TRUTH IN LENDING: : If a consumer feels that the information in her credit file (i.e., information held by the credit reporting agency, but not necessarily sent to inquiring lenders or other agencies) is inaccurate, her ultimate remedy is to file a lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1681–1681x. To succeed in such a lawsuit, however, the Plaintiff will need to compile evidence. For example, the courts have held that “to state a claim under § 1681i [incorrect information in credit file], the plaintiff must show that the agency’s report contained factually inaccurate information, and that damages followed as a result.” Collins v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 775 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir. 2015) (“A `consumer report’ requires communication to a third party, while a `file’ does not.”); cited in Losch v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 995 F.3d 937, 944 (Ninth Circuit, 2021). [Quotations reproduced as commentary.]
TRUTH IN LENDING: If a consumer feels that the information in her credit report (i.e., information actually sent to inquiring lenders or other agencies) is inaccurate, her ultimate remedy is to file a lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1681–1681x. To succeed in such a lawsuit, however, the Plaintiff will need to compile evidence. For example, the courts have held that “to state a claim under § 1681e [inaccurate report], the plaintiff must show that the agency’s report contained factually inaccurate information, that the procedures it took in preparing and distributing the report weren’t “reasonable,” and that damages followed as a result.” Cahlin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151, 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 1991); Nagle v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 297 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2002). [Quotations reproduced as commentary.]
BANKRUPTCY LAW (Expansiveness of Automatic Stay): Automatic stay of 11 USC Sec. 362 applies to bar actions against debtor and against the bankruptcy estate. This automatic stay protects the debtor, as well as the assets of the estate, and creditors. Actions that are barred include religious actions, such as a Jewish tribunal set up as a cross-complaint against the debtor, filed in an adversary action. The synagogue could not pursue its religious action against the debtor as long as the stay was in place.
In re Congregation of Birchos Yosef, 535 BR 629 (2015); Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York
Photo Credit: Beth Din of Benghazi, 1930,
Whether a non-judicial foreclosure sale, carried out under State law in the 90 days to 1 year before bankruptcy, will be considered a “preferential transfer,” and therefore invalid, will depend upon many factors. The court must hear evidence regarding whether or not the foreclosing creditor received more in the pre-bankruptcy foreclosure sale than it would have received through the bankruptcy. The court cannot say, as a matter of law, that such creditors always receive more in a pre-bankruptcy non-judicial foreclosure than they would have received in the bankruptcy. Therefore, whether a particular sale is barred as a preferential transfer will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
In re: Buckskin Realty Inc., Case No. 1-13-40083-nhl, Adv. Pro. No.: 15-01004-nhl
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York filed March 26, 2021, interpreting 11 USC Sec. 547 and BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531 (1994).
There is no lien stripping (particularly of undersecured or unsecured junior mortgages) in Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
In re Leonidas, Case No. 6:17-bk-19739;(Memorandum Opinion), filed 6/19/2019
BANKRUPTCY LAW (Preferential Transfer): The bankruptcy court abhors, and will seek to undo, what it considers a preferential transfer.
A debtor who paid off serial overdrafts to his bank within 90 days of filing bankruptcy made preferential transfers. The court reasoned that the bank already had the deposits, and was effectively receiving extra money, that it would have been barred from receiving HAD the bankruptcy already been filed. The trustee was entitled to receive reimbursement for the amount of the overdraft payments.
In re Agriprocessors, Inc., 859 F.3d 599, 8th Circuit 2017