Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and Escrow Payments and Projected Escrow Shortages

By

Let the insanity begin. What I will be discussing today are mortgage payments that include property taxes and insurance. The property tax and insurance have been “impounded” as part of the normal monthly mortgage payment and is traditionally called an escrow account. So this type of mortgage payment includes principal, interest, property tax and insurance. Before discussing how this has become extremely frustrating when filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case in the Northern District of California let us look at why this situation exists to begin with.

Why Are Property Taxes and Insurance Not Paid Directly By The Borrower

Lenders need to protect their investment. Fine, so as part of that lenders need to ensure property taxes are paid timely and the home is insured. No problem. Here in California lenders cannot force an impound escrow account unless the borrower’s loan to value ratio exceeds 80 percent. I believe this is the most common reason why impound accounts exist. A house is purchased via some favorable program that allows less than a 20% down payment at the time of purchase resulting in a ratio 80% or more. So if you put 20% or more as a down payment then the mortgage company cannot force you into an escrow or impound account. A lender or loan officer could also suggest the borrower have an impound escrow account and the borrower then would voluntarily agree to it.

Also here in California servicers and lenders are required to pay 2% interest to borrowers on funds held in escrow accounts. See Cal. Civ. Code Section 2954.80.

Pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) the servicer or mortgage company must review the property taxes and insurance each year to make sure they are not holding a surplus. At the same time RESPA allows the servicer or lender to collect up to two additional months of escrow payments as a cushion or reserve to protect the servicer or lender in the event a borrower misses monthly mortgage payments. See 12 U.S.C §2609(a)(1).

This is where the problem is created.

How Can A Borrower Have A Projected Escrow Shortage If They Paid All Mortgage Payments When Filing a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case?

The key words here are “projected escrow shortage” at the time the chapter 13 bankruptcy case is filed by the bankruptcy attorney of the borrow. So yeah, property taxes change and so do insurance premiums, but not that much. When a borrower files for relief under chapter 13 and is current with all mortgage payments at the time of filing the petition the bankruptcy filer normally just keeps paying the servicer or mortgage company directly just like prior to the filing of the chapter 13 since there are no missed mortgage payments. If no missed payments then no problem; life goes on regarding the loan even though the chapter 13 petition is filed. The chapter 13 should have no effect on the servicer or mortgage lender or the borrower as the bankruptcy filer. The servicer or mortgage lender is a secured creditor and normally files a proof of claim in the chapter 13 bankruptcy case providing the amount of the total secured debt owed and that there are no mortgage arrears or missed payments prior to the case being filed.

Here is when there are more and more problems because of escrow or impound accounts and alleged shortages. Proof of claims are being filed for escrow shortages or projected escrow shortages even though the bankruptcy filer has paid the servicer or mortgage lender all mortgage payments as required.

If the shortage is projected the shortage does not yet exist until some future date? If it does not exist how can this projected shortage be part of a proof of claim? Or if there is future projected escrow shortfall the only way for the servicer or mortgage company to obtain the shortfall is supposed to be by increasing the future escrow payments after the bankruptcy case is filed just like if no chapter 13 had been filed in the first place.

But wait just a second. So now this touches on what is a “claim” in bankruptcy? The Supreme Court of the United States provides “right to payment” in the definition of “claim” meant “nothing more nor less than an enforceable obligation[.]” Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 83, 111 S.Ct. 2150, 115 L.Ed.2d 66 (1991). “Congress intended by this language to adopt the broadest available definition of `claim.'” Id; see also FCC v. NextWave Pers. Commc’ns Inc., 537 U.S. 293, 302, 123 S.Ct. 832, 154 L.Ed.2d 863 (2003). So applying these definitions to a projected escrow shortage we can all agree the shortage is a “right to payment” pursuant to RESPA and the cushion of two escrow payments and can be part of a proof of claim.

Why is this happening though? The servicer of mortgage company is not properly calculating their RESPA cushion prior to the chapter 13 being filed. After the servicer or mortgage company pays a borrower’s property tax there should be a balance in the escrow account representing two escrow payments, the RESPA cushion. This is not happening and when the chapter 13 case is filed it triggers a review of the escrow account and behold there is a projected shortage.

