In Re DiCello

80 B.R. 769, 1987 WL 29847
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina
DecidedDecember 28, 1987
Docket19-02100
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 80 B.R. 769 (In Re DiCello) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re DiCello, 80 B.R. 769, 1987 WL 29847 (N.C. 1987).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

A. THOMAS SMALL, Bankruptcy Judge.

The matter before the court is the “Motion to Modify Stay” filed on October 30, 1987, by Commercial Credit Loans, Inc. (“CCL”), the holder of a second deed of trust on real property owned by the debtor, asking that the automatic stay be modified to permit the completion of foreclosure proceedings on the property which is the subject of CCL’s deed of trust. After proper notice, a hearing was held in Raleigh, North Carolina, on November 16, 1987. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court took the matter under advisement pending receipt of the chapter 13 trustee’s recommendation with respect to the motion.

JURISDICTION

This bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334, 151, and 157, and the General Order of Reference entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on August 3, 1984. This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (G), which this court may hear and determine.

FACTS

The relevant facts are relatively simple and essentially undisputed. The property in question is the debtor’s residence located in Wilmington, North Carolina, which is subject to a first deed of trust in favor of Fleet Funding Home Mortgage and a second deed of trust in favor of CCL. Approximately $29,500 was owed on the first deed of trust as of September 8, 1987, the date the debtor’s chapter 13 petition was filed and between $17,000 and $18,000 was owed on the second deed of trust (including interest and legal fees) as of that same date.

Prior to the debtor’s filing of her bankruptcy petition, CCL foreclosed on its second deed of trust pursuant to Chapter 45 of the North Carolina General Statutes and, pursuant to an order of the Clerk of Superi- or Court of New Hanover County, a foreclosure sale on the property was conducted. Several upset bids were filed and resales held until the last resale was held on August 28, 1987, at which the high bidder was Paul W. Woodbury in the amount of $20,-944.40. Also on August 28, 1987, the report of the sale was filed in New Hanover County, thereby commencing the ten day period during which upset bids may be submitted pursuant to N.C.GEN.STAT. § 45-21.27 and during which the debtor may exercise her right of redemption. On September 8, 1987, the day the ten day period was to expire, the debtor filed a pro se petition with this court for relief under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.

*771 The debtor’s chapter 13 plan proposes payments to the trustee of $200 per month for thirty-six months and for her obligation on the deed of trust to CCL to be deaceeler-ated with the arrearages to be paid through the trustee under the plan and the regular payments to be made directly by the debtor to CCL. The deed of trust on behalf of CCL was recorded May 24, 1985, and provides for monthly payments of $187.14 over a period of ten years. The trustee reports that CCL’s arrearage claim is approximately $7,500. No confirmation hearing on the debtor’s plan has yet been held.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

CCL’s motion presents the following two issues which the court will address in sequence: (1) does 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5) permit the debtor to cure the default on her deed of trust and reinstate its original terms when the debtor’s chapter 13 petition was not filed until after a foreclosure sale had been held? and (2) may the debtor exercise her right of redemption under North Carolina law when her chapter 13 petition was filed on the day her right of redemption under state law was to have expired and when sixty days have passed from the date the petition was filed?

Under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5), a chapter 13 plan may “provide for the curing of any default within a reasonable time and maintenance of payments while the case is pending on any unsecured claim or secured claim on which the last payment is due after the date on which the final payment under the plan is due.” Because the statute does not specifically address the question, see In re Glenn, 760 F.2d 1428, 1435 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 849, 106 S.Ct. 144, 88 L.Ed.2d 119 (1985), the courts have frequently been asked to determine at what point in the foreclosure process does the right to cure a default under § 1322(b)(5) terminate. It is generally agreed that the mere fact that a mortgage debt has been accelerated pursuant to the terms of the mortgage contract does not prevent a debtor from resorting to § 1322(b)(5) to cure the default and reinstate the original terms of the mortgage. See Matter of Roach, 824 F.2d 1370, 1373 (3rd Cir.1987). However, no court of appeals has held that a default may be cured during a redemption period following a foreclosure sale. Id.

In In re Glenn, the Sixth Circuit held that the right to cure a default under § 1322(b)(5) terminated when a foreclosure sale was held even though the statutory redemption period had not run. The court in Glenn acknowledged that its cutoff date represented a “compromise” which, in its view, struck the best balance between the two competing goals of safeguarding the interests of lenders so as to not discourage home mortgage loans and protecting and rehabilitating debtors. The Sixth Circuit indicated that it would apply its cutoff date uniformly without regard to distinctions in the foreclosure laws of different states.

In Matter of Roach, 824 F.2d 1370 (3rd Cir.1987), the Third Circuit, unlike the Sixth Circuit in Glenn, held that it was necessary to refer to state law in determining the point in the foreclosure process at which the right to cure a default under § 1322(b) terminates. The court held that, with respect to property located in New Jersey, that right ended upon entry of a foreclosure judgment because such a judgment “establishes rights in the property distinct from those conferred by the mortgage” in that it fixes the amount due under the mortgage and directs the sale of the real estate to raise funds to satisfy the amount due. Roach, 824 F.2d at 1378.

Although, as noted in In re Glenn,

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

Related

In Re Gibson
450 B.R. 585 (D. South Carolina, 2011)
In Re Lordship Development, LLC
403 B.R. 772 (E.D. North Carolina, 2008)
Beneficial Mortgage Co. of North Carolina, Inc. v. Barrington & Jones Law Firm, P.A.
595 S.E.2d 705 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE CO. OF NORTH CAROLINA INC. v. Barrington
595 S.E.2d 705 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
In Re Barham
193 B.R. 229 (E.D. North Carolina, 1996)
In Re Capgro Leasing Associates
169 B.R. 305 (E.D. New York, 1994)
In Re Ragsdale
155 B.R. 578 (N.D. Alabama, 1993)
In Re Cooke
127 B.R. 784 (W.D. North Carolina, 1991)
In Re Adams
86 B.R. 867 (E.D. North Carolina, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 B.R. 769, 1987 WL 29847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dicello-nceb-1987.