Canning v. Beneficial Maine, Inc. (In re Canning), ___ F.3d ___(1st Cir. Feb. 1, 2013).
The refusal by the Chapter 7
debtors’ mortgage creditor to accede to the debtors’ demand that the creditor
either foreclose the mortgage on their residence, which the debtors had surrendered
and vacated, or release its lien on the property did not violate the discharge
injunction. Distinguishing In re Pratt, 462 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2006), in which the court held that a secured creditor's refusal to
foreclose or release its lien on an inoperable, worthless car was intended to
objectively coerce the debtor into paying a discharged debt, the court observed
that the creditor offered to release its lien through either a settlement offer
or a short sale, which indicated the intent to collect no more than the value
secured by the underlying lien, as well as a willingness to negotiate a palatable
solution for all involved.
Click here for the full opinion from the court's web site: Click here: USCA1 Opinion
Click here for the full opinion from the court's web site: Click here: USCA1 Opinion
No comments:
Post a Comment