Articles Posted in Debt

Published on:

7th Circuit Court SealTrentadue v. Gay, No. 15-3142 (7th Cir. 2016)

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

In May 2013 a Wisconsin Court determined that Trentadue committed “significant over‐trial” and ordered that he contribute $25,000 toward his ex‐wife’s Attorneys’ fees. In support of its finding the Court noted that “Trentadue’s desire to ‘win’ resulted in additional legal fees for his ex‐wife” and directed Trentadue to make payments directly to his ex‐wife’s lawyer. Trentadue appealed the ruling to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Trial Court, and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied a further appeal.

Published on:

BK Ct. ND IL EDIn re: William W. Yotis III, Chapter 13 Debtor
ND IL ED 2016, Bankruptcy No. 14-bk-02689

Anthony C. Gasunas, Plaintiff v.
William W. Yotis III, Defendant
ND IL ED 2016, Adversary No. 14-ap-00321

Decision: March 28, 2016 Judge: Schmetterer

This Adversary case filed in a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy relates to promissory note fraud between the debtor and creditor. It was tried before Judge Schmetterer. Plaintiff/Creditor Anthony C. Gasunas (“Gasunas”) filed the Complaint to determine dischargeability of the debt owed to him by Debtor/Defendant William W. Yotis, III (“Yotis”). Specifically, the Complaint alleged that Yotis made knowing and fraudulent misrepresentations to borrow money from Gasunas and that the judgment obtained in State Court was not subject to a dischargeable in accordance with §523(a)(2)(A) and (B), as well as §523(a)(4).

Facts

Shortly after Yotis and Gasunas met, Yotis disclosed that he had lost his license to practice law. But Yotis also did not disclose that he had been criminally indicted for forgery and charged in a civil suit filed by the Illinois AG with consumer fraud and deceptive business practices. Nord did Yotis tell Gasunas about any allegations of fraud and related misconduct prior to or after he obtained a series of loans from Gasunas. From 2009 to 2010 Yotis solicited loans from Gasunas totaling $52,345 and gave him a Promissory Note in return. When Yotis failed to pay him back, Gasunas filed suit in State Court and secured a judgment for $52,345 plus costs (the “Judgment”). During this period Gasunas and Yotis were friends – having been introduced through Yotis’ wife – Cavallo – and for that reason the Judgment was extended. Prior to meeting Yotis, Gasunas learned from Cavallo that Yotis was a disbarred Attorney, but had gotten his life back together as a salesman for a remodeling company. Cavallo also told Gasunas that Yotis had been incarcerated on what she said were false charges. Eventually, Yotis and Gasunas met and became friendly.

Yotis acknowledged signing a Promissory Note but denied making any misrepresentations and argued instead that any reliance by Gasunas on his alleged representations would not have been justifiable – a prerequisite for such a claim of nondischargeability. In fact, Yotis claimed that Gasunas knew the terms and debt recited in the Promissory Note were false when he signed it.

Following a trial the Court concluded that there had been a series of misrepresentations by Yotis in obtaining loans from Gasunas and that reliance on those misrepresentations was justifiable. Accordingly, Judgment was entered in favor of Gasunas on Count I under § 523(a)(2)(A); but on Count II found in favor of Yotis.
Continue reading

Published on:

7th Circuit Court Seal

Jepson v. Bank of New York Mellon
Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit  Docket No. 14-2459

Opinion Date: March 22, 2016

This case is a testament to the subprime crisis and illustrates how complex and devastating mortgage securitization and pooling was to ordinary homeowners; middle-class people faced with sudden and insurmountable mortgage debt. Sadly, this decision also illustrates just how hard it is to stand up to the holders of pooled mortgage loans.

The underlying facts of the case are so common that the Plaintiff could have been anyone; while the tortuous path of the case up to the 7th Circuit – years after the underlying foreclosure and bankruptcy – left this Plaintiff financially devastated.

Factual Background

Patricia Jepson (Jepson) executed a Note and Mortgage issued by “America’s Wholesale Lender” – a d/b/a of notorious subprime mortgagee Countrywide – and Mortgage Electronics Registration Systems (MERS), its nominee. The Note was endorsed by Countrywide d/b/a America’s Wholesale Lender and transferred to CWABS, a residential mortgage trust operating under New York law that pooled loans and sells mortgage-backed securities sold on Wall Street. CWABS is governed by a Pooling and Service Agreement (PSA). Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM) was the Trustee for CWABS. MERS therefore assigned Jepson’s mortgage to BNYM.

