Consumer Bankruptcy

By: Lauren Michalski

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Law Review Staff

In In re Dunbar, the United States District Court for the District of Montana held that a creditor was not substantially justified in objecting to the debtor’s discharge where the creditor could not demonstrate that the debtor had acted in bad faith by incurring the debt in the first instance. Dunbar, the debtor, obtained a $9,000 cash advance against a credit card issued by FIA, which he used to pay off other credit card debt.[1] Later that year, Dunbar filed a Chapter 7 petition, and sought to discharge more than $43,000 in credit card debt, including the debt owed to FIA.[2]  FIA objected to the discharge of Dunbar’s debt pursuant to section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, arguing Dunbar had procured the loan under false pretenses because he never intended to repay FIA.[3] Dunbar counterclaimed for attorney’s fees and costs under section 523(d), claiming that FIA’s position was not substantially justified.[4] FIA’s complaint was dismissed and the court awarded Dunbar $5,595 in attorney’s fees and costs.[5] FIA appealed, alleging that it should not be forced to pay Dunbar’s attorney’s fees because (i) its position was substantially justified, and (ii) special circumstances existed that should bar the award. In the alternative, FIA argued that Dunbar had failed to mitigate his costs and therefore any attorney fee award should be reduced as a result.[6] The District Court disagreed with FIA and affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling.[7]

By:  Lisa Fresolone

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

A law firm did not qualify for protection under the attorney “safe harbor” provisions of the Kansas Credit Services Organization Act (the “KCSOA”) in In re Kinderknecht, because none of the firm’s attorneys were licensed to practice in Kansas, and they were not acting in the course and scope of practicing law.[1]  In February 2009, Levi Kinderknecht (the “Debtor”), enrolled in a debt settlement program offered by the defendant, Persels & Associates, LLC (the “Law Firm”).[2]  The Law Firm assigned the case to a “field attorney,” Stan Goodwin (“Goodwin”),[3] who was an independent contractor working for the Law Firm.[4]  Goodwin called the Debtor for a “welcome call”[5] and did not speak to him again until he was sued by one of his creditors—five months later.[6]  At that time, the Debtor contacted Goodwin who advised him that he could represent himself pro se and prepared form pleadings for him.[7]  Goodwin told the Debtor that he would try to persuade the creditor to drop its lawsuit, but he never contacted the creditor.[8]  The Debtor filed for bankruptcy, and the trustee brought a lawsuit against both the Law Firm and Goodwin[9] alleging various violations of the KSCOA and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (“KCPA”), as well as several common law claims.[10]

By: Robert Garafola

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

In Jendusa-Nicolai v. Larsen, the Seventh Circuit held that section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code prevented the debtor, David Larsen, from discharging his debt from a civil judgment stemming from the attempted murder of his former wife, Teri Jendusa-Nicolai.[1] Larsen savagely beat Jendusa-Nicolai with a baseball bat, sealed her in a snow-filled trash can, and left her to die in a storage facility.[2] Jendusa-Nicolai miraculously survived, but she lost all of her toes to frostbite and suffered a miscarriage.[3]  Larsen was sentenced to life imprisonment for his crimes and lost a civil action to Jendusa-Nicolai and her family, who were awarded a judgment in excess of $3.4 million.[4] Larsen attempted to discharge the debt from the judgment by filing for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. Larsen argued that his debt should be discharged because he did not willfully injure his ex-wife within the meaning of section 523(a)(6) since he did not specifically intend to cause his ex-wife to lose her unborn child and toes.[5]  However, the court found that the statute did not require that the debtor intend to cause specific injuries and that a broader analysis of the debtor’s intended results is proper.[6]

By: Michael J. Casaceli

St. John’s University Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

Joining a majority of courts, the New Jersey District Court, in Cook v. IndyMac Bank,[1] held that the debtor, Cook, could not use section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) to “strip off” a wholly unsecured junior lien.[2]  Cook’s home was encumbered by a first and second mortgage.  Cook sought to strip off the second mortgage pursuant to section 506(d),[3] because the first mortgage exceeded the appraised value of the home.[4]  The court denied Cook’s attempted “strip off” because it would grant a windfall to debtors whose property unexpectedly sells for more than its appraised value.[5]  The court found that the only way to “strip off” a second mortgage is to contest its status as an allowed claim under section 502 of the Bankruptcy Code.[6]

By: Patrick McBurney

St. John's Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

            Affirming the decision of the bankruptcy court, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit in Pawtucket Credit Union v. Picchi (In re Picchi),[1] held that a debtor was allowed to modify a creditor’s secured mortgage in a multi-family dwelling because a multi-family house does not fall within section 101(13A)’s definition of a debtor’s principal residence.[2] Pawtucket, the secured creditor, held a second mortgage on the debtor’s two-family home.[3] The debtor, Picchi, resided in one of the units, and rented out the second unit.[4] Picchi’s chapter 13 plan reduced Pawtucket’s secured claim to zero because the appraised value of the property was insufficient to satisfy the secured claim of Picchi’s senior lender.[5] The bankruptcy court determined that Pawtucket’s claim could be modified by Picchi and approved the plan.[6]