Ohio Bankruptcy Resources - Debt Consolidation
The sites below were reviewed for content which is relevant to the Ohio bankruptcy issues appearing within
this site. For more information regarding our selection of resources, see our review policy. If you have further
questions, do not hesitate to email us at admin@ohio-bankruptcy-laws.com.
We welcome all sites submitted for review and respond to all requests within 3 business days.
Debt Consolidation Services:
- Debt Consolidation Advisors - Professional Debt Help - Information on debt consolidation solutions, credit industry secrets, and debt management strategies.
- Debt Consolidation - refresh.
Recent Notable Opinions of the Supreme Court of The United States:
Household Credit Services, Inc. v. Pfennig, No. 02-857 (2004), Argued February 23, 2004, Decided April 21,
2004, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. The Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
regulates disclosures credit card issuers must provide consumers
and authorizes a personal cause of action for consumers based on noncompliance. 15 U.S.C. 1637(a). These
disclosures must include the amount of any finance charge.
1637(b)(4). A finance charge is defined as an amount "payable directly or indirectly by the consumer, and imposed directly or
indirectly by the creditor as an incident to the extension of credit." 15 U.S.C. 1605(a). Nevertheless,
the Federal Reserve Board definition under Regulation Z is inconsistent by "defining a finance" charge as
excluding "charges for exceeding a credit limit" (over-limit fees). Held: Regulation Z is not an unreasonable
interpretation of 15 U.S.C. 1605 because respondent does not challenge the Board's authority under 15 U.S.C.
1604(a) to issue binding regulations. The Court "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of
Congress". Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842. However, if Congress
"left a gap for the implementing agency to fill," the agency's regulation is "given controlling weight unless it
is arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute." even though contrary to an act of Congress.
Id. at 843—844.
Recent Notable Opinions from Ohio Bankruptcy Courts
Brown v. Brooks, Case No. 97-16744 Chapter 7, Adversary No. 01-1389, decided January 3, 2003 by the Ohio
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District. Ex-husband Brown filed an adversary proceeding in connection with a
Chapter 7 case filed by Brooks, his former wife. In Chapter 7, Brooks requested discharge of her debts created
by the decree of dissolution of marriage (and agreed separation agreement within). In particular, Brown sought a
determination of non-dischargeable status while Brooks responded with a motion for summary judgment discharging
the adversary proceeding. The Ohio Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District held: The Creditor has the burden
of proof to show a debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a). Once the Creditor establishes the debt may
be covered by this section, the burden of proof shifts to the debtor, who must show, by clear and convincing
evidence, any applicable exception which may allow discharge. Hart v. Molino (In re Molino) 225 B.R. 904, 907
(B.A.P. 6th Cir. 1198). In this particular case, because The Husband/Creditor provided proof (A) the debt arose
from a dissolution decree, and (B) all rights to spousal support where waived. Because of custom drafting of
agreements included within the agreed separation agreement, the Ohio Bankruptcy Court found a genuine issue of
fact and required strict proof of all applicable exceptions.
Recent Notable Opinions from Ohio Bankruptcy Courts
Brown v. Brooks, Case No. 97-16744 Chapter 7, Adversary No. 01-1389, decided January 3, 2003 by the Ohio
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District. Ex-husband Brown filed an adversary proceeding in connection with a
Chapter 7 case filed by Brooks, his former wife. In Chapter 7, Brooks requested discharge of her debts created
by the decree of dissolution of marriage (and agreed separation agreement within). In particular, Brown sought a
determination of non-dischargeable status while Brooks responded with a motion for summary judgment discharging
the adversary proceeding. The Ohio Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District held: The Creditor has the burden
of proof to show a debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a). Once the Creditor establishes the debt may
be covered by this section, the burden of proof shifts to the debtor, who must show, by clear and convincing
evidence, any applicable exception which may allow discharge. Hart v. Molino (In re Molino) 225 B.R. 904, 907
(B.A.P. 6th Cir. 1198). In this particular case, because The Husband/Creditor provided proof (A) the debt arose
from a dissolution decree, and (B) all rights to spousal support where waived. Because of custom drafting of
agreements included within the agreed separation agreement, the Ohio Bankruptcy Court found a genuine issue of
fact and required strict proof of all applicable exceptions.
|