I am not sure why this has become an issue when this dynamic of escrow accounts and RESPA cushion have existed for a very long time, but it is a problem now. Creditors referring to other Circuit opinions that provide that the collecting of pre-petition projected escrow shortages through post-petition mortgage payments is a violation of the automatic stay and arguably opens the creditor to possible sanctions for the violation of the automatic stay. There are a number of potential solutions to the problem, but the one that makes the most sense is that servicers and mortgage companies just properly calculate the RESPA cushion upon review of escrow accounts like they are supposed and this should never be a problem upon the filing of a bankruptcy case. After all, the borrower has made all payments as required by the servicer or mortgage loan company. What more can the borrower to make sure this is not a problem but make the payment requested each month on time?

Another solution is the include language in the chapter 13 plan that provides the service or mortgage lender may collect a pre-petition escrow shortfall from post-petition payments and not be in violation of the automatic stay. This will most likely trigger the necessity of having a confirmation hearing regarding the chapter 13 plan when a hearing would not normally be necessary. This is a waste of judicial resources, the chapter 13 trustee’s time and the attorney for the debtor’s time given the servicer or mortgage loan company did not properly calculate the escrow payment prior to the chapter 13 being filed.

Another solution is to stipulate that the creditor may collect pre-petition projected escrow shortages from post-petition mortgage payments. There is no guarantee that the trustee’s office will sign-off on this stipulation and again could end up with a hearing regarding confirmation of the chapter 13 plan that normally would not have to take place.

To be fair I could also provide any number of scenarios that a debtor or their bankruptcy attorney creates in the course of seeking confirmation of a chapter 13 plan that creditors, the Court and trustee’s office believe to waste their time over and over again so ………… I am just writing about this issue from a bankruptcy filer’s perspective and their attorney.

Why Is It Difficult to Project Escrow Account Funds?

Here in California we have Proposition 13 that limits how much property taxes can increase each year. You would think this would allow servicers and mortgage companies to easily estimate future property taxes and property insurance payments year after year so that there are no issues. Again, I get how sometimes getting numbers right is difficult even when a good faith effort is made to get the numbers right.

It just appears the escrow analysis that is required by law is not happening until the chapter 13 case is filed and the projected escrow shortage is created. If the chapter 13 case was never filed the servicer or mortgage lender would just continue to send statements with a monthly dollar amount owed and the borrower would just keep making the payment each month and there would be no issues. The part of the monthly escrow payment would increase or decrease depending upon the whim of the servicer or mortgage company ……….

Be Very Careful If You Argue Your Deed Of Trust Or Loan Are Invalid So You Do Not Owe Anything On Your Home

By

Over and over again during the mortgage meltdown and now even years after the mortgage meltdown I have potential clients still wanting to argue that they owe nothing on their primary residence because of some issue with the loan, recording or assignment of the loan. Do not get me wrong. There is an exception to every statement anyone makes like this, but it is rare. What I can prove to you is state court lawsuit after state court lawsuit getting dismissed after you the homeowner were lied to about your chances of actually being successful at arguing you owe nothing even though you did not pay the loan off in full. I can also prove to you relief from stay after relief from stay granted by bankruptcy courts when someone files for bankruptcy protection and is behind on their mortgage payments then tries to argue I owe nothing. Since there still seems to be some confusion let me be clear.

If you do not pay your mortgage payment each month at some point your mortgage company will seek foreclosure and if you have filed for bankruptcy protection and do not pay your mortgage on time your mortgage or loan company will get relief from stay to start the foreclosure process in the real world. Hopefully the following provides some more detailed information about why to not argue you do not owe any money on your house. I do not think bankruptcy attorneys mislead potential bankruptcy clients about this topic but state court litigation attorneys still do.

A recent Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel case from the Central District really highlights the issues with this argument and applicable law in the bankruptcy world. See BAP CC-18-1015-FLS.

Mortgage Company Can Assign or Transfer the Right of Collection of the Note Secured by the Recorded Deed of Trust

