQ4Orlfh8YH5MCX-fziRYa7A2YGMF8h9PcOG1E6eJb-_Mpg/s1600/A_3rd_Judicial_Circuit-2.jpg" height="135" width="200" /></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span data-mce-style="font: 14px/24px 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; color: #444444; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; background-color: #ffffff; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #444444; display: inline !important; float: none; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">The Circuit Court of Appeals of the 3rd Circuit recently issued its opinion in </span><em data-mce-style="font: italic 14px/24px 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; color: #444444; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: 0px; white-space: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; background-color: #ffffff; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #444444; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><a href="http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/133371np.pdf" target="_blank">In re SCH Corp., et al</a></em><span data-mce-style="font: 14px/24px 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; color: #444444; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; background-color: #ffffff; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #444444; display: inline !important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><a href="http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/133371np.pdf" target="_blank">, 2014 WL 2724606 </a>involving the doctrine of "equitable mootness" in the bankruptcy context. The District Court had dismissed the appeal from the Bankruptcy Court as being "equitably moot" by applying the five-factor test set forth in </span><span data-mce-style="font: 14px/24px 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; color: #444444; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; background-color: #ffffff; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #444444; display: inline !important; float: none; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><i>In re Continental Airlines,</i></span><span data-mce-style="font: 14px/24px 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; color: #444444; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; background-color: #ffffff; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #444444; display: inline !important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"> 91 F.3d 553 (3rd Cir. 1996). In making its decision, the 3rd Circuit reviewed that distinctions between the </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; line-height: 24px;">concepts of "mootness", "equitable mootness", and the "prudence doctrine". </span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<h2 style="clear: both; color: #444444; line-height: 1.6; margin: 1.714285714rem 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Constitutional Mootness</span></h2>
<div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.714285714; margin-bottom: 1.714285714rem;">
The Court explained that the mootness determination it was making in this case, was <i>not</i> that of mootness in the c<em>onstitutional sense</em> of the limits of the federal courts' authority under Article III, but rather that of <em>equitable mootness </em>or the application of <em>prudential factors.</em> The Court noted that the <em>Continental </em>decision cited Supreme Court precedent that "an appeal is moot in the constitutional sense only if events have taken place during the pendency of the appeal that make it "impossible for the court to grant ‘any effectual relief whatever.’ ” The Court noted that a case is not moot <i>merely </i>because a court cannot restore the parties to the status quo ante <i>- but rather,</i> whether a court can can fashion some form of meaningful relief, even if it only partially. </div>
<h2 style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.714285714; margin-bottom: 1.714285714rem;">
<span style="line-height: 1.6;"><span style="font-size: small;">Equitable Mootness </span></span></h2>
<div style="color: #444444; line-height: 1.714285714; margin-bottom: 1.714285714rem; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Court referred to a 7th Circuit decision that stated: “[t]here is a big difference between <em>inability</em> to alter the outcome (real Article III Constitutional mootness) and <em>unwillingness</em> to alter the outcome (‘equitable mootness') and that these concepts should not be confused. The Court also noted that another court preferred not to ask whether a case is "equitably moot", but rather whether it is "prudent" to upset a bankruptcy reorganization plan at a later date. The <em>Continental C</em>ourt stated that these “equitable” or “prudential” considerations focus on the following five “concerns unique to bankruptcy proceedings”: </span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">1. </span><span dir="LTR" style="text-indent: -0.25in; text-indent: -0.25in;"></span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">whether the
reorganization plan has been substantially consummated</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. <!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>whether a stay has been
obtained<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3. <!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>whether the relief
requested would affect the rights of parties not before the court<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4. <!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>whether the relief
requested would affect the success of the plan</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">5. </span><span dir="LTR" style="text-indent: -0.25in; text-indent: -0.25in;"></span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">the public policy of
affording finality to bankruptcy judgments</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Statutory Mootness</span></h2>
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">The Court in </span><em style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">SCH Corp.</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;"> did not reach the concept of "statutory mootness". This</span><a href="http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/assetsales/vol4num2/AssetSales.pdf" style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;" target="_blank"> ABI</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;"> article explains that the concept of statutory mootness is provided for in sections 363(m) and 364(e) of the Bankruptcy Code and are designed to protect capital providers, including purchasers and lenders. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<h2>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-size: small;">Further References</span></span></h2>
<h2>
