Judges of the Court
In re Dumont, 383 B.R. 481, 489 (9th Cir. BAP 2008)
“Ride through” option under pre-BAPCPA law was eliminated in 2005. However, “if a debtor is in compliance with sections 521(a)(6) or 362(h)(1) and (2), then section 521(d) has no effect, and enforcing an ipso facto default clause is still barred by the Code.”
In re Bennett, 298 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2002)
Absent a valid reaffirmation agreement, an agreement to repay a discharged debt is unenforceable under section 524(a)(2), regardless of California law to the contrary
In re Bassett, 285 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1002 (2002)
Right-to-rescind statement in reaffirmation agreement was clear and conspicuous.
In re Lopez, 274 B.R. 854 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2002), aff’d, 345 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 1245 S.Ct. 2015 (2004)
“A post-discharge agreement between a debtor and the holder of a secured claim which does not comply with the requirements of section 524(c) cannot be valid or enforceable where the consideration is based in part on a discharged debt.”
Rein v. Providian Financial Corporation, 270 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2001)
Reaffirmation agreement entered into by debtor during prior bankruptcy proceedings was not final judgment on the merits for purposes of determining dischargeability in a subsequent bankruptcy, and thus could not be given res judicata effect, where it was unaccompanied by a court order.
In re Bassett, 255 B.R. 747 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2000), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1002 (2002)
Reaffirmation agreement which did not recite right to rescind in conspicuous type was invalid.
In re Reinertson, 241 B.R. 451 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1999)
Debtors could not be relieved of agreement reaffirming belatedly-perfected security interest in vehicle where debtors sought relief more than one year after agreement’s approval by bankruptcy court.
In re Parker, 139 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1041 (1998)
Options of Chapter 7 debtor who wants to retain property securing debt are not limited to reaffirmation of debt or redemption of property securing it
In re Watson, 192 B.R. 739 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996), aff’d. 116 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 1997)
Settlement agreement to release prepetition liability on note, confirm in rem liability on accounts receivable and create a new debt does not equal a reaffirmation contract