In this particular case here is the list of secured creditors for the bankruptcy filer regarding his deed of trust for his house in chronological order.
1. November 2014: GMAC Mortgage Corporation DBA ditech.com is the original loan company with recorded deed of trust for $315,000 and provides Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), as “nominee” for GMAC and its successors and assigns, was the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust;
2. June 2010: Through nominee MERS GMAC assigns deed of trust to GMAC Mortgage, LLC;
3. January 2011: The borrower and bankruptcy filer entered into a loan modification with MERS, nominee for the then-current holder of the Note, GMAC Mortgage, LLC;
4. May 2013: GMAC Mortgage, LLC assigned the Deed of Trust to Green Tree Servicing, LLC;
5. February 2016: Green Tree Servicing, LLC (which was then known as Ditech Financial LL) recorded the notice of default when mortgage payments were not made;
6. December 2017: Ditech Financial assigned the deed of trust to U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust 13801; Servicer Caliber Home Loans, Inc. as its attorney in fact.
The assignments continued even after the borrower defaulted on payments and filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Ditech Financial filed the proof of claim in the bankruptcy case but U.S. Bank and Caliber as the servicer filed the motion for relief from the bankruptcy automatic stay for permission to continue to enforce their state court rights outside of bankruptcy. The bankruptcy filer and/or borrower unfortunately argued U.S. Bank/Caliber had no standing or no right to request relief from stay and that he was current with all post-bankruptcy filing mortgage payments.

The Motion For Relief From Stay

U.S. Bank/Caliber sought relief from the automatic stay under Section 362(d)(1) for cause alleging the borrower and bankruptcy filer failed to make over $19,000 in mortgage payments after the chapter 13 bankruptcy case was filed. First the borrower/bankruptcy filer argued that U.S. Bank/Caliber was not the “real party in interest.” Second that the Deed of Trust was defective at its inception given the original lender was listed as “GMAC Mortgage Corporation dba ditech.com,” but only “GMAC Mortgage Corporation” is registered in the state of Pennsylvania, while the fictional name “ditech.com” is not. Third, the borrower/bankruptcy filer claimed that the January 2011 modification agreement was invalid.

1. Real Party In Interest

In the bankruptcy world the key term regarding this issue “colorable claim” to enforce an alleged debt/claim. A claim is extremely broadly defined and I have written about this issue in a prior article. But a mere colorable claim is all that is required in the bankruptcy world.
See Arkinson v. Griffin (In re Griffin), 719 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing In re Veal, 450 B.R. at 915); see Edwards v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Edwards), 454 B.R. 100, 105 (9th Cir. BAP 2011)
“A party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the property at issue.” A party filing a motion for relief from stay or movant must have a colorable claim sufficient to bestow upon it standing to prosecute a motion under § 362 if the party/movant either: (a) owns or has another form of property interest in a note secured by the debtor’s (or the estate’s) property; or (b) is a ‘person entitled to enforce’ . . . such a note under applicable state law”). The borrower and bankruptcy filer argues that the stamp signature on one of the loan documents invalidates the documents. There does not need to be a lengthy discussion about this issue given an endorsement of a negotiable instrument does not require a “live” or “wet” signature. See U.C.C. § 3-204(a) and U.C.C. § 1-201 providing “signed” includes any symbol executed or adopted with present intention to adopt or accept a writing. Or more commonly known as “make your mark” for a valid signature or endorsement of a document. The alleged “stamp” signature argument fails.

2. Failure to Registered a Fictitious Business Name

This is an interesting argument. The borrower and bankruptcy filer also argues that GMAC Mortgage Corporation dba ditech.com did not register or fill out and file a fictitious business for ditech.com. The problem is that cannot invalidate a lender’s ability to make and enforce thousands upon thousands of dollars of loans…..
The borrower and bankruptcy filer then attempts to argue the various assignments between the parties listed above are invalid. This issue has been analyzed before, see: Veal v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc. (In re Veal), 450 B.R. 897, 906 (9th Cir. BAP 2011). The Ninth Circuit provides a service has standing to seek relief from the automatic stay when the borrower files for bankruptcy protection.

3. I Did Pay All The Alleged Missed Mortgage Payments

Finally the borrower and bankruptcy filer argues he made all of the post-petition mortgage payments in a declaration but failed to provide any proof the mortgage payments were paid. As a bankruptcy attorney trying to help someone prevent relief from stay being granted this has to be the most frustrating thing to deal with. If mortgage payments are paid there has to be proof of the payment readily available. If you are behind on your mortgage payments most likely the only thing that can prevent relief from stay being granted is a plan the mortgage company will accept to pay back the missed mortgage payments and that means ALL of the missed mortgage payments up to when the motion for relief from stay is filed within a reasonable time. As a side note; most motions for relief from stay are filed for cause or missed mortgage payments regardless of the amount of equity a property has. Cause exists for relief from stay is you missed mortgage payments and cannot pay them back within a reasonable amount of time there is not much anyone can do for you.

