In re Nowak
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
586 F.3d 450 (2009)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
Michael and Christina Nowak (debtors) had a mortgage on their home with PCFS Financial (PCFS) (creditor). Later, in 2001, the Nowaks filed for bankruptcy. PCFS was a secured creditor and had legal representation throughout the bankruptcy proceedings. Lydia Spragin, appointed trustee for the Nowaks’ estate, issued notices to the Nowaks’ creditors to file proofs of claim. In 2001, Spragin moved to employ an attorney for the purpose of voiding PCFS’s lien on the Nowaks’ home, asserting the mortgage was invalid because the mortgage’s execution had not been properly witnessed. Spragin also filed a notice of intent to sell the home. In 2002, PCFS objected to the sale because the proposed sale price would not satisfy the lien and instead would create a deficiency. The bankruptcy court overruled PCFS’s objection to the sale. In 2003, the court voided PCFS’s lien, making PCFS an unsecured creditor. In 2007, Spragin did not include PCFS as a creditor in the proposed estate distribution because PCFS had not filed a proof of claim. PCFS moved for the bankruptcy court to allow an informal proof of claim but did not explain PCFS’s failure to file a timely, formal proof of claim. The bankruptcy court ruled against PCFS. PCFS appealed to the bankruptcy appellate panel, which also denied PCFS’s claim. PCFS appealed, arguing the bankruptcy court had abused its discretion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gilman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.