Consumer Bankruptcy

Chapter 13 practice is complicated, and the days when a debtor’s 13 plan was quickly confirmed are few and far between. In addition to proposing confirmable chapter 13 plans, debtors’ attorneys (and in some cases chapter 13 trustees) are litigating defective mortgage claims and contentious objections to confirmation. How can debtors’ counsel ensure that they are compensated for these complicated cases that not only sit on the bankruptcy court’s docket, but often end up on appeal?

Parties can view social media as a treasure-trove of information: Does a debtor discuss assets on Facebook that are not found on the schedules? Do parties make statements in their online posts that conflict with legal positions they are taking in bankruptcy court? Does the ethical duty of a reasonable investigation encompass an obligation to investigate a client’s social media activity? This panel of experts will review the ethical obligations of investigating social media websites of clients and parties, and what may — and in some cases, must — be done to remain zealous advocates.

This panel will consider the myriad issues involving exemptions and property of the estate, including timing issues involving exemptions (In re Hageman, 388 B.R. 896 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2008)), dollar-value exemptions (In re Gebhart, 621 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2010)), limitations on the extraterritorial effect of exemptions (In re Long, 470 B.R. 186 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2012)), non-spousal inherited IRAs (In re Clark, 714 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2013)), tax refunds, limited liability company membership interests and § 522(b)(3).

This panel will review contemporary decisions interpreting Dewsnup v. Timm and Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, such as the Wachovia Mortg. v. Smoot, 478 B.R. 555 (E.D.N.Y. 2012), which precludes lien-stripping. The discussion will also focus on §§ 1123(b)(5) and 1322(b)(2), including conflicting decisions involving the date that is relevant for deciding whether a particular property functions as the debtor’s principal residence (see In re Proctor, 494 B.R. 833 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2013)).