Several circuits (not certain if yours was one of them) have upheld that lenders cannot declare a breach in the event of a court-denied reaffirmation agreement where the reaffirmation was agreed to and executed by both parties and struck down through no fault of the debtor. The debtor is considered to have met the performance requirements in the bankruptcy code and can therefore, for all intents and purposes, "ride through," so long as payments continue and the bank does not have cause to act on the lien. As I think you may have been alluding to, there is a growing school of thought where people are executing their reaffirmations with their lenders then going to their reaffirmation hearings and basically asking the judge (in not so many words) to deny it.
That aside, lenders seem to be choosing their battles more carefully nowadays. If they're getting their money every month, they're better off not owning another repo vehicle, especially when the debtor no longer has any obligation to the loan.
That aside, lenders seem to be choosing their battles more carefully nowadays. If they're getting their money every month, they're better off not owning another repo vehicle, especially when the debtor no longer has any obligation to the loan.
Comment