Is A Docket Entry or Minute Entry Appealable?

By

What is a docket entry or minute entry? These are entries made by the court to document what took place at hearing or other court proceeding. Never of these entries meant to be like a transcript of what took place, but a short and concise summary of what took place. It is documenting the events of a hearing or court proceeding in an efficient manner. So what if there is ambiguity or you just disagree with what the docket entry or minute entry says? We are all human and sometimes minute entries need to be edited or corrected. Fair enough. Can a minute entry be appealed because you believe the entry is wrong and has of course negatively impacted you as a party in the case?

It seems like at some point in time there is an appeal of everything that takes place in cases whether appealable or not. So here we go. There is a minute entry and you do not like.

Is a Minute Entry Appealable?

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel recently discussed this issue resulting from an appeal of a minute entry from a bankruptcy case from the District of Arizona. The Chapter 11 bankruptcy filer filed on his own an application for an order to show cause to sanction other parties in the case. The other parties filed a motion to strike the application for an order to show cause on the basis that the bankruptcy filer had a bankruptcy attorney retained and it was not appropriate for the bankruptcy filer to represent himself in the bankruptcy case. The Bankruptcy Court granted the motion to strike the application for an order to show cause and vacated the hearing on the application for an order to show case. The Bankruptcy Court is merely saying the hearing on the order to show cause is off the calendar given the motion to strike was granted.

The original minute entry was as follows: “VACATED: ORDER Granting Motion to Strike and [sic] (Related Doc 453) and Order Denying without prejudice the Application for Order to show cause (Related doc 422) signed on 4/4/2017.”

A couple weeks after the above minute entry was placed on the docket the clerk’s office modified the minute entry to include: “*** THIS M.E. ONLY VACATES THE APRIL 28, 2017, HEARING ***.”

At a hearing held a week after the minute entry was modified, the bankruptcy court rejected the bankruptcy filers interpretation of the original minute order as including vacating the order on the motion to strike the application for order to show cause. According to the bankruptcy court, the original minute entry only vacated the hearing on the application for an order to show cause that had been scheduled for the day of the minute entry.

Now The Appeal

If we were to read the transcript of these various hearings or listen to them I believe we would all know beyond a doubt that the Bankruptcy Court granted the motion to strike the application for order to show cause and vacated the hearing the application as moot given the Bankruptcy Court granted the motion to strike.

The bankruptcy filer again representing himself appealed the minute entry. This calls into question the appealability of the minute entry. Let just cut to the chase here. There is not appealable order or final ruling. The Bankruptcy Court granted the motion to strike and entered an order granting the motion. That is not what is being appealed. The Bankruptcy Court vacated the hearing on the application for an order to show cause as moot given it struck it down. That is not really what is being appealed. The bankruptcy filer is appealing the subsequent minute ENTRY which arguably has some ambiguity as to what is be vacated, but it is not an order.
So there is no appealable order under these circumstances.

A minute entry may constitute a dispositive order for notice of appeal purposes if it: (1) states that it is an order; (2) is mailed to counsel; (3) is signed by the clerk who prepared it; and (4) is entered on the docket sheet.” See, e.g., Brown v. Wilshire Credit Corp. (In re Brown), 484 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2007); Mullen v. Hamlin (In re Hamlin), 465 B.R. 863, 868 (9th Cir. BAP 2012).

This minute entry was just an administrative recounting of what took place and not a substantive ruling.

Everything about this case and appeal is strange. Why did the bankruptcy filer not have is Bankruptcy Attorney file the application for an order to show cause to begin with? Then after the Bankruptcy Court granted the motion to strike given the bankruptcy filer was representing himself while having a retained attorney the bankruptcy filer still did not have his retained attorney file the application for an order to show cause but instead chooses to appeal the subsequent minute entry. It is always possible there is something that is missing from the record that could shed some light on these circumstances. If you want to represent yourself you need to file a substitute of attorney form saying you now want to represent yourself and your old attorney is longer your attorney. That did not happen here. It also appears the attorney of record for the bankruptcy filer did not file a motion to withdraw from the case either.