</h2>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span data-mce-style="font: 14px/24px 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; color: #444444; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; background-color: #ffffff; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #444444; display: inline !important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Other articles, <a href="http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2013/05/equitable-mootness-and-forum-shopping.html" target="_blank">here </a> and <a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/bankruptcy/b/bankruptcy-law-blog/archive/2013/04/29/supreme-court-will-not-hear-equitable-mootness-doctrine-appeal-by-debenture-trust.aspx" target="_blank">here</a>, review t</span><span data-mce-style="font: 14px/24px 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; color: #444444; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; background-color: #ffffff; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #444444; display: inline !important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">he Supreme Court denial of <em>cert.</em> in a case involving the issue of equitable mootness in the case of <em> <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/law-debenture-trust-co-v-charter-communications-inc/" target="_blank">Law Debenture Trust Co. v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 12-847.</a></em><a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cert.-Petition.pdf" target="_blank"> </a> </span><span data-mce-style="font: 14px/24px 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; color: #444444; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; background-color: #ffffff; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #444444; display: inline !important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span data-mce-style="font: 14px/24px 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; color: #444444; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; background-color: #ffffff; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #444444; display: inline !important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">The doctrine of equitable mootness as applied in the 2nd Circuit is also reviewed in this <a href="http://article./">article</a> by Hunton & Williams, LLP. </span></span></span><div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08016625780337683235noreply@blogger.com0Miami, FL, USA25.7890972 -80.20404350000001225.5603297 -80.526767 26.0178647 -79.881320000000017tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-33114359180250017802022-06-15T10:30:00.003-04:002022-07-04T10:58:49.052-04:00Saving Your Home from Foreclosure under Chapter 13 Bankruptcy <br /><a href="https://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy/" target="_blank"><br />Chapter 13 bankruptcy</a> can be used to save your home or investment property from a mortgage or<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho_Btg9RkEu2pgXSHpgWnZBYZRy4uusNmlZ8FiIEE83UHngzy6HWg4efR3fV2tlGYHaO2Gini9XWd9WXJR6dNVIKYC3rI_zoyIAAAXlDqJLXb2gwdpT3a8bAFNNJvPFdwFS8dw6Z9Ji62Cjr8unjqYLbbJapPdo6NsAsP256v5L07x2RZgbQ/s5500/chapter%2013%20bankruptcy%206-22.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3667" data-original-width="5500" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho_Btg9RkEu2pgXSHpgWnZBYZRy4uusNmlZ8FiIEE83UHngzy6HWg4efR3fV2tlGYHaO2Gini9XWd9WXJR6dNVIKYC3rI_zoyIAAAXlDqJLXb2gwdpT3a8bAFNNJvPFdwFS8dw6Z9Ji62Cjr8unjqYLbbJapPdo6NsAsP256v5L07x2RZgbQ/w320-h213/chapter%2013%20bankruptcy%206-22.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>association foreclosure. The filing of a <a href="https://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy/" target="_blank">Chapter 13 Bankruptcy </a> case generally stops the foreclosure action and gives you the opportunity to propose a Chapter 13 plan to reorganize your mortgage or association payments. The <a href="https://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy/">Chapter 13 </a>case though must generally be filed prior to the foreclosure sale.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Cure Mortgage Arrearages</b></u><div><b><u><br /></u></b><div>A Chapter 13 Plan may provide for the catching up-to-date of your past due mortgage or association payments together with your ongoing regular monthly mortgage or association payments. </div><div><br /></div><div><u><b>The Bankruptcy Court's Mortgage Modification Mediation Program</b></u><br />
<u><b><br /></b></u>You may also apply for a mortgage modification under the Bankruptcy Court's mortgage modification mediation program. Under this program a mediator is appointed by the Bankruptcy Court to assist in the process, including the furnishing of mortgage modification documents. Communications between the parties are over a special internet portal.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Avoid Second Mortgage</u> </b><br />
<br />
If your home has decreased in value, sometimes you are able to wipe out or "avoid" your second mortgage. For example, if you owe $300,000 on your first mortgage and $100,000 on your second mortgage and your home has gone down in value to $250,000, there is no equity or value to "secure" the second mortgage. Under these circumstances, the Chapter 13 Plan may provide to wipe out or avoid the second mortgage lien. The $100,000 debt owed on the second mortgage will be wholly unsecured and usually only receive a small dividend together with other general unsecured creditors.<br />
<br /></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comFlorida, USA27.6648274 -81.5157535-2.803921726634055 -116.6720035 58.133576526634059 -46.3595035tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-22737579014947921812022-06-14T14:36:00.002-04:002022-06-14T18:05:32.790-04:00Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy <br />
<b><u>Chapter 7 Bankruptcy </u></b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bublicklaw.com/chapter-7-bankruptcy" target="_blank">Chapter 7 bankruptcy</a> is generally used by people who desire to discharge unsecured debt and who have little non-exempt property. <br />
<br />
<u><b>Chapter 13 Bankruptcy</b> </u><br />
<br />
<a href="http://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy" target="_blank">Chapter 13 bankruptcy </a>is used to reorganize mortgages and other secured debt as well as to discharge unsecured debt. <br />
<br />
Chapter 13 bankruptcy is often used to stop a foreclosure action and proposed a plan of reorganization. Due to the decreased real estate values in South Florida, often a junior mortgage lien may be avoidable as an "unsecured debt." <br />
<br />
<br /><div>_____________</div><div><br />Bankruptcy Attorney Jordan E. Bublick is a Florida Bankruptcy Lawyer with over 35 years of experience in filing Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and Chapter 7 Bankruptcy cases. He has filed over 8,000 bankruptcy cases. Jordan E. Bublick has been a member of the Florida Bar since 1983 and is a graduate of the Ohio State University College of Law (JD) and the New York University School of Law (LL.M.)</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comFlorida, USA27.6648274 -81.5157535-2.761081081159297 -116.6720035 58.0907358811593 -46.3595035tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-40629966546493378922022-06-14T13:11:00.001-04:002022-06-14T13:12:23.771-04:00Florida Bankruptcy Lawyer Jordan E. Bublick - Practice Limited to BankruptcyJordan E. Bublick is a Florida bankruptcy lawyer whose practice is limited to Chapter 13 bankruptcy (reorganization of debt) and Chapter 7 bankruptcy (discharge of debt). Jordan E. Bublick has over 35 years of experience in filing personal bankruptcy cases and has filed over 8,000 bankruptcy cases.<br />
<br />
The firm offers a free initial consultation. <br />
<b><br />
<u>Chapter 7 Bankruptcy</u></b> <br />
<br />
Chapter 7 bankruptcy allows a person to discharge most types of debt while keeping his "exempt" property. Debt that is dischargeable includes most credit card, unsecured loans, car repossession debt, medical bills, and some federal income taxes. Student loans are in most cases not dischargeable. <br />
<br />
<u><b>Chapter 13 Bankruptcy</b></u><br />
<br />
Chapter 13 bankruptcy allows a person to propose a plan of reorganization to reorganize his secured and unsecured debt. It is often used to stop a mortgage foreclosure and to catch the mortgage payments up-to-date. In some cases, one is able to avoid the second mortgage if it is wholly "underwater.". It is also filed to use the Bankruptcy Court's new Mortgage Mediation program ("LMM") in which the parties meet to negotiate a modification of the mortgage together with a mediator appointed by the Bankruptcy Court.<br />
<br /><br />
Jordan E. Bublick holds an undergraduate degree from Brandeis University (BA, 1979), a law degree from the Ohio State University College of Law (JD, 1983) and a masters of law degree from the New York University School of Law (LL.M., 1984)<br />
