Personal Bankruptcy Resources:

The sites below were reviewed for content which is relevant to the Michigan bankruptcy issues appearing within this site. For more information regarding our selection of sites, please see ourreview policy. If you have further questions, do not hesitate to email us atadmin@michigan-bankruptcy.org. We welcome all sites submitted for review and respond to all requests within 3 business days.

• Mortgages - refresh.

Recent Notable Opinions from Michigan Bankruptcy Courts:

In re Levine, Case No. 01-49437, Chapter 7, decided December 22, 2002 by the Michigan Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District. The trustee in this case filed a motion objecting to discharge of debts, and in particular, objecting to various transfers of property from the debtor to his wife prior to filing the petition. The trustee did not file an adversary proceeding with the Michigan Bankruptcy Court to recover transferred property, however a group of creditors did file adversary proceedings asserting substantially the same objections advanced in the trustee's motion. While the motion was pending, the trustee reached a compromise settlement agreement with the debtor which required the payment of $15,000 from the Debtor, and in turn, the trustee agreed to dismiss the motion if the settlement received approval from the Michigan Bankruptcy Court. Creditors opposed the settlement claiming the Debtor should not be allowed to "purchase" a discharge and retain approximately $300,000 in property transferred to his wife. The Michigan Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District HELD: Prohibited transfers are established as an act of Congress, and are either permitted or banned based upon the facts surrounding each transfer. The Court determined "that a party who elects to join the Section 727 process by filing an objection to the debtor's discharge may not subsequently leverage that objection for financial gain." In this case, the trustee's proper course of action is to either pursue the denial of discharge and return of funds, or alternatively to dismiss the objection. The requirement of payment in settlement of disputed claims was improper.

Recent Notable Opinions of the Supreme Court of The United States:

Household Credit Services, Inc. v. Pfennig, No. 02-857 (2004), Argued February 23, 2004, Decided April 21, 2004, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) regulates disclosures credit card issuers must provide consumers and authorizes a personal cause of action for consumers based on noncompliance. 15 U.S.C. 1637(a). These disclosures must include the amount of any finance charge. 1637(b)(4). A finance charge is defined as an amount "payable directly or indirectly by the consumer, and imposed directly or indirectly by the creditor as an incident to the extension of credit."  15 U.S.C. 1605(a). Nevertheless, the Federal Reserve Board definition under Regulation Z is inconsistent by "defining a finance" charge as excluding "charges for exceeding a credit limit" (over-limit fees). Held: Regulation Z is not an unreasonable interpretation of 15 U.S.C. 1605 because respondent does not challenge the Board's authority under 15 U.S.C. 1604(a) to issue binding regulations. The Court "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress". Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842. However, if Congress "left a gap for the implementing agency to fill," the agency's regulation is "given controlling weight unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute." even though contrary to an act of Congress.  Id. at 843 - 844.

The websites included on this page relate in some way to filing Michigan Bankruptcy cases, whether laws, rules, discharge, reorganization or other topics . Vast bodies of law pertain to Michigan Bankruptcy proceedings and are incorporated by the courts. As new Michigan Bankruptcy laws are created each year, the coverage of this site will continue to grow.