Case Updates

Mortgage lender and loan servicer were sued under FDCPA based on a "loss mitigation letter" which set a deadline for borrower to execute short sale papers. The foreclosure sale was conducted before the deadline expired. Court held there was no FDCPA violation because loan servicer was not a "debt collector" and had not engaged in debt collection activity. Read more

After the US Supreme Court reversed and remanded four companion cases where the 7th Circuit erroneously determined the City of Chicago violated the automatic stay for refusing to release impounded vehicles until the owners paid associated traffic fines, the 7th Circuit remanded two of the cases to the bankruptcy court to determine if there were other stay violations. Read more

Creditor who received informal bankruptcy notice was not liable for contempt of discharge injunction but was liable for willfully violating automatic stay. Read more

The three-year limitations period for an assessment of tax liability set forth in Internal Revenue Code section 6501(a) begins to run from the date the “return” is filed. Read more

In Moon v. Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs., LLC (In re Moon), 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 299 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2021) (unpublished) (“Moon”), the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (“BAP”) ruled that a creditor was not liable for civil contempt of a chapter 13 plan confirmation order that was entered without prior notice to the creditor. Read more

In Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. Moon (In re Moon), 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 27 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2021) (unpublished), the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (“BAP”) ruled that attorney’s fees and costs are recoverable under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1) even if the debtor is not personally liable for their payment and has not signed a fee agreement. Read more

Bailey v. Citibank, N.A. (2021) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2021 WL 2801633: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment quieting title in favor of plaintiff, and its later order granting defendant's motion for relief from default and default judgment. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred in setting aside the default and judgment under the mandatory relief provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473. Because defendant's default was entered on November 14, 2018, but defendant's attorney, Jeremy Katz, was not referred or assigned to act as attorney on this case until January 10, 2019, attorney error could not possibly have caused the default in this case and mandatory relief was unavailable under the reasoning of Cisneros v. Vueve (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 906, 908, 910–912 (Cisneros) as a matter of law. Read more

Since the start of the COVID-19 health crisis, we have been approached by both landlord and tenant clients asking how COVID affects their leasehold obligations. While we have generally encouraged our clients to approach these matters in an honest and amicable manner with a focus on resolution, disputes have arisen between owners and occupiers. Legal resolution does not come quickly, as the legal process tends to delay final adjudication for several years. Some decisions have been rendered in interim proceedings (such as bankruptcies), but on the whole, there simply has not been enough time for COVID-related disputes to proceed through both the trial and appellate levels and provide guidance on how these lawsuits will be resolved. Read more

The California Court of Appeals for the Fifth Appellate District recently reversed a trial court’s decision under the California Code of Civil Procedure section 473 to set aside a default and a judgment quieting title. However, the Court also held that the judgment quieting title was erroneous as a matter of law. Read more

Peer review hearing officer is not automatically disqualified by the prospect of future engagements at the same hospital. Read more