<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com20801 Biscayne Blvd #423, Aventura, FL 33180, USA25.968353 -80.143618-25.485946 -162.7608055 77.422652 2.4735694999999964tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-57099271138094752742022-06-12T11:00:00.004-04:002022-06-14T14:35:36.948-04:00Introduction to Chapter 13<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhd0uOniVuIcVQJ-JxLBRlzPfwz_z4tcnxzEZIeEAtQlPEgm01trHaI3k2MpT2WGhuqTda_D2uBrvHB-Y-s4A62qrGrDKEZlHI7KbhAjVmxZZ_JFG9lw_XZIe_VbsevnwcrEg/s1600/chapter+13.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="165" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhd0uOniVuIcVQJ-JxLBRlzPfwz_z4tcnxzEZIeEAtQlPEgm01trHaI3k2MpT2WGhuqTda_D2uBrvHB-Y-s4A62qrGrDKEZlHI7KbhAjVmxZZ_JFG9lw_XZIe_VbsevnwcrEg/s200/chapter+13.png" width="200" /></a>A <a href="https://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy/" target="_blank">Chapter 13 bankruptcy </a>case is started with the filing a petition for Chapter 13 relief with the Bankruptcy Court along with the schedules and statements that reflect the person's financial situation. <div><br /></div><div>Under Chapter 13, the debtor must submit a plan of reorganization to provide for his various classes of debt - priority, secured, and unsecured. A Chapter 13 debtor is generally required to devote all of his "projected disposable income" to repay a percentage of unsecured debt over a period of three to five years.<br />
<br />
A Chapter 13 case is overseen by a Chapter 13 Trustee. The main duties of the Chapter 13 Trustee is to receive the monthly chapter 13 plan payments and to distribute them to the creditors pursuant to the chapter 13 plan.<br />
<br />
A Chapter 13 debtor receives a discharge after all payments required under the chapter 13 plan have been completed.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08016625780337683235noreply@blogger.com1Orlando, FL, USA28.5383832 -81.3789269-4.5852533071132839 -116.5351769 61.662019707113281 -46.222676899999996tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-54745539213594677532022-06-12T10:14:00.002-04:002022-07-08T08:27:28.971-04:0011th Circuit Upholds SD Florida Bankr Decision Allowing 304 Case for Italian DebtorOn June 29, 2007, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal in its unpublished decision in <em>In re Rosacometta, S.R.L., </em>244 Fed.Appx. 286 (11th Cir. 2007) upheld the decision of the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of Florida. The bankruptcy court had allowed an ancillary petition under section 304 (pre-BAPCPA) and enjoined the creditor from collecting on a writ of garnishment in the state court against the Italian company that had filed for bankruptcy relief in Italy. The 11th Circuit rejected the creditor's arguments that the bankruptcy court had acted outside of its jurisdiction, that it had erred in granting comity to a foreign proceeding, and that it had failed to give full faith and credit to a state court decision refusing to dissolve the writ of garnishment. The 11th Circuit held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the section 304(c) factors and granting section 304(b) relief. The 11th Circuit held that prejudice to the creditor was just one of the five factors for the court to consider per section 304(c) and is not even the "ultimate" factor. The 11th Circuit found that the other factors set forth in section 304(c), including comity, weighed in favor of granting the relief. The 11th Circuit further held that the bankruptcy court is granted broad powers under section 304(b) to grant relief to a foreign debtor.<br />
<br />
The bankruptcy court had previously issued its decision dated December 19, 2005 in <em>In re Rosacometta, SrL</em>, 336 B.R. 557 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2005)(Mark C.J.). In this case, the Italian trustee of an Italian corporation that was a debtor in a bankruptcy case in Italy filed an ancillary case under section 304 (pre-BAPCPA) seeking to enjoin all creditor collection activity in the United States <em>nunc pro tunc </em>to the date of the filing of the bankruptcy in Italy. At issue were certain funds owed to the the debtor in the U.S. that a U.S. creditor was attempting to garnish. The court recognized the effect of the Italian automatic stay and found the creditor action in violation of the stay was void, including the attempted garnishment.<br />
<br />
This case came before the court under section 304 as a case ancillary to a foreign bankruptcy proceeding. The case was allowed to proceed under 304 as there was a foreign proceeding and the petitioner was the foreign representative. 11 U.S.C. 304(a). The court explained that section 304 enables United States courts to aid foreign bankruptcy proceedings and to accommodate the extraterritorial effect of these proceeding within the U.S. The primary purpose of section 304 is to prevent piecemeal distribution of a foreign debtor's assets in the U.S. by means of legal proceedings in U.S. courts and to afford the foreign court an opportunity to assess where and when claims should be liquidated in order to conserve resources and to maximize distributions to creditors.<br />
<br />
The court found that the creditor was not a secured creditor as the writ of garnishment was served after the commencement of the Italian bankruptcy and was therefore void as in violation of the Italian automatic stay. The court found that recognition of the Italian automatic stay was "other appropriate relief" under section 304(b)(3) and consistent with the overall purpose of section 304 and the specific criteria of 304(c). The court held that the claimed funds should be returned to Italy where the creditor may pursue its claim.<br />
<br />
The bankruptcy court found the reasoning of <em>Artimm </em>, 278 B.R. 832, 840 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2002) as persuasive and found that the Italian automatic stay applied extra territorially. The<em> Artimm</em> court concluded that the Italian automatic stay has worldwide effect as Italian law provides for a stay of all creditor collection activities and claims worldwide jurisdiction over the property of the debtor. <em>Id.</em> at 840. The <em>Artimm</em> court also found that provisions of Italian law indicate movement in Itlian law towards handling international insolvencies under the "universal" approach, which advocates treating an international bankruptcy as a single case in which assets and creditor are treated equally wherever they may be located. Id. at 841.<br />
<br />
The bankruptcy court stated that many courts have noted that comity is the ultimate factor in determining whether section 304 relief is appropriate. The Supreme Court described comity as "the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of tis own citizens..." <em>Hilton v. Guyot</em>, 159 U.S. 113 (1895). Comity is extended to a foreign court if that court is a court of competent jurisdiction and if the laws and public policy of the forum state and the rights of its residents will not be violated. <em>Cunard S.S. Co., Ltd. v. Salen Reefer Services AB</em>, 773 F.2d at 452 (2d Cir.1985). Comity should not be withheld unless its extension would be inimical to the interest of the United States. <em>Cunard</em>, 773 F.2d at 457. The interest of the United States in granting comity is to ensure that “the assets of a debtor are dispersed in an equitable, orderly, and systematic manner, rather than in a haphazard, erratic, or piecemeal fashion.” <em>Cunard</em>, 773 F.2d at 458. United States courts, therefore, have “consistently recognized the interest of foreign courts in liquidating or winding up the affairs of their own domestic business entities.” Id. at 458. Moreover, “every person who deals with a foreign corporation impliedly subjects himself to such laws of the foreign government, affecting the powers and obligations of the corporation with which he voluntarily contracts, as the known and established policy of that government authorizes.” Id. Therefore, U.S. creditors of a bankrupt foreign corporation may be required to assert their claims against the foreign debtor before a foreign court. <em>Cunard</em>, 773 F.2d at 458-59.<br />
