In 2011 a client came to me to help save her home from foreclosure. This client has limited income and was struggling to survive. A chapter 13 bankruptcy reorganization was filed, which immediately stopped the pending foreclosure.
The reorganization plan proposed for the debtor to make mortgage payments at a reduced rate of $600 while the debtor worked with the lender on a home loan modification.
For 12 months the debtor did what she was supposed. She made all her payments and the mortgage lender did not object. Then the bankruptcy trustee filed a motion to dismiss the case because, she alleged, that it was unfair to the lender that they were not being paid their past due payments.
The bankruptcy judge heard arguments on this matter in the summer of 2012 and in January 2013 ruled on the matter.
The judge was not convinced by the trustee’s arguments and in a 6 page written decision denied the trustee’s motion.
For the debtor this means she can continue to live in her home while under the protection of the bankruptcy court.
Chapter 7 bankruptcy
Jan 01, 2012
Recent bankruptcy client with a common situation: Client lost his job for while, during that time bills piled up, credit card payments increased, medical bills were unable to be paid.
Eventually client found a job and was making a good living again. However, he was still overwhelmed by all his past debts.
Through bankruptcy he was able to discharge his debts and get a fresh financial start.
In re Sarno
Bankruptcy and debt
Jan 01, 2011
Time of Filing
When is a home valued for purposes of lien stripping?
Second mortgage lender not allowed to have insurance money after house fire.
Chapter 13 bankruptcy
Jan 01, 2010
Debtors got to rebuild their home!
A couple struggling to keep up with the bills and provide for their family filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy.
The couple put together a reorganization plan with the Court that eliminated their second mortgage forever. The judge approved this plan.
Two years later the couple’s house burns down. Thankfully no one was injured but the fire was a total loss leaving the couple and their children without a home.
The couple had home insurance which was to rebuild the house. However, the second mortgage lender, despite the plan approved by the judge, filed a motion with the court stating that the couple should not get the insurance money, but rather, the bank should get the money and the couple should be “left with a pile of dirt.”
Of course the couple wanted a home and not a “pile of dirt.”
After a hearing, the judge order the bank to release funds that they were holding and the family got their home back.
This was a great win for the family.
We were not going to let a bank take advantage of a family who had been through so much.