<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>#Reaffirmation #Retain and Pay #11 USC 521 Archives | Amann Burnett Law</title>
	<atom:link href="https://amburlaw.com/tag/reaffirmation-retain-and-pay-11-usc-521/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link></link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jun 2023 15:39:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Reaffirming vs. &#8220;Retain and Continue to Pay&#8221;</title>
		<link>https://amburlaw.com/reaffirming-vs-retain-and-continue-to-pay/</link>
					<comments>https://amburlaw.com/reaffirming-vs-retain-and-continue-to-pay/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jun 2023 15:39:35 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[#Reaffirmation #Retain and Pay #11 USC 521]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amburlaw.com/?p=745</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Remember the Donnell case from New Hampshire (previous post)?  Heree it is&#8211;  In re Donnell (cannot compel surrender under 521) … <span class="read-more"><a href="https://amburlaw.com/reaffirming-vs-retain-and-continue-to-pay/">Read More &#187;</a></span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://amburlaw.com/reaffirming-vs-retain-and-continue-to-pay/">Reaffirming vs. &#8220;Retain and Continue to Pay&#8221;</a> appeared first on <a href="https://amburlaw.com">Amann Burnett Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Remember the Donnell case from New Hampshire (previous post)?  Heree it is&#8211;  <a href="https://amburlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/In-re-Donnell-cannot-compel-surrender-under-521-1.docx">In re Donnell (cannot compel surrender under 521)</a>  Judge Deasy said that relief from stay is the appropriate remedy over a motion to compel the debtor to surrender the property as stated on his Statement of Intention since the court had no authority to make such an order.</p>
<p>This is an interesting MA Appeals Court case (not published in NE Reporter) that piggybacks off of that scenario where a debtor has stated his intention to surrender but fails to do so.  See, <u>In EverBank v. Chacon</u>, 92 Mass.App.Ct. 1101 (2017), the former mortgagee sought to evict the former owner, who had recently been a debtor in a Chapter 7 case (converted from 13) in connection to which he stated his intention to surrender the property.  See link below.</p>
<p>The former owner counterclaimed in the Summary Process case and challenged the validity of the foreclosure.  The lender argued that (1) <em>res judicata</em> applied because of the prior motion for relief (wrong because of the expedited summary nature of relief proceedings per <em>Grella</em>) and (2) that the debtor’s stated intention to surrender was a waiver that estopped him from later challenging the foreclosure.</p>
<p>The Appeals Court wrote a very nice summary of the mechanics of 521 and related Code sections and reasoned (correctly) that in a statement of intention, a debtor does not state to whom the property is to be surrendered, rather 521 states that property is surrendered not to the secured party but <u>to the trustee</u>, who then abandons the property if appropriate <u>to the debtor</u>.  The debtor’s statement that he was surrendering the property was not tantamount to a statement that he was surrendering it to the creditor and thereby possibly waiving any rights to contest the creditor’s foreclosure, rather it was merely a requirement under 521 and the Court declined to treat it as anything other than that.</p>
<p><a href="https://amburlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/EverBank-v-Chacon.doc-reaffirmation.doc">EverBank v Chacon.doc (reaffirmation)</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://amburlaw.com/reaffirming-vs-retain-and-continue-to-pay/">Reaffirming vs. &#8220;Retain and Continue to Pay&#8221;</a> appeared first on <a href="https://amburlaw.com">Amann Burnett Law</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://amburlaw.com/reaffirming-vs-retain-and-continue-to-pay/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