<br />
The Florida bankruptcy court found that extending comity to the Italian bankruptcy case and the laws of Italy was appropriate as the bankruptcy in Italy was proceeding under the aegis of a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the laws and policies of Italy. It further found that extending comity would result n an orderly and fair distribution to all creditors on a worldwide basis. Furthermore, the laws governing the Italian bankruptcy case comported with U.S. standards of procedural fairness and are not inimical to the law or policy of the U.S. The court noted that at least two U.S. court have previously extended comity to Italian bankruptcy proceedings.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the bankruptcy court found that the statutory factors of 304(c) were met, including the just treatment of all holders of claims against or interest in the estate, protection of claim holders in the U.S. against prejudice and inconvenience in processing of claim in the foreign proceeding, prevention of preferential or fraudulent dispositions of property of the estate, and distribution of proceeds of the estate are substantially in accordance with the order prescribed in the bankruptcy code.<div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comMiami, FL, USA25.7889689 -80.22643929999998125.5602014 -80.549162799999976 26.0177364 -79.903715799999986tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-35222334667837765652022-06-09T17:50:00.000-04:002022-06-23T10:09:01.761-04:00Choice of Law in a Bankruptcy Case<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T4sbGUbfP4Q/VZM4zSboSYI/AAAAAAAABzc/8xz6snyLT58/s1600/choice%2Bof%2Blaw.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="66" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T4sbGUbfP4Q/VZM4zSboSYI/AAAAAAAABzc/8xz6snyLT58/s200/choice%2Bof%2Blaw.png" width="200" /></a>When a person files for bankruptcy in Florida and owes a gambling debt in Nevada, which state's law apply in determining the various issues about the claim for gambling debt? In the bankruptcy case there may be issues as to the allowability of the claim or whether the claim should be dischargeable or nondischargeable. A 2006 Florida bankruptcy ruling dealt with this issue.<br />
<br />
The Bankruptcy Court reviewed that normally a federal court hearing a matter pursuant to diversity jurisdiction must apply the law of the state in which it sits, but that such rule <u>does not apply</u> to a bankruptcy court as it is not sitting as a federal court with jurisdiction based on diversity. The bankruptcy court reviewed that the choice of which state's law applies should in part be based on which state's law more <em>logically relates </em>to the claim and the "significant relationship" test.<br />
<br />
<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comMiami, FL, USA25.7616798 -80.19179020000001425.5329123 -80.514513700000009 25.9904473 -79.869066700000019tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-40903418603197284852022-06-09T15:27:00.000-04:002022-07-14T15:28:22.838-04:00"Not for Publication" <br />
<h2>
<span style="font-size: small;">Controversy</span></h2>
The topic of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-publication_of_legal_opinions_in_the_United_States" target="_blank">"not for publication"</a> has raised <a href="http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/mercer39&div=29&id=&page=" target="_blank">controvery</a> over the years, the main issues <a href="http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/mercer39&div=29&id=&page=" target="_blank">precedential value</a> and the ability to cite as precedent. Some <a href="http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ohslj60&div=12&id=&page=" target="_blank">defend</a> and <a href="http://georgetown.lawreviewnetwork.com/files/pdf/97-2/Weisgerber.PDF" target="_blank">some do not</a>. This article written in 2003 titled <a href="http://www.stetson.edu/law/lawreview/media/how-opinions-are-developed-in-the-united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-eleventh-circuit.pdf" target="_blank">"How Opinions are Developed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit" </a> explains that "[i]n the Eleventh Circuit, unpublished opinions have no precedential value, which means that they are not binding upon a subsequent panel, although they are persuasive." The author explains that in "most other circuits, citing unpublished opinions is either barred or limited."<br />
<h2>
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PYBcozgI4t4/VDOCMK0GKKI/AAAAAAAABLw/fipzhfKP__Q/s1600/download.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PYBcozgI4t4/VDOCMK0GKKI/AAAAAAAABLw/fipzhfKP__Q/s1600/download.jpg" height="200" width="131" /></a><span style="font-size: small;">11th Circuit Rules - There is a "But"</span></h2>
<div>
<a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/courtdocs/clk/RulesAUG14.pdf" target="_blank">11th Cir. R. 36-2 </a>provides that "opinions shall be unpublished unless a majority of the panels decides to publish it. Unpublished opinion are not considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority." But there is a "but" - this rule states "but see" I.O.P. 7 which provides that in section 2, that "[u]nder the law of this circuit, published opinions are binding precedent" and cites to <i> </i><a href="https://casetext.com/case/martin-v-singletary" target="_blank"><i>Martin v. Singletary</i>, </a> 965 F.2d 944, 945 n.1 (11th Cir. 1992)(in which the Court writes in footnote one that "[t]he stay of the mandate in<a href="https://casetext.com/case/johnson-v-singletary-4?page=1183" target="_blank"> <i>Johnson</i></a> merely delays the return of jurisdiction to the district court to carry out our judgment in that case. The stay in no way affects the duty of this panel and the courts in this circuit to apply now the precedent established by <i>Johnson</i> as binding authority.")</div>
<div>
<h2>
<span style="font-size: small;">"Not to Publish" to "Publish"</span></h2>
<a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/courtdocs/clk/RulesAUG14.pdf" target="_blank">Rule 36-3</a> provides that "[a]t any time before the mandate has been issued, the panel, on its own motion or upon the motion of a party, may by unanimous vote order a previously unpublished opinion to be published."<br />
<h2>
<span style="font-size: small;">Stare Decisis</span></h2>
As an aside, this <a href="http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/Author/56B07E51DF44F7AF85256C8300780476" target="_blank">article </a>reviews the binding effect of District Court decisions on Bankruptcy Courts in their district - "anarchy". He also explains that "stare decisis" is a legal doctrine that has been part of the American jurisprudence for over 200 year and that under this doctrine "a deliberate or solemn decision of court made after argument on question of law fairly arising in this case and necessary to its determination, is an authority or binding precedent in the same court or in lower courts in the judicial hierarchy in subsequent cases where the very point is again in controversy."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08016625780337683235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-66557619590408138252022-06-07T10:09:00.000-04:002022-06-23T10:09:51.721-04:00Early Bankruptcy Laws in the United States<br />
<u>Colonial Bankruptcy Laws</u><br />
In the American colonial era, many of the states had bankruptcy and insolvency laws. Imprisonment for debt was commonplace.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu_xPDmFdB41Zg_RbKaO4y29tJYC-vfHPeTQfwRvre7p_Dw5sftlDk3lb2Z51NagZAzcOIJd3zUqeLiYU1rOPYOMb9ZmHjcIxyre8uGPMnFW76vV6SJQhDa-ZKDRf0Lr-36RFx/s1600/bankruptcy+law.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu_xPDmFdB41Zg_RbKaO4y29tJYC-vfHPeTQfwRvre7p_Dw5sftlDk3lb2Z51NagZAzcOIJd3zUqeLiYU1rOPYOMb9ZmHjcIxyre8uGPMnFW76vV6SJQhDa-ZKDRf0Lr-36RFx/s1600/bankruptcy+law.jpg" /></a><br />