Update Regarding Paul Teutul’s Chapter 13 Bankruptcy May 8 2018

By

Since the last time I took a look at American Chopper star Paul Teutul’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing a lot happened. Again, as a fan of American Chopper I am saddened by Mr. Teutul’s bankruptcy filing. At the same time and I am a huge advocate for second chances and our right to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Code as Congress wrote it and the President of the United States of America signed into law. I am hopeful Paul Teutul, Sr., can get the relief he desires and save his home from foreclosure. Since my last update I learned that Paul Tuetul, Sr. is actually legally a junior and that is why the bankruptcy petition provides Paul Teutul, Jr. filed for bankruptcy protection and that appears to be legally correct. Who knew?

Paul Teutul, Sr. Has Changed Attorneys

The first noteworthy occurrence was Paul Teutul, Sr. changed bankruptcy attorneys from Michael A. Koplen to Erica a. Aisner on or around April 5, 2018. There are any number of reasons to change bankruptcy attorneys and it would be improper to speculate as to why. Every bankruptcy filer has the right to represent themselves in bankruptcy or hire an attorney of their choosing to represent their interests in a bankruptcy case. See Section 527 of the Bankruptcy Code for more information on that.

Motion For Relief From Stay Filed By JTM Motorsports, LLC

The backbone of the bankruptcy process is the automatic stay that goes into effect as soon as a bankruptcy case is filed enjoining or stopping any and all collection activity such as foreclosures, repossession, lawsuits, wage garnishments and other debt collection activity. A creditor, or party that is owed money or has a claim at the time the case is filed may request the bankruptcy court grant relief from the automatic stay under certain circumstances. Relief from the stay gives that creditor or claimant holder bankruptcy court permission to continue to enforce their state law rights against the bankruptcy filer to collect on the debt or alleged claim owed to them. The most common reason for a creditor to seek relief from stay is unpaid mortgage payments or unpaid vehicle loan payments. These are secured debts so the creditor will want relief from stay to continue to enforce their rights against the collateral securing their debt by beginning or continuing a foreclosure action on real property or repossess personal property like a vehicle.

Paul Teutul, Sr. listed a 2009 Corvette ZR1 as an asset and JTM Motorsports alleges they have a lien, or garagemans’s lien, against the 2009 Corvette ZR1, securing a debt owed to them by Paul Teutul, Sr. The Amended Chapter 13 Plan Paul Teutul, Sr. filed does not provide a treatment for JTM Motorsports, LLC’s alleged secured claim against the 2009 Corvette ZR1, the collateral securing the alleged lien. I say alleged claim given Paul Teutul, Sr. may be able to object to the claim being secured. JTM Mortorsports, LLC, is saying either pay us through the Chapter 13 Plan or give us our collateral back, the 2009 Corvette ZR1. Time will tell how this all plays out.

JTM Motorsports LLC’s Objection to Confirmation of Paul Teutul Sr.’s Chapter 13 Plan

When a secured debt is not listed in a Chapter 13 Plan a creditor does normally object to confirmation or approval of the Chapter 13 Plan of reorganization for this reason. Confirmation of a chapter 13 plan means approval of the terms of the chapter 13 plan pursuant to Section 1325 of the Bankruptcy Code. As the motion for relief from stay filed by JTM Motorsports, LLC, also alleges, the Paul Teutul Sr.’s Amended Chapter 13 Plan does not provide for payment to allegedly secured creditor JTM Motorsports, LLC. The hearing on JTM Motorsports, LLC’s motion for relief from stay is schedule for June 5, 2018. Again, time will tell what happens.

Amendments of Petition and Statements

Paul Teutul, Sr. recently amended his schedules to include many more vehicles and all-terrain vehicles to his assets with values listed. This is 54 pages of changes and provides a clearer picture of Paul Teutul Sr.’s assets. This is not uncommon given for most filing for bankruptcy is a last resort to preserve assets. Again, I hope Paul Teutul, Sr. gets the relief he wishes and saves his home from foreclosure.
That is it for now. I hope to next provide an update that the case is moving along, not dismissed and relief is just around the corner.

How Much Time Do I Get If I Am Being Evicted Then File Bankruptcy?

By

What a question. It depends upon many things and if you want a guarantee of time before you must leave the home or apartment for nonpayment of rent when you are behind on the rent or lease payments someone would have to lie to you. Since that will not happen around here the answer to this question requires asking a few questions to know what is possible or not when a bankruptcy petition is filed and staying in a rental unit. There are just too many moving parts to make some sort of blanket statement about how much time you will get before you have to move out. So I will do my best to answer the question, “What happens if I am being evicted then file bankruptcy? How much time will I get in my place?”

