In Re Bertsch

17 B.R. 284, 5 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1525, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 4960
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio
DecidedJanuary 27, 1982
Docket19-30529
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 17 B.R. 284 (In Re Bertsch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Bertsch, 17 B.R. 284, 5 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1525, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 4960 (Ohio 1982).

Opinion

FINDING AS TO ALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF OHIO SAVINGS ASSOCIATION

H. F. WHITE, Bankruptcy Judge. '

In accordance with the pre-trial conference held upon the rehearing on the Debt- or’s amended objection to the claim of Ohio Savings Association, counsel for both parties agreed to the following Finding of Facts and to submit same for the Court’s decision.

FINDING OF FACTS

I. Debtor prior to and in early 1979 had become delinquent on several occasions on the mortgage payments. However, late in 1979, debtor became delinquent again. Only late charges were assessed in 1979. Ohio Savings assessed a 2 percent interest charge over and above the original interest rate, as provided for by the note and mortgage, effective as of February 1, 1980.

2. The debtor made no payment on the said mortgage between February 1980 up to and including October 30, 1980, the date of the filing of the Chapter 13 proceedings.

3. Ohio Savings filed a foreclosure suit in the Common Pleas Court of Summit County on May 14,1980 in which it requested foreclosure of the property and that it be paid the accelerated rate of interest of 2 percent as provided for by the note and mortgage.

4. The Chapter 13 Plan did provide for the curing of the delinquency inside the Plan and for making current mortgage payments outside the Plan.

5. On December 10, 1980, Ralph J. Ro-senthal, Assistant Secretary of The Ohio Savings Association filed an acceptance of the Plan and subsequently on May 29, 1981 filed an amendment to said claim. The second claim was for the amount of the delinquency in the sum of $3,716.58.

6. Subsequently, after the filing of the Chapter 13 proceedings due to a change in the domestic relationship between the debt- or and his wife, the real estate in question was sold and the creditor’s mortgage was paid in full, including the interest, late charges, and expenses of the foreclosure to which assessments the Debtors objected. The payment of the assessments for interest, late charges, and expenses of foreclosure was not intended to act as a waiver of the Debtors’ objections thereto. Under the provisions of the Chapter 13, the delinquency had not been fully satisfied as provided for by the Plan at the time of the sale of the property.

7. The claim of expenses by Ohio Savings Association was incurred in the foreclosure suit as the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County requires the filing of a title report as a condition for filing the foreclosure suit. The cost of the title report is $175.00 and was paid by Ohio Savings Association. There were also court costs incurred for the filing of the law suit in the amount of $40.04. The creditor also *286 claims sheriff’s fees and advertising fees for the foreclosure suit of $174.10.

8. Both parties agree that the Court may determine whether or not attorney fees are includable in the creditor’s claim, however, they leave to a subsequent date, if necessary, the determination of the amount and reasonableness of any such fees which were incurred by outside counsel for the bank in the foreclosure proceedings.

ISSUES

There are two issues involved in the matter. (1.) Whether the bank by accelerating the interest rate and the filing of the foreclosure suit prior to the filing of the Plan of Arrangement is entitled to be paid the accelerated rate of interest, even though the bank did accept the Plan of Arrangement which would have cured the default and (2.) whether the bank is allowed to include in the amended claim, that it wishes to have paid within the Chapter 13 proceeding, title costs, attorney fees, Common Pleas Court costs, and sheriff’s expenses as part of the allowable expenses of the foreclosure suit filed prior to the Debtors’ Plan of Arrangement under 11 U.S.C. Chapter 13.

LAW

This matter involves a claim submitted by Ohio Savings Association in this Chapter 13 proceeding for arrearages on a mortgage and note, for accelerated interest, and for foreclosure expenses. The question of the accelerated interest arose at this time as the real property of the debtors was sold and out of the proceeds of the sale of real estate, Ohio Savings Association did demand and receive and is holding the funds in dispute.

An objection to the claim of Ohio Savings Association was filed by the Debtors, Leonard M. Bertsch and Margaret R. Bertsch, and the claim was disallowed because it included accelerated interest and foreclosure expenses, except as to the amount of $40.00 representing court costs in the foreclosure action. A rehearing was requested by Ohio Savings Association and both parties agreed to submit the dispute on an agreed Finding of Facts.

Debtors base their objection to the imposition of late charges and default interest on the provisions of their Chapter 13 Plan. It is argued that the Plan proposed to cure the default by paying to Ohio Savings Association the aggregate amount of delinquent mortgage payments, as well as continuing to pay to said creditor the monthly installment payments as they fell due under the contract. Due to the provisions for the curing of the delinquency under the Plan, it is argued, no basis exists for the imposition of default interest charges.

Ohio Savings Association, however, asserts that the Plan, as filed, did not cure the default in the manner proposed as following delinquencies and non-payments by the Debtors, Ohio Savings Association had accelerated the terms of the mortgage and note. Thus, Debtors would have to pay the entire amount of the accelerated interest through the Plan rather than just the ar-rearages in monthly installments to cure the default.

Whether a mortgage which has been accelerated may be cured solely by satisfaction of the outstanding arrearages or whether the entire debt, as accelerated, must be paid within the terms of a Chapter 13 plan is an issue which has been addressed by several bankruptcy courts recently, including a court of this district. See In Re Allen, 17 B.R. 119 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ohio 1981). The decision of the various courts have varied, as is apparent from the Memorandum submitted herein on the issue by Debtors.

The Court will not decide that issue in the present case as the issue has not been properly raised by Ohio Savings Association. It is evident from the Plan proposed by Debtors that Debtors did not propose to pay the entire amount of the accelerated note during the three-year term of the Plan. Instead, the arrearages were to be satisfied while Debtors continued to make the current monthly payments.

Despite the terms of the Plan, Ohio Savings Association, on two separate occasions, *287 filed Proofs of Claim which accepted the Plan, as proposed. On December 10, 1980, said creditor filed a claim in the amount of “$24,106.65 + 10.50% interest from 12/1/80 on $20,883.17” which Proof of Claim accepted the Plan. On May 29, 1981 an Amended Proof of Claim in the amount of $3,716.58 was filed by Ohio Savings Association accepting the Plan.

The Plan as amended on January 29, 1981, without objection by Ohio Savings Association, was confirmed by this Court on September 30, 1981.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Ruiz
501 B.R. 76 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2013)
In Re Thompson
420 B.R. 763 (S.D. Ohio, 2009)
In Re Tudor
342 B.R. 540 (S.D. Ohio, 2005)
Galloway v. Long Beach Mortgage Co. (In Re Galloway)
220 B.R. 236 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1998)
In Re Campbell
138 B.R. 184 (S.D. Ohio, 1991)
In Re Garnett
99 B.R. 293 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1989)
In Re Rorie
98 B.R. 215 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1989)
In Re Bristol
92 B.R. 276 (S.D. Ohio, 1988)
In Re Schwartz
87 B.R. 41 (S.D. Ohio, 1988)
Longwell v. Banco Mortgage Co.
38 B.R. 709 (N.D. Ohio, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 B.R. 284, 5 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1525, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 4960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bertsch-ohnb-1982.