<u>Bankruptcy Act of 1800</u><br />
The first federal bankruptcy law was passed by Congress in 1800, eleven years after the ratification of the United States Constitution. This Bankruptcy Act was designed to be a temporary measure and was repealed after only three years.<br />
<br />
This act was virtually a copy of the existing English law, which was the 1732 Statute of George II. The English laws maintained a distinction between "bankruptcy laws" and "involvency" laws. Bankruptcy law generally involved involuntary proceedings against business trader while involvency law addressed concerns of debt relief generally, including the release from debtor's prison.<br />
<br />
<u>Bankruptcy Act of 1841</u><br />
Following the financial Panic of 1837, the Bankruptcy Act of 1841 was passed. It provided for both involuntary and voluntary bankruptcy. This act allowed a person some basic exemptions of property, but state exemptions were not available. Although the act worked well, creditors considered it a failure and it was repealed in 1843. The 1841 Act though was important in that it established the allowance of voluntary bankruptcy for all debtors.<div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comMiami, FL, USA25.7616798 -80.19179020000001425.5329123 -80.514513700000009 25.9904473 -79.869066700000019tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-28405809175639219682022-06-06T17:10:00.000-04:002022-07-06T17:10:21.501-04:00Bankruptcy Case vs. Bankruptcy Case <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMdB497zveXlOu_5Of2efjVY3t3Vo6ptnhTOGK7K6q-ydZerBXD8lTXmz3unBD8zvt2DQSJ4ayk-Acg7HPo0yl4PpeTjQ4j3Pn3an4j1NO7ueTYfSY2Kd6eGnYr8VN1fh9Vg/s1600/download.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMdB497zveXlOu_5Of2efjVY3t3Vo6ptnhTOGK7K6q-ydZerBXD8lTXmz3unBD8zvt2DQSJ4ayk-Acg7HPo0yl4PpeTjQ4j3Pn3an4j1NO7ueTYfSY2Kd6eGnYr8VN1fh9Vg/s1600/download.png" width="197" /></a><br />
On January 18, 2015, Fox Rothschild's Delaware Bankruptcy Litigation blog published a post <a href="http://delawarebankruptcy.foxrothschild.com/2015/01/articles/bankruptcy-case-summary/caesars-involuntary-bankruptcy-proceeding-in-the-district-of-delaware/?utm_source=Fox+Rothschild+LLP+-+Delaware+Bankruptcy+Litigation&utm_campaign=33763cbd09-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3226d22f80-33763cbd09-70022221" target="_blank">"Caesars Bankruptcy: Illinois Bankruptcy Proceeding Stayed by Delaware Bankruptcy Court". </a><br />
<br />
The article reviews a situation where creditors filed a petition for an involuntary chapter 11 bankruptcy on January 12, 2015 against Caesars Entertainment in the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware and <u>then</u> three days later Caesars Entertainment filed a voluntary chapter 11 case in the Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of Illinois.<br />
<br />
The Delaware Bankruptcy Court referred to this as a situation of "parallel proceedings." In its January 15, 2015 order, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ordered that the proceedings in the Illinois Bankruptcy case be stayed, except for certain first day motions, pending "issuance of an order determining, if necessary, the venue in which the Debtor's chapter 11 case shall proceed."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKT3e3Zpht7WCLAhH7VeFjXRMT87-FW3fc8Osral1XsFVSCgsL14xM5brR0rlEkNtBZwGjJxqmXF07vpR44XA38OmyDBTWFDo9QhyphenhyphenirnFt2FRNyGZ8H7Hqum_qF8whO-aYGw/s1600/Bankr.D.Del._1-15-bk-10047_47-page-001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKT3e3Zpht7WCLAhH7VeFjXRMT87-FW3fc8Osral1XsFVSCgsL14xM5brR0rlEkNtBZwGjJxqmXF07vpR44XA38OmyDBTWFDo9QhyphenhyphenirnFt2FRNyGZ8H7Hqum_qF8whO-aYGw/s1600/Bankr.D.Del._1-15-bk-10047_47-page-001.jpg" width="247" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkuKjQNUDOjOpBIMa8ViYgKPEt7-LOu-QwcfpwRYKokaMb7YbFiq1Io8_e_d_NeKxGVFAdmEuIOnfRa2brp8a3qb9bbr9zTTwi7ZfBjuG2pk0Gm9MiPwDsFDTdzBHeSTFAbw/s1600/Bankr.D.Del._1-15-bk-10047_47-page-002.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkuKjQNUDOjOpBIMa8ViYgKPEt7-LOu-QwcfpwRYKokaMb7YbFiq1Io8_e_d_NeKxGVFAdmEuIOnfRa2brp8a3qb9bbr9zTTwi7ZfBjuG2pk0Gm9MiPwDsFDTdzBHeSTFAbw/s1600/Bankr.D.Del._1-15-bk-10047_47-page-002.jpg" width="246" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08016625780337683235noreply@blogger.comMiami, FL, USA25.7616798 -80.19179020000001425.5329123 -80.514513700000009 25.9904473 -79.869066700000019tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-83438681761639111612022-06-02T19:29:00.000-04:002022-06-23T10:14:26.048-04:00Florida Bankruptcy Exemptions<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrJw2hrqxzgT8vdrWbHa1JAeI5_P9zltXu-D7OMWrmB9v1Kb2yFnsbLxfhmtuYT3uq3cSD5amJXkLJZC3bispZlrX6MtqVC99m_lIKqQ8q6NXCSdq1YW8Zgmh4R7gfHzhf8_CQ/s1600/exempt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" height="131" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrJw2hrqxzgT8vdrWbHa1JAeI5_P9zltXu-D7OMWrmB9v1Kb2yFnsbLxfhmtuYT3uq3cSD5amJXkLJZC3bispZlrX6MtqVC99m_lIKqQ8q6NXCSdq1YW8Zgmh4R7gfHzhf8_CQ/s200/exempt.jpg" title="florida personal property exemptions bankruptcy" width="200" /></a>Persons filing for bankruptcy in Florida generally use the <a href="https://bublicklaw.com/exemptions/" target="_blank">exemptions </a> provided by Florida law in the Florida Constitution, Florida Statutes and common law. Certain further exemptions are also provided by non-bankruptcy federal law.<br />
<br />
<i>Exemption</i><br />
<br />
Certain real property, such as a homestead, and personal property are "exempt" - that is, exempt from administration by a chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee or otherwise not taken into consideration in a chapter 13 as to the amount required to be repaid to unsecured creditors.<br />
<br />
<i>Homestead</i><br />
<br />
Article X, section 4 of the Florida Constitution provides for the exemption of a Florida homestead with an unlimited value. The maximum size of the land is limited to 1/2 acre if located within a municipality and 160 if located outside of a municipality.<br />
<br />
<i>Personal property of $l,000.00 and $4,000.00 value</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: .6in;">
<br />
Each debtor may "exempt" $l,000.00 of personal property.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> A</span>nother statute also allows each debtor to “exempt” a further $4,000.00 of
personal property if he does not claim or receive the benefits of a Florida homestead
exemption. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: .6in;">
<br />
<i>Cars and other Motor Vehicles</i><br />
<br />
In addition to the above general personal
property exemption, $l,000.00 in equity, in one
car (two for a joint case) or other motor vehicle (such as a motorcycle, truck,
trailer, semi-trailer, truck tractor, semi-trailer combination, recreational
vehicle, etc.) is "exempt" from the bankruptcy estate. Often this is
not even used as many vehicles have no net value (equity) as more
is owed on them than they are worth (i.e. you are "upside
down").<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>During and after the
bankruptcy, you must, of course, continue to make any payment due for a lien on
the vehicle.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: .6in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: .6in;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: .6in;">
<i>Pension Plans, IRAs, and other Retirement Plans </i><br />
<br />
Pension plans, I.R.A.'s, and
other retirement plans are generally not part of the estate or may be exempted
from the estate (including under the exemption provided in the Bankruptcy Code
itself 522 (b)(3)(C)) .<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: .6in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: .6in;">
<i>Earned Income
Credit Refund</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><i> </i> </span><br />
<br />
An interest in an IRS
earned income credit ("EIC") whether received or yet to be received
is exempt. It also applies to funds in a bank account traceable to such EIC.