When Jepson eventually defaulted on her mortgage – a common scenario in such subprime traps – BNYM filed a Foreclosure complaint in State Court. Jepson inturn filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. BNYM predictably moved to lift the Automatic Stay. But instead of lying down and letting the Bank proceed, Jepson filed an Adversary Complaint and Objection seeking a declaration that BNYM had no interest in her mortgage because, inter alia, the note did not proceed through a complete chain of intervening endorsements; was endorsed after the closing date in the PSA; and that America Wholesale Lender was a fictitious entity rendering the Note was void under Illinois law. Continue reading

Published on:

7th Circuit Court Seal

In re: Great Lakes Quick Lube, LP
7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals
No. 15-2093 Decided Mar. 11, 2016

In this case the value of unexpired commercial leases was put to the test. When a popular auto-repair/oil-change franchise went into Chapter 11, its unsecured creditors sought to recoup the value of 2 unexpired leases it relinquished just before filing. The 7th Circuit analyzed the issue under 2 provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and ultimately decided that the terminated leases were an asset of the Estate and that letting them go was tantamount to an improper pre-filing transfer.

Factual Background

Great Lakes Quick Lube LP (Great Lakes) owned oil change and automotive repair stores throughout the Midwest. Its business model included selling stores to shareholders and leasing them back. One such arrangement was made with T.D. Investments I, LLP (TDI), which leased 2 stores to Great Lakes. But in 2012, under mounting financial pressure, Great Lakes terminated its TDI leases.

Adversary Case in Bankruptcy

Ultimately, Great Lakes sought Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection less than 60 days after terminating the TDI leases. The Estate’s Unsecured Creditors’ Committee filed an Adversary action contending that those lease terminations amounted to either a preferential or fraudulent transfer by Great Lakes to TDI, and that the value of those leases should be disgorged to the Bankruptcy Estate. The Bankruptcy Court denied relief to the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee because, in its analysis, termination of the TDI leases was not a “transfer” at all – much less a preferential or fraudulent transfer.

Continue reading

Published on:

seal of the supreme court

BoA v. Caulkett, 13–1421 (Jun 1) Supreme Court of the United States

Background

This case came to the Supreme Court due to a Circuit split on the issue of “Lien Stripping.” In this pair of cases the Debtors both filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy cases, owned houses encumbered with senior mortgages and “underwater” junior mortgages held by the Petitioner banks. Because the amount owed on each senior mortgage was greater than each house’s current market value, the Banks would have received nothing if they foreclosed on the junior liens (i.e. underwater).

Debtors sought to void their junior mortgage liens under the terms of Bankruptcy Code §506, which provides that “To the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void.” 11 USC §506(d). In each case, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtor’s respective motions, and both the District Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Continue reading

Published on:

Dual Tracking is the industry name for the practice of letting a foreclosure case tick on even while the homeowner seeks to modify their mortgage loan. The idea is simple: the Bank will take whichever solution comes through first – a modification or a foreclosure. The problem is that the Bank holds all the cards: the Bank’s Loss Mitigation Department decides how long it takes to review and approve an application to modify your loan, while the Foreclosure process in Court has been greatly simplified and streamlined for the benefit of the Banks. Illinois mortgage foreclosure laws, even Illinois Supreme Court Rules, now permit foreclosing banks to roll over homeowners and get to a judgment.

Continue reading

Published on:

If you live in Illinois you know that the Economy has been sputtering: struggling valiantly but with little to show for it. Case in point: Is your home still underwater? For most people the answer is still yes – even as markets around the country rebound. So today we address a deceptively simple question: What is a mortgage and how does it work? Why don’t mortgages relate to the value of our homes? Here are a few things to consider: a mortgage is a loan secured by real estate. While the term “mortgage” is used colloquially to refer to both the loan and the security, there are actually 2 separate legal documents at work here: a Note and a security instrument – the Mortgage lien.

Note: When money is borrowed to purchase real estate, some States title the underlying property in the name of the Lender and permit that interest to hypothetically transfer over time to the Borrower. The arrangement is a bit like lay-a-way. These States are using the “Title Theory.” But Illinois, like many other States, places the underling property in the name of the homeowner and gives the Lender a lien on the owner’s interest – these States are using the “Lien Theory.”

Continue reading

Published on:

Today’s post features a pair of cases in which a foreclosure defense Attorney seems to have gone too far. Foreclosure defense has become a veritable cottage industry over the past decade and it is common for Clients to expect their lawyer to do more than fight. They want to delay “by any means necessary.” But the Courts still regard the law as a genteel profession. This means that what Clients see as run of the mill zealous lawyering comes off to the Judge as unprofessional or worse. This pair of cases highlights that point.

Case #1: In re Wendy A. Nora

Facts

Published on:

For Debtors, Chapter 7 Liquidation is the ultimate relief, while Chapter 13 and 11 Reorganization offers an opportunity to reduce their Debtor’s payments in light of their income. In either type of case however, the Creditor is not entitled to anything until it has filed is Proof of Claim.

What Is a Proof of Claim?

The Proof of Claim or “PoC” is the means by which Creditors state:

Published on:

Gasunas vs. Yotis, 14-321 (Nov.24) ND IL ED (J. Schmetterer)

The Facts

Yotis, a former Illinois Attorney, borrowed over $50,000 from his Client Gasunas using various tricks and subterfuge: from outright lies to misrepresentations and material omissions of fact designed to manipulate his “friend” and benefactor. Once he had the money, Yotis filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.