CH 13 SL ruling-Lender Screwed Up!

[dingdong]

I found this case while doing my leisurely reading of BK case law, because, yes, I am a BK nerd!

Interesting, what I get out of it is a SL lender was a creditor in a CH13 plan, which was included in the plan. The loan was paid off for less($13,250) in the plan than the balance owed originally,the lender was provided notice that the confirmed plan was less than the POC (17,832.00). The lender did not file an opposition to the Trustees notice within 30 days as required. Three years later they tried to come after the debtor for the difference.

Court ruled sorry,the difference was discharged, you were provided legal notice and did not act. If you want to do anything, move to have the judgement vacated and prove you didn't get sufficient notice.

You will have to scroll down a bit to read it.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/bankruptcyprof_blog/9th_circuit_briefs/

[justbroke]

I have found several other cases, dating back years, which effectively say the same thing. That although 11 USC 1322 prevents modification of the rights of a secured creditor... the Plan is in fact new terms, and that the only rebuttal for modification is that the Creditor in fact filed an opposition to confirmation of the Plan.

Good Stuff!