Is There A Requirement In Your Circuit To Reaffirm A Mortgage?

[debee]

Other back door ride-throughs (for various reasons):

In re Chim 381 BR 191 (Bankr D Md, 2008); 4th circuit
In re Moustafi 371 Br 434 (Bankr D Az 2007); 9th circuit
In re Stevens 365 Br 610 (Bankr Ed Va 2007); 4th circuit
In re Husain 264 BR 211 (Bankr Ed Va 2007); 4th circuit
In re Riggs 2006 WL 2990218 (Bankr WD Mo 2006); 8th circuit
In re Baker, 390 B.F. 524 (Bankr. D. Del 2008); 3rd circuit
In re Rowe, 342 B.R. 341 (Bankr. Kan., 2006); 10th circuit
In re Quintero, (Bankr N.D. CA. 2006); 9th circuit

(In the case of Rowe, the ride-through was an option because of provisions in Kansas state law, not because of the bankruptcy court's interpretation of the code post-BAPCPA.)

edit to add: referenced a case in my last post but couldn't read handwriting. It was In re: Waller 394 BR 111, 114(Bankr D SC 2008).

To make finding them easier, the other cases were:
In re: Bennett No. 006-80241, 2006 WL 154082, (Bankr MD NC 2006);
In re: Wilson 372 BR 816, 820 (Bankr D SC 2007);
In re: Caraballo 386 BR 398, 401 (Bankr D. Conn 2008).

Other courts that have considered the real vs. personal property issue, although indirectly, and that have acknowledged that ride-through may exist for real property:

In re Schmidt 397 BR 481, 486 (Bankr. WD Mo 2008) & In re Jones 397 BR 775, 787-88(Bankr SD W Va 2008)

[justbroke]

TA-DA! backdoor ride through (even for places that require reaffirmation agreements) =)

This was because there was an actual reaffirmation agreement signed, but the attorney wouldn't sign it. Of course this is a fact-specific case, but we are looking for cases in which you can do an actual ride-through.

The back-door ride-through in this case is dangerous if you ask me. If the "reaffirmation" was actually approved, the debtor would have signed back up for the debt without the power of the discharge.

I don't recommend this tactic.