CURRENT MONTH (December 2018)
Eleventh Circuit Holds That a Chapter 13 Plan That Did Not “Provide For” Mortgage Was Not Discharged
By Eric Tsai, Maurice Wutscher LLP
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a mortgage with a post-plan maturity date was not discharged in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy because the plan did not “provide for” the debt and modify the repayment terms of the mortgage. At the time she filed bankruptcy, the debtor was current on her payments for the creditor’s two mortgages on her home. The debtor’s Chapter 13 plan stated that she would make payments directly to the creditor. The plan did not set repayment terms for the creditor’s secured claims. The debtor fell behind on her payments to the creditor, and upon completion of her plan payments, the bankruptcy court entered a Chapter 13 discharge. The creditor foreclosed on the debtor’s home under the second mortgage and sought a personal judgment against the debtor on the first mortgage. The bankruptcy court and the district court both concluded that the first mortgage was not discharged.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit observed that the U.S. Supreme Court in Rake v. Wade, 508 U.S. 464 (1993) interpreted the term “provide for” more narrowly to require that the plan either stipulate to or make a provision for the debt. In the Eleventh Circuit’s view, “the mere reference to a secured creditor’s claim on a debtor’s primary residence” was insufficient to find that the claim was “provided for” by the plan and included in the discharge. The Eleventh Circuit also held that the debt was not discharged because discharge would violate 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2)’s anti-modification provision for mortgages secured by the debtor’s principal residence. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the orders of the bankruptcy court and the district court. This ruling clarifies the rights and obligations of secured creditors and borrowers with respect to a mortgage after a Chapter 13 discharge.
FCC Establishes a Single Reassigned Numbers Database with a TCPA Safe Harbor
By Jennifer Majewski, Pilgrim Christakis
On December 12, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a new rule to establish a single reassigned numbers database. Phone service providers will be required to report permanent disconnections on the 15th of each month and will not be able to reassign a number for 45 days after disconnection. Callers will be able to check the database to determine if a phone number has been disconnected since they last spoke with a consumer. Importantly, the rule establishes a safe harbor from TCPA liability for callers who can demonstrate that they checked the most recent update of the database and it erroneously reported that a number had not been disconnected. However, the database will not be active until the FCC locates an administrator, which could take more than a year.