Danielle D’Onfro is Associate Professor of Law at Washington University in St. Louis. She was previously a member of the bankruptcy & financial restructuring group at WilmerHale.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court’s opinion in City of Chicago v. Fulton clarified that creditors do not violate the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay if they passively retain a debtor’s property after the debtor files for bankruptcy protection.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard argument in City of Chicago v. Fulton via phone. The issue in this case is a narrow statutory question about how two sections of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code interact. With the argument tightly focused on the text of the statute, there were few fireworks to report.
The Supreme Court will hear argument Tuesday in City of Chicago v. Fulton. The court originally scheduled Fulton for the April 2020 sitting but postponed the argument when the coronavirus pandemic closed the court.
On Tuesday, December 10, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Rotkiske v. Klemm, a messy but ultimately small case arising from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The curious strategic choices by Rotkiske’s lawyers throughout this case all but foretold his loss before the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard argument in Rotkiske v. Klemm. What seemed like a run-of-the-mill statutory-interpretation case revealed itself to be deeply convoluted, involving uncertainty both about which issues had been waived in earlier proceedings and what the question presented even means.
On Wednesday, October 16, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Rotkiske v. Klemm, yet another case arising from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, holding that parties who enforce security interests are not debt collectors within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provided that they do no more than the bare minimum required by state law to enforce the security interest.
The second argument on Monday was in Obduskey v. McCarthy Holthus LLP, a case about whether law firms that handle nonjudicial foreclosures are “debt collectors” within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. If the argument clarified anything, it’s that the FDCPA is a messy statute.
This is a case in which the more precise you think the statutory language is, the less obvious the right answer becomes. The question presented in Obduskey v. McCarthy Holthus LLP is whether the definition of “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act includes attorneys who effect nonjudicial foreclosures.
Monday’s opinion in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling brought a predictable end to this dispute about when debts obtained by fraud can be discharged in bankruptcy.
The Supreme Court showed no great interest in the bankruptcy problem at the heart of Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, in which the court heard argument yesterday. From the beginning, the justices asked relatively few questions of either party.
Nestled among several potential blockbuster cases in the court’s penultimate week of argument this term, there’s a quiet personal bankruptcy case. The case, Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, ostensibly concerns the breadth of the word “respecting” in the Bankruptcy Code.