This exemption does not apply to collection for child support or spousal
support.</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1801 NE 123rd St #314, North Miami, FL 33181, USA25.8900533 -80.1619152000000125.4325468 -80.807362200000014 26.347559800000003 -79.5164682tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-10783078524517029882022-06-02T15:31:00.000-04:002022-07-14T15:31:19.394-04:00Supreme Court Grants Certiorari on Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Appeal Issue<br />
Last week, the United States Supreme Court granted the<a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/14-116-pet.pdf" target="_blank"> writ of certiori </a>in the case of <i>Bullard v. Hyde </i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i></i></div>
<i>Park Savings Bank. </i>The case presents the issue of whether an order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 plan of reorganization is a "final judgment" and therefore appealable.<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEHO39vEjIZYVKaFv72aMex_KsTewPMlsyq9JCyTGjjdDmS2g66JDqowH-ifPRTwl19sgemyCvE4I2PqysdgjmwUhJoy7hKIJyNJ2e49Zo9QuklEBtM7u2p-4kMgEwvtQucA/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="132" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEHO39vEjIZYVKaFv72aMex_KsTewPMlsyq9JCyTGjjdDmS2g66JDqowH-ifPRTwl19sgemyCvE4I2PqysdgjmwUhJoy7hKIJyNJ2e49Zo9QuklEBtM7u2p-4kMgEwvtQucA/s1600/images.jpg" width="200" /></a><br />
<h3>
Case Below - BAP and First Circuit </h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the case below, the <a href="http://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy" target="_blank">chapter 13 </a>debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order first to the First Circuit's Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) under <i>both</i> 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) [as to a "final order"] and (a)(3) [with leave of court for an interlocutory order]. The BAP agreed to hear the appeal under (a)(3) as an interlocutory appeal and upheld the Bankruptcy Court's order denying confirmation of the chapter 13 plan. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The debtor next filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit and also requested that the BAP certify the matter for a direct appeal to the First Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2). The BAP denied the motion for a direct appeal and the First Circuit issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed on the basis the BAP's order affirming the Bankruptcy Court's order was not a final order as required by 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). The Court noted that it had previously held that a BAP's order could not be a final order unless the <i>underlying</i> bankruptcy court order was a final order. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The<a href="http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/13-9009P-01A.pdf" target="_blank"> First Circuit, </a>dismissed the appeal for lack of statutory jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1) based on its holding that an order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 plan is not a final order. The First Circuit explained that the issue presented was an issue of statutory jurisdiction and <i>not</i> an Article III Constitutional issue. </div>
<div>
<br />
<br />
<h3>
Circuit Split</h3>
In its decision, the First Circuit noted that the Sixth, Second, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits previously that an order denying confirmation is not final if the bankruptcy case has not been dismissed and the debtor remains free to propose another plan. On the other hand, it noted that the Fourth, Third, and Fifth Circuit held otherwise - that such an order can be final even if the underlying bankruptcy case has not been dismissed.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<h3>
References</h3>
<div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/primjur2.pdf/$file/primjur2.pdf" target="_blank">A Primer on the Jurisdiction of the U.S. Courts of Appeals -</a> Federal Judicial Center 2009</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<a href="https://www.gmsr.com/article/Final%20Analysis%20-%20Determining%20Appealability%20of%20a%20Judgment%20or%20Order.PDF" target="_blank">Final Analysis: Determining Appealability of a Judgment or Order</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08016625780337683235noreply@blogger.comMiami, FL, USA25.7616798 -80.19179020000001425.5329123 -80.514513700000009 25.9904473 -79.869066700000019tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-11217455234164569882022-06-01T17:49:00.000-04:002022-06-23T10:10:04.425-04:00Correcting Your Credit Report:<br />
The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) provides consumers with certain rights regarding credit bureau file. The FCRA was enacted to promote the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of information in the files of a credit bureau.<br />
<br />
Credit bureaus may generally report accurate negative information on your credit report for up to seven years and bankruptcy information for up to ten years. Under the law, credit bureaus are also called "credit reporting agencies.". You may obtain a free copy of your credit report once every 12 months from each of the three major credit bureaus at <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.annualcreditreport.com">www.annualcreditreport.com</a>. <br />
<br />
A consumer has the right to dispute inaccurate or outdated information on his credit report under the FCRA. The credit bureau and the provider of the information (such as the credit card company or other lender) have the duty to correct inaccurate or outdated information. You may dispute the information on the credit report with both the credit bureau and the provider of the information. The credit bureau must generally investigate the disputed item within 30 days. When the investigation is complete, the credit bureau must give a person the written results.<div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1801 NE 123rd St, North Miami, FL 33181, USA25.8900533 -80.1619152000000125.432547300000003 -80.807362200000014 26.3475593 -79.5164682tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-80058910032751379022022-06-01T15:29:00.000-04:002022-07-14T15:29:49.708-04:00Petition for Writ of Certiorari Granted on Chapter 7 Lien Stripping Issue <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOZ7GEoD48ELkfDnPtnEEuHe7H4WDNVfWJShWzusJZV1G7M0V3gG-FJXq0Jhs7N0KE2QMBS8O8hUCfkRA1LsnT1WGMWGgn7BJcLqoehkqx3bAMEa_UoBVFKrDrJMrO_reImg/s1600/bankruptcy+lien+avoidance.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOZ7GEoD48ELkfDnPtnEEuHe7H4WDNVfWJShWzusJZV1G7M0V3gG-FJXq0Jhs7N0KE2QMBS8O8hUCfkRA1LsnT1WGMWGgn7BJcLqoehkqx3bAMEa_UoBVFKrDrJMrO_reImg/s1600/bankruptcy+lien+avoidance.jpg" height="200" width="200" /></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Most commentators suggest that the days of lien stripping in chapter 7 bankruptcy cases is soon to end. </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court granted Bank of America's </span><a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/14-____-Bank-of-America-N.A.-v.-Bello-Cert.-Petition-with-Appendi...-1.pdf" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;" target="_blank">writ of certiorari</a><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> which will allow it to address the issue of lien stripping in chapter 7 cases. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The numerous recent appellate decisions out of the 11th Circuit have been suggesting that the issue would be considered by the 11th Circuit </span><i style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">en banc</i><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> or by the Supreme Court. The 11th Circuit Courts were forced by the "prior precedent rule" to apply its </span><i style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Foledore </i><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">decision, which allowed lien stripping in </span><a href="http://bublicklaw.com/chapter-7-bankruptcy" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;" target="_blank">chapter 7.</a><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> Under the "prior precedent rule", the 11th Circuit held that the Supreme Court's landmark decision in </span><i style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Dewsnup</i><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> was not explicit enough to overrule </span><i style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Folendore. </i><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="background-color: white; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; max-width: 100%; width: 95%px;"><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<tr style="box-sizing: border-box;"><td style="box-sizing: border-box;"><h3>
<br />The Supreme Court's Docket</h3>
Docketed: August 13, 2014 No. 14-163<br />
Title: Bank of America, N.A., Petitioner v. Edelmiro Toledo-Cardona<br />
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Case Nos. (13-15855)<br />
Decision Date: May 5, 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />
<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="background-color: transparent; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; max-width: 100%; width: 100%px;"><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<tr style="box-sizing: border-box;"><td style="box-sizing: border-box;">~~~Date~~~ </td><td style="box-sizing: border-box;">~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</td></tr>
<tr style="box-sizing: border-box;"><td style="box-sizing: border-box;" valign="top">Aug 13 2014</td><td style="box-sizing: border-box;" valign="top">Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 12, 2014)</td></tr>
<tr style="box-sizing: border-box;"><td style="box-sizing: border-box;" valign="top">Aug 25 2014</td><td style="box-sizing: border-box;" valign="top">Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 14, 2014.</td></tr>
<tr style="box-sizing: border-box;"><td style="box-sizing: border-box;" valign="top">Oct 6 2014</td><td style="box-sizing: border-box;" valign="top">Brief of respondent Edelmiro Toledo-Cardona in opposition filed.</td></tr>
<tr style="box-sizing: border-box;"><td style="box-sizing: border-box;" valign="top">Oct 21 2014</td><td style="box-sizing: border-box;" valign="top">Reply of petitioner Bank of America, N.A. filed.</td></tr>
<tr style="box-sizing: border-box;"><td style="box-sizing: border-box;" valign="top">Oct 22 2014</td><td style="box-sizing: border-box;" valign="top">DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 7, 2014.</td></tr>
<tr style="box-sizing: border-box;"><td style="box-sizing: border-box;" valign="top">Nov 10 2014</td><td style="box-sizing: border-box;" valign="top">DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 14, 2014.</td></tr>
<tr style="box-sizing: border-box;"><td style="box-sizing: border-box;" valign="top"><span style="color: blue;"><b>Nov 17 2014</b></span></td><td style="box-sizing: border-box;" valign="top"><span style="color: blue;"><b>Petition GRANTED The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 13-1421 is granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08016625780337683235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-25460689753130336452022-05-25T11:58:00.000-04:002022-06-23T10:10:14.262-04:00Stop Mortgage Foreclosure with Chapter 13 Bankruptcy <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMZp4rqFnDT1f1o8ov9JTlLcOvt0MQrGyBhVWOrn-5yUgHv0Qy94_1D8TDUJRZ0W1V5hvq0ovh1R3ecdem0kfcpgH4s2tfoJJKOBuretPltSGgHev4I8xR6yTeSPAOHpcrdww3/s1600/save.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br /><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMZp4rqFnDT1f1o8ov9JTlLcOvt0MQrGyBhVWOrn-5yUgHv0Qy94_1D8TDUJRZ0W1V5hvq0ovh1R3ecdem0kfcpgH4s2tfoJJKOBuretPltSGgHev4I8xR6yTeSPAOHpcrdww3/s1600/save.jpg" title="Stop Mortgage Foreclosure under Chapter 13 Bankruptcy" /></a></div>
You can stop your mortgage foreclosure by filing a Chapter<a href="http://bublicklaw.com/" target="_blank"> 13 bankruptcy</a> under most circumstances. Chapter 13 will give you an opportunity to apply for a mortgage modification while under the protection of the Bankruptcy Court.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
A <a href="http://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy" target="_blank">Chapter 13</a> bankruptcy must be
filed <u>before</u> the foreclosure sale takes place if desire to save
your real property. Under<a href="http://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy" target="_blank"> chapter 13 </a>you are required to present a plan
of reorganization. <br />
<br />
<em>Mortgage Modification</em><br />
<br />
In <a href="http://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy" target="_blank">Chapter 13 </a> you are able to use the Bankruptcy Court's new "LMM" program - Loss Mitigation Mediation. You and the mortgage company are able to communicate over a special internet portal so documents do not get lost.<br />
<br />
<i>Wipe Out "Under-Water" Second Mortgages</i><br />
<br />
Under <a href="http://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-bankruptcy" target="_blank">Chapter 13 </a>bankruptcy, you can avoid or wipe-out your second mortgage if it is wholly "under-water." </div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comFlorida, USA27.6648274 -81.5157535-2.7824528220688229 -116.6720035 58.11210762206882 -46.3595035tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-88275014068509414442022-05-11T18:34:00.000-04:002022-06-23T10:10:27.145-04:00Mortgage Modification under the Bankruptcy Court's New "Mortgage Modification Mediation" Program<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEim2cCBKAxF-4XrsNkVxNEZ0ziiJ7mX20WTVYgkVN_ZWcQU1poUGIfxZq9DhOgquFSmmsDC947d-nV3-hILw2XmXt7sYKIi1sQ90bJfzyDAAZXIHV0N7H60GXKqNtwZsdRh_A/s1600/save+your+home.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEim2cCBKAxF-4XrsNkVxNEZ0ziiJ7mX20WTVYgkVN_ZWcQU1poUGIfxZq9DhOgquFSmmsDC947d-nV3-hILw2XmXt7sYKIi1sQ90bJfzyDAAZXIHV0N7H60GXKqNtwZsdRh_A/s1600/save+your+home.png" width="200" /></a>The Bankruptcy Courts in Florida have programs to help people get a mortgage modification and help them save their home from foreclosure as part of their <a href="https://bublicklaw.com/chapter-13-getting-your-finances-back-under-control/" target="_blank">chapter 13 bankruptcy</a> case. <br />
<br />
The program is called "Mortgage Modification Mediation" (MMM). It is available for homeowners and certain investment property owners who are seeking a modification of their mortgage and may be facing foreclosure of the mortgages on their property. As part of the MMM program, the Bankruptcy Court appoints a mediator to work with the debtor and their <a href="http://bublicklaw.com/" target="_blank">bankruptcy attorney</a> in reaching an agreement. MMM has been successful in about 80% of the cases in other parts of Florida that previously instituted the program. One advantage of this program is that it provides for better communication with the mortgage lender in the process of negotiating a mortgage modification. A mediator is appointed by the Bankruptcy Court to help the parties negotiate an agreement.</div>
<br />
As part of this process, an order is issued by the Bankruptcy Court requiring your mortgage lender to register with the internet portal and negotiate with you for a mortgage modification. The documents that are needed for the mortgage company to consider the mortgage for a modification are submitted on an internet portal for better communications. All communications between the parties is done through the MMM Portal. After the order is entered the homeowner, mortgage lender and mediator communicate and meet to mediate a modification. In the meeting, all parties must be really and able to settle all matters.<div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comFlorida, USA27.6648274 -81.5157535-2.761081081159297 -116.6720035 58.0907358811593 -46.3595035tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-86357533852603386782022-05-05T15:32:00.000-04:002022-07-14T15:32:36.681-04:00Yet Further Congressional Hearings on the Foreclosure Crisis<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0O2sTNJZ13cFocszTKdOrVaV1m8KiTnMJSg68D9-sa45FbtcvqDZENErDxdLZJX0T9uVVowAFfd9QHOQCHtopLBdccLW6mbK3AV3F6PQ7sYg6Ny5uHqZ7sG0fEauVRkpGdHb3/s1600/senator_sheldon_whitehouse.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 234px; height: 92px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0O2sTNJZ13cFocszTKdOrVaV1m8KiTnMJSg68D9-sa45FbtcvqDZENErDxdLZJX0T9uVVowAFfd9QHOQCHtopLBdccLW6mbK3AV3F6PQ7sYg6Ny5uHqZ7sG0fEauVRkpGdHb3/s400/senator_sheldon_whitehouse.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5551397172722688162" border="0" /></a>
As <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/senator-eyes-law-on-judge-ordered-mortgage-talks-2010-12-15">reported</a> in the media, the House Committee on the Judiciary held a further <a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_101215.html">hearing</a> on the mortgage foreclosure crisis on December 15, 2010. The witness list included Senator Sheldon <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Whitehouse</span> (D-RI). It is reported that Senator Whitehouse is seeking "to introduce legislation early next year that would give [Bankruptcy Court] judges comfort that they have the authority to force parties, including banks, to the table to discuss modifications."
Senator <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Whitehouse</span> <a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Whitehouse101215.pdf">noted</a> that in today's "age of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">securitization</span>, the [mortgage] <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">servicer</span> merely serves as processing agent and may not work in the interests of the people who actually own the mortgage and in the age of corporate bureaucracy, the left hand may not know what the right hand is doing." He further reviewed his efforts to give bankruptcy court judges the power to modify mortgage on principal residences just as they are able to for other loans <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">including</span> those on vacation homes, cars, and boats. He reviewed efforts in various Bankruptcy Court loan mitigation programs and some mortgage <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">servicer</span> challenges thereto. He noted his proposal to pass legislation to clarify the power of Bankruptcy Courts to run foreclosure loss mitigation programs.
