Finding Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. July 10, 2014) “particularly persuasive” on an issue on which debtors have had difficulty getting traction, the district court held that a creditor’s filing a proof of claim for a time-barred debt in a bankruptcy case may violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and that the Bankruptcy Code did not preclude the application of the Act to time-barred proofs of claim. Patrick v. Pyod, LLC, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2014 WL 4100414 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 20, 2014) (case no. 1:14-cv-539).

Two recent Court of Appeals decisions took different approaches in determining whether a debtor’s nonpayment of a tax liability was “willful” for the purpose of Code § 523(a)(1)(C), which renders a tax debt nondischargeable if the debtor “willfully attempted in any manner to evade or defeat such tax.” The Tenth Circuit, in In re Vaughn, — F.3d —-, 2014 WL 4197347 (10th Cir. Aug. 26, 2014) (case no. 13-1189), held that the debtor’s depletion of funds that could have been used to pay a substantial pending tax delinquency demonstrated the mental state element of the provision. In Hawkins v. Franchise Tax Bd. of California, — F.3d —-, 2014 WL 4494845 (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2014) (case no. 11-16276), however, the Ninth Circuit concluded that a…

Yes. Affirming In re Salas, 2014 WL 92728 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2014), the district court held that the Chapter 13 debtor, in calculating her projected disposable income, could deduct a first mortgage payment that she was not actually making, where the debtor retained the property and sought to work out a mortgage modification with the creditor. Neidich v. Salas, Case No. 1:14-cv-21236 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2014), appeal filed, In re Salas, Case No. 14-13768 (11th Cir. filed Aug. 22, 2014).

The Chapter 7 debtors’ case would be dismissed for cause under Code § 707(a) where the debtors derived a significant portion of their household income from the cultivation and sale of marijuana under a license granted by the state of Colorado following the legalization of marijuana in that state, and the marijuana plants, which the debtors valued at $250 each, could not be administered by the Chapter 7 trustee without involving both the trustee and the bankruptcy court in a violation of federal law. The court also held that the debtors could not convert to Chapter 13 because their plan would be funded by unlawful means. In re Arenas, — B.R. —-, 2014 WL 4288991 (Bankr. D. Colo. Aug. 28, 2014), appeal filed, Case No….

Yes. Affirming In re Seare, 493 B.R. 158 (Bankr. D. Nev. April 9, 2013), the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning an attorney who, in representing a married couple that filed a Chapter 7 petition, entered into a retainer agreement with the debtors that excluded representation in adversary proceedings, when, had the attorney conducted an adequate initial consultation, he would have known that the filing of a fraud-based nondischargeability complaint against the debtor husband was a near certainty. The bankruptcy court concluded that the attorney’s decision to unbundle his services was unreasonable and violated the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, and the court (1) ordered disgorgement of all fees received in the case and…

As reported by Robin Miller of CBAR, a Chapter 13 plan confirmation does not preclude IRS offset against debtor’s tax overpayment. The nonbankruptcy right to setoff continues even after confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan. See In re Rivera, 345 B.R. 229 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2005). Similarly, the IRS’s procedures under 26 U.S.C. § 6402(a) for determining the amount of a debtor’s tax refund are not precluded by confirmation of the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan, even if the debtor’s plan provides for payment of the debtor’s tax debt. A plan cannot force payment of a refund unauthorized by tax law to the debtor while taxes are unpaid. In re Pugh, 510 B.R. 862 (Bankr. E.D. Wis., May 27, 2014)

Yes! As reported by Robin Miller of CBAR, affirming  In re Al-Riyami, 2014 WL 2800815 (Bankr. M.D. Ala., Jan. 6, 2014), the district court found no error in the bankruptcy court’s determination under Code § 523(a)(8) that requiring the debtor to repay her student loans would cause her undue hardship, even though, under an income-based repayment program offered the U.S. government, a repayment plan would “allow for an adjusted payment amount” as low as $0.00 per month. Debtor’s lack of income was likely to persist into foreseeable future: The bankruptcy court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous, and those facts supported its legal conclusion that the debtor satisfied the second Brunner element, namely, that the debtor’s “current circumstances are likely to persist into the foreseeable future,” although…