• Home
  • Bankruptcy in Brief
  • ABC’s of Bankruptcy
  • Considering Bankruptcy
  • True Stories
  • Chapter 13
  • Blog
  • About
  • TOC

Northern California Bankruptcy Lawyer

On The Bankruptcy Soapbox

The Soap Box
  • How bankruptcy works
  • Mortgage Matters
  • Consumer Rights
  • You & Your Lawyer
  • Small Business
  • Family Law

Creditor Must Pay If It Loses A Bankruptcy Fight

By Cathy Moran

see saw-pixabay-public_opt

 

The game isn’t very fair when the players are mismatched.

Though bankruptcy court is hardly a game, it’s been unfair when it comes to attorneys fees for the winning party.

California law provides that when a contract allows one party their fees if they prevail, the other party got their fees if they won.  So, even if the contract only provided that you pay my fees if I have to sue you to collect,  the statute made the right to fees reciprocal.

Only, bankruptcy courts have for decades held that the California statute didn’t control if the issue involved bankruptcy.

And then came Penrod in the 9th Circuit.

The firm of bankruptcy icon Ken Klee argued for the consumer that the fight between the car lender and the debtor in the bankruptcy court was “on the contract” and covered by the agreement.  And the 9th Circuit agreed.

A bankruptcy fight over $7000 in negative equity in a Ford ended up with an attorneys fees award for the car buyer of $245,000.

Going forward, when debtors win in fights with creditors in bankruptcy court, they, too, will get the benefit of the contract they made with the creditor.

Chapter 13 Confirmation Fight Covered

The case that lead to a ruling about attorneys fees started out as an objection to confirmation of the Chapter 13 plan.

Prior to filing bankruptcy in 2007,  Marlene Penrod had traded in a car that was worth less than she owed on it for a new Ford Taurus.  The new loan included not only the purchase price of the new wheels but the unpaid balance of her trade in.

When she filed Chapter 13, she proposed to pay in full that part of the new car loan that reflected the purchase price of the new car, but not the part of the loan that payed off her trade in.

That difference, in bankruptcy lingo, was the “negative equity” in the trade in.

The car lender objected to confirmation of the plan, contending that the entire loan taken when the debtor bought the new car was a “purchase money” loan.  Therefore, said the lender, it was protected from cramdown by the”hanging paragraph” added to 1325 by BAPCPA, the mislabeled bankruptcy reform act of 2005.

Several rounds of appeals later, the 9th Circuit held that the “negative equity” portion of the loan was not “purchase money” and therefore, the debtor could confirm a Chapter 13 plan that paid that part of the loan pennies on the dollar.

Who Pays For Debtor’s Win

Winning wasn’t cheap for Marlene.  By the time she got a ruling in her favor from the 9th Circuit in 2011, and beat back the lender’s petition to the Supreme Court, her attorneys fees were $245,000.

Her loan agreement with Americredit said:

“You will pay our reasonable costs to collect what you owe, including attorney fees, court costs, collection agency fees, and fees paid for other reasonable collection efforts.”

And California’s Civil Code 1717 says:

In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.

But, said each court considering her request for an award of her fees, the confirmation fight over treatment in bankruptcy of the loan wasn’t an action “to enforce that contract.”  You won, Marlene, but you pay for the victory out of your pocket.

Not so, held the 9th Circuit.  The Supreme Court’s decision in Traveler’s held that nothing in the Bankruptcy Code expressly disallows claims for attorney’s fees simply because the fees are incurred litigating questions of federal bankruptcy law.

Under the language of the attorneys fees provision in the contract, Americredit would have been entitled to its fees had it won on the issue of plan confirmation.  Accordingly, when the bankrupt borrower prevails, that borrower gets an award of attorneys fees.

Attorneys Fees For Winner, Period

The implications of this second Penrod decision are substantial.  It becomes possible for the debtor to challenge creditor actions in the bankruptcy forum and recover the cost of the challenge, if they prevail.

I see it most important in bankruptcy litigation about the amount of mortgage arrearage claims and in relief from stay actions.

Any number of times, I’ve defeated motions for relief from stay, where the lender’s declaration about my client’s alleged defaults were simply untrue.  But because we were in bankruptcy court, fighting over bankruptcy’s automatic stay, my client had to pay the cost of the fight.

To benefit from the newest Penrod holding, debtor’s counsel may need to get a determination from the court that the debtor is the prevailing party.  But the possibility of such may make it possible to negotiate payment of the debtor’s fees without the necessity of trial.

The fruits of victory are now available to both players.

More from the Soapbox

  • Wage garnishment ends with bankruptcy filingWage garnishment ends with bankruptcy filing
  • Real-world Values for Assets Critical in Bankruptcy WorldReal-world Values for Assets Critical in Bankruptcy World
  • Does Bankruptcy Bar Retirement Savings?Does Bankruptcy Bar Retirement Savings?
  • Bankruptcy Drives Credit Score SurpriseBankruptcy Drives Credit Score Surprise
  • Self Employed, But Not By ChoiceSelf Employed, But Not By Choice

Filed Under: Strictly California

About Cathy Moran

I'm a veteran bankruptcy lawyer and consumer advocate in California's Silicon Valley. I write, teach, and speak in the hopes of expanding understanding of how bankruptcy can make life better in a family's future.

Bankruptcy Basics

About The Soapbox

You’ve arrived at the Bankruptcy Soapbox, a resource of bankruptcy information and consumer law.

Soapbox is a companion site to Bankruptcy in Brief, where I try to be largely explanatory and even handed (Note I said “try”).

Here, I allow myself to tell stories and express strong opinions. We dig deeper into how to consider bankruptcy and navigate a bankruptcy case.

Moran Law Group
Bankruptcy specialists for individuals and small businesses in the San Francisco Bay Area

How Bankruptcy Works

Bankruptcy Alphabet: F is for First

In my Bankruptcy Alphabet, F is for First meeting of creditors. Lots of rumors exist about the that meeting; it produces unwarranted anxiety that is avoidable if you understand what's up. Let's check it out. The first meeting of creditors, also called the 341 meeting, is often the only time a debtor has to appear … Read more

More Posts from this Category

643 Bair Island Road
Suite 403
Redwood City, CA 94063
Phone: (650) 694-4700
Phone: (650) 368-4700

Categories

All content copyright © Moran Law Group. All rights reserved.