<span style="font-style: italic;"></span><div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-67588897234807656512022-04-28T15:35:00.001-04:002022-07-14T15:36:09.250-04:00Israeli Insolvency Proceeding Denied Recognition as Foreign Main or Nonmain ProceedingIn 2009, the District Court of the Southern District of Texas upheld the Bankruptcy Court's decision refusing to recognize of the foreign bankruptcy pending in Israel in the case of <span style="font-style: italic;">In re <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Lavie</span>,</span> ___ B.R. ___, 2009 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">WL</span> 890387 (S.D. Tex. 2009).<br />
<br />
In 1997 involuntary bankruptcy proceedings were initiated in Israel against <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Yuval</span> Ran and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Zuriel</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Lavie</span> was appointed temporary receiver and later in 1999, the trustee of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Ran's</span> bankruptcy estate. In 1997 Ran moved to Houston, Texas. In 2006, the Israeli trustee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Lavie</span> filed a petition seeking recognition of the Israeli bankruptcy proceeding as a foreign main or foreign <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">nonmain</span> proceeding under chapter 15 of the U.S. bankruptcy code. The bankruptcy court denied <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Lavie's</span> petition and the appeal therefrom was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further findings. On remand, the bankruptcy court declined to recognize the Israeli bankruptcy proceeding as either a foreign main or foreign <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">nonmain</span> proceeding. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Lavie</span> further appealed the bankruptcy court's decision.<br />
<br />
The court reviewed that chapter 15 of the bankruptcy code was designed to optimize disposition of international insolvencies by facilitating appropriate access to the U.S. bankruptcy courts by a representative of an insolvency proceeding pending in a foreign country. Under section 304 of the bankruptcy code, which was chapter 15's predecessor, relief to foreign representatives was generally based on subjective factors and comity. In contrast, under chapter 15 the courts are given objective statutory guidelines as to whether to "recognize" the foreign proceeding.<br />
<br />
A foreign proceedings can be a main proceeding, a non-main proceeding, or a foreign proceeding that is neither main nor non-main. A foreign proceeding must be recognized as main or non-main in order to be recognized and for chapter 15 relief to be granted. A foreign main proceeding is a foreign proceeding pending in the country where the debtor has the center of its main interest ("<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">COMI</span>"). The habitual residence of an individual person is presumed to be his <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">COMI</span>, but this presumption can be rebutted. Other factors recognized by the court in <span style="font-style: italic;">In re Loy </span>were the location of the debtor's primary assets, the location of the majority of the debtor's creditors, and the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">jurisdiction</span> whose law would apply to most disputes. <span style="font-style: italic;">In re Loy</span>, 380 B.R. 154, 162 (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Bankr</span>. E.D. Va.2007). The court noted that European courts generally find that an <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">individual's</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">COMI</span> is his habitual or permanent residence. A foreign court's determination that its jurisdiction is the debtor's <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">COMI</span> does not bind a U.S. court, but chapter 15 requires the U.S. court to make an independent finding at the time of the filing of the petition for recognition rather than at the time the foreign insolvency proceedings were initiated in the foreign court.<br />
<br />
A foreign <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">nonmain</span> proceeding is a foreign proceeding, other than a foreign main proceeding, pending in a country where the debtor has an establishment 11 U.S.C. section 1502(5). An establishment is defined as "any place of operations where the debtor carries out a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">nontransitory</span> economic activity." The existence of an establishment is a factual question with no presumption in its favor. The court held that although chapter 15 does not explicitly detail the relevant time period for the determination of whether there is an "establishment, " the use of the present tense in section 1502(2) implies that the determination should be made as of the time of the filing of the petition for recognition by the foreign representative under chapter 15. <br />
<br />
The District Court upheld the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Bankruptcy</span> Court's denial of of recognition of the Israeli bankruptcy proceedings as a foreign main proceeding. The District Court also found that the pending Israeli insolvency proceeding not a foreign <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">nonmain</span> proceeding. The Court rejected the argument that the pending Israeli insolvency proceeding in and of itself was such an economic activity as to constitute an establishment necessary for a foreign <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">nonmain</span> proceeding. The Court held that the Israeli insolvency trustee's activities were as the agent of the bankruptcy estate and not as the agent of Ran.<br />
<br />
The Court noted that although the recognition was denied, this did not affect any right the foreign trustee may have to sue in the U.S. to collect on his claim.<div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11839798.post-47864668133032930322022-04-20T15:33:00.000-04:002022-07-14T15:33:25.685-04:00"Prior Panel Precedent" Rule <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy0XktgIbPQoLEm-v8UKllqt6THMewIVDq8fFFpb0eGLM3jo1-DixsXvFn_3pzk-BVqEEVnMFkw8oT_Z4QeTGiAGrd21nJ-rNToUt1T2BMGyWfDGYLcpqQOnkfhC-yIlypEQ/s1600/change+my+mind.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy0XktgIbPQoLEm-v8UKllqt6THMewIVDq8fFFpb0eGLM3jo1-DixsXvFn_3pzk-BVqEEVnMFkw8oT_Z4QeTGiAGrd21nJ-rNToUt1T2BMGyWfDGYLcpqQOnkfhC-yIlypEQ/s1600/change+my+mind.jpg" width="200" /></a><br />
<h2>
<b><span style="font-size: small;">Cannot Overrule Prior Panel </span></b></h2>
In <i>McNeal v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC</i>, 735 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2012)(wholly underwater liens still avoidable in chapter 7) the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals was presented with the issue whether it could recede from its prior decision in <i>Folendore v. Small Business Administration,</i> 862 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1989), in view of the subsequent Supreme Court decision in <i><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/502/410/" target="_blank">Dewsnup v.Timm,</a> </i>502 U.S. 410 (1992). The Court held that it was bound to follow its decision in <i>Folendore </i>based on the "prior panel precedent" rule. Under the prior precedent rule, "a panel cannot overrule a prior one's holding even though convinced it was wrong." <i>United States v. Steele, </i>147 F. 3d 1316 (11th Cir. 1998)(en banc).<br />
<h2>
<span style="font-size: small;">Clearly Contrary Opinion Required</span></h2>
This <a href="http://www2.law.mercer.edu/lawreview/getfile.cfm?file=594041.pdf" target="_blank">article</a> explains that the 11th Circuit in the case of <i>Main Drug, Inc. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, </i>Inc., 475 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2007), held that “‘[w]ithout a clearly contrary opinion of the Supreme Court or of this court sitting en banc, we cannot overrule a decision of a prior panel of this court.’” To constitute and "overruling", the Supreme Court decision "must be clearly on point." <i>Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trs.</i>, 344 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir.) and "actually abrogate or directly conflict with, as opposed to merely weaken, the holding of the prior panel." In re Provenzano, 215 F.3d 1233, 1235 (11th Cir. 2000). <br />
<br />
<h2>
<span style="font-size: small;">Applies Also to Decisions Based on State Law </span></h2>
The Court in <i>Broussard v. Souther Pac. Transp. Co,</i> 665 F.2d 1387 (5th Cir. 1982) related that "[t]his rule applies with equal force to cases in which state law provides the substantive rule of decision" and that the Court is therefore bound by this Court's prior decisions on what is the law of a state in a diversity case." <i>Provenzo</i> noted that the "prior panel precedent" rule would also not apply if there was an overruling in an intervening case by the Florida Supreme Court.<br />
<br />
<object height="150" width="150"><param name="movie" value="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=zgQKgnw2Cdw&start=46&end=63&cid=3702124" />
<embed allowfullscreen="true" height="344" src="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=zgQKgnw2Cdw&start=46&end=63&cid=3702124" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425"></embed></object><div class="blogger-post-footer">Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08016625780337683235noreply@blogger.com20801 Biscayne Blvd #423, Aventura, FL 33180, USA25.968353 -80.143618-2.3329124999999991 -121.452212 54.2696185 -38.835024000000004