So some guy calls me and says, “I got this form here from the internet that says I get thirty days.” Okay, what form? Response: I do not know. Does your landlord have an unlawful detainer judgment against you already? Response: I do not know. Okay, well, that is almost nothing to go on so here is what is possible if you file for bankruptcy protection and your landlord is trying to get you evicted.

Filing Motion For Relief From Automatic Stay

Once a bankruptcy petition if filed the automatic stay takes effect, is self-executing, and stops/enjoins any and all collection activity against you including evictions. A creditor/landlord can ask the Bankruptcy Court for relief from the automatic stay to continue the eviction though. In the Northern District of California Bankruptcy Court the local rules provide a hearing can be scheduled by creditor/landlord for a motion for relief from the automatic stay on 14 day’s notice. A creditor/landlord could also file a motion for shortened notice and try and get a hearing scheduled on their motion for relief from the automatic stay on less than 14 day’s notice. The notice procedure for hearing is different in different jurisdictions though so this timing may or may not apply in your jurisdiction. Also, this is assuming the landlord/creditor filed the motion for relief from stay as soon as possible after the bankruptcy case is filed. Generally notice of any bankruptcy case takes 4 – 7 days given notice to creditors is mailed via United States First Class Mail by the Bankruptcy Noticing Center. So a landlord/creditor would not even find out about the bankruptcy case until days after your bankruptcy attorney files the bankruptcy petition unless notice was faxed to the landlord/creditor given you are worried about eviction …. FRBP 4001(a)(3) also stops the enforcement of an order grating relief from the automatic stay unless FRBP 4001(a)(3) is waived. So if this rule is not waived you get another 14 days to stay before the order granting relief from stay is signed/entered.

But again does the landlord/creditor already have a judgment in the unlawful detainer lawsuit or have they even filed an unlawful detainer lawsuit against you?

Your Landlord Already Obtained An Unlawful Detainer Judgment For Right of Possession

If your landlord has already obtained an unlawful detainer judgment for right of possession then there is no automatic stay pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 362(b)(22). Section 362(b)(22) provides the automatic stay pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 362(a)(3) does not apply if: subject to subsection (l), under subsection (a)(3), of the continuation of any eviction, unlawful detainer action, or similar proceeding by a lessor against a debtor involving residential property in which the debtor resides as a tenant under a lease or rental agreement and with respect to which the lessor has obtained before the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition, a judgment for possession of such property against the debtor.

I will get to subsection (l) in a moment. For now our facts are your landlord sued you in an unlawful detainer action and has a judgment for possession before you filed your bankruptcy case. If so there is no automatic stay and as an experienced bankruptcy attorney I do know of attorneys out there that have had sheriff departments evict people within days of the filing of a bankruptcy case. The attorney for the landlord was good and knew what there were doing. Along with the other documents it takes to have someone evicted the landlord attorney also sent Section 362(b)(22) of the Bankruptcy Code and the sheriff followed the law. You get evicted in a matter of days of the filing for bankruptcy protection.

What Is This 30-Days I Get After Filing Bankruptcy If I Am Facing Eviction?

So finally we get to what this caller was actually talking about, Subsection (l) of 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. Subsection (l) provides: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, subsection (b)(22) shall apply on the date that is 30 days after the date on which the bankruptcy petition is filed, IF the debtor files with the petition and serves upon the lessor a certification under penalty of perjury that— (A) under nonbankruptcy law applicable in the jurisdiction, there are circumstances under which the debtor would be permitted to cure the entire monetary default that gave rise to the judgment for possession, after that judgment for possession was entered; and (B) the debtor (or an adult dependent of the debtor) has deposited with the clerk of the court, any rent that would become due during the 30-day period after the filing of the bankruptcy petition. This is now Official Form 101A: “Initial Statement About an Eviction Judgment Against You.” You must also deposit with the Clerk of the Court the rent amount for that 30 day period. That 30 days you get is not free. For the automatic stay to continue after the 30 days you must also then pay the entire amount due in the unlawful detainer judgment against you and fill out and file Official Form 101B: Statement About Payment of an Eviction Judgment Against You.
Are there other circumstances that this article may not address the could change what I just wrote above? Yes. Generally speaking if facing eviction you either do not have an unlawful detainer judgment entered against you or you do.