That is a very good question recently asked of me by a client. She could “cram down” her car, her furniture, and even a mortgage on income property, but not a mortgage on her residence. A “cram down” is where a chapter 13 debtor pays only the actual value of some property securing a loan, and not the entire balance due to the creditor.
In the current economic climate, where the abuses of the sub-prime mortgage lenders have received much deserved publicity, why should these lenders be protected in the bankruptcy law? If a person’s mortgage balance greatly exceeds the value of their home, the creditor would get, at best, only the value of the home in a foreclosure procedure. Why should they get paid the excess?
The “anti-modification of residential mortgages” provisions in the bankruptcy law should be re-examined by Congress.
No related posts.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 0 comments… add one now }
You must log in to post a comment.