by

Disputes over the validity of recorded loan documents and foreclosure authority remain a frequent source of litigation in California real estate cases, particularly when borrowers allege defects in a deed of trust or irregularities following bankruptcy proceedings. A recent California decision illustrates how courts manage complex foreclosure disputes at the summary judgment stage while enforcing strict procedural rules. If you are considering filing for bankruptcy, it is in your best interest to talk to a California bankruptcy attorney as soon as possible.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff acquired an interest in residential real property located in Los Angeles County and later became subject to a deed of trust recorded in 2006 in favor of the original lender. The plaintiff asserted that the deed of trust was void because it named a non-existent entity as beneficiary and was unsupported by a valid promissory note. Based on these asserted defects, the plaintiff contended that the lien was fraudulent from its inception.

It is alleged that the deed of trust was subsequently assigned through a series of transactions and ultimately came under the control of the defendant trustee, which serviced the loan through a loan servicing entity. After years of inactivity, the defendant recorded a notice of default in 2021 and initiated nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. The plaintiff maintained that these actions occurred without lawful authority and in violation of protections arising from a previously confirmed bankruptcy plan. Continue reading

by

Disputes over financial transfers frequently arise in bankruptcy cases, particularly when a trustee seeks to recover funds the debtor allegedly disbursed without authorization. A recent California decision addresses how courts evaluate factual findings, interest awards, and requests for new trials in contested turnover actions. If you have questions about bankruptcy litigation in California, you should consult a knowledgeable California bankruptcy attorney to protect your interests.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the appellant received a total of $137,000 from the debtor during the period preceding the bankruptcy filing. It is alleged that the appellant characterized these funds as partial repayment for more than $400,000 he had previously advanced to the debtor. Reportedly, the trustee disputed this characterization, asserting that the appellant never loaned funds to the debtor and that the transfers instead constituted loans the appellant was obligated to repay.

It is reported that the trustee initiated a turnover action seeking the return of the $137,000. Allegedly, the bankruptcy court evaluated the parties’ testimony and documentary evidence, including tax filings, checks prepared by the appellant, and the absence of corroborating documentation for the alleged earlier loans. Reportedly, the bankruptcy court found the trustee’s testimony credible, found the appellant not credible, and concluded that the debtor had loaned the appellant the $137,000. The court entered judgment for the trustee and awarded prejudgment interest beginning in late 2016. Continue reading

by

When a debtor sues a municipality for property damage, overlapping legal deadlines can complicate even the strongest claims. A recent California decision in a case involving a fallen tree limb and extensive home damage illustrates how strictly courts enforce statutes of limitation even when bankruptcy and emergency tolling rules come into play. If you have questions with regard to how filing for bankruptcy may impact your rights,  it is essential to consult a knowledgeable Sacramento bankruptcy attorney immediately.

Facts of the Case and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant city after a tree branch allegedly owned by the municipality fell on her home in January 2018, rendering the property uninhabitable and causing extensive damage. Allegedly, within days of the incident, the plaintiff filed a claim for damages under California’s Government Claims Act. The city acknowledged receipt and informed her that if the claim were denied, she would have six months from the denial date to initiate litigation.

Continue reading

by

When a defendant in a civil lawsuit files for bankruptcy, the automatic stay can halt proceedings against that party. However, the question of whether litigation continues against other defendants often remains contested. A recent decision issued in California highlights how bankruptcy stays intersect with multi-party civil rights litigation, and how courts address attempts by non-bankrupt defendants to delay proceedings through discretionary stays. If you are navigating litigation that overlaps with bankruptcy, consulting with a skilled California bankruptcy attorney is essential to protect your rights.

Facts of the Case and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiffs filed civil rights claims against multiple defendants, including municipalities, law enforcement officers, and a contracted medical provider. Allegedly, during the pendency of the action, certain defendants became subject to an automatic stay imposed by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The stay prevented further litigation against those defendants while their bankruptcy proceeded.

Allegedly, the district court instructed the remaining defendants not subject to the bankruptcy stay to renew any pending summary judgment motions, request additional briefing, or move for a discretionary stay if they believed litigation should be paused. Reportedly, the defendant City of Farmersville renewed its summary judgment motion, while the defendant County of Tulare filed a motion it styled as “administrative relief,” seeking to place the case on hold until all defendants could proceed together. Plaintiffs opposed the request, noting that the bankruptcy court had already clarified the scope of the automatic stay, making further delay unnecessary. Continue reading

by

Bankruptcy cases often involve overlapping legal proceedings in state court and federal bankruptcy court, and debtors must take care that their actions do not run afoul of the confirmed Chapter 13 plan. A recent decision by a California court highlights that even when post-confirmation developments raise questions about debtor conduct, a bankruptcy court retains discretion to determine whether those actions warrant dismissal. If you are considering seeking debt relief and you have questions about your rights before, during, and after bankruptcy proceedings, you should speak with a Sacramento bankruptcy attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the debtor filed a Chapter 13 petition in October 2022 while her residence remained encumbered by a deed of trust in favor of a secured lender. The debtor had previously lived in the property with her then-husband, who was the son of the creditor seeking dismissal. It is alleged that the creditor, who continued residing at the property after the debtor’s divorce, had acquired a judicial lien on the property and was listed in the bankruptcy schedules as holding a secured claim of approximately $185,000. The debtor proposed an initial plan that included efforts to cure mortgage arrears and strip judicial liens, including the creditor’s, as impairing the homestead exemption.

Continue reading

by

Bankruptcy law permits debtors to protect certain property from liquidation through state and federal exemptions. However, when exemptions are improperly claimed or unsupported by law, trustees may object, and courts must determine the legitimacy of those claims. A recent decision from a California court demonstrates how a debtor’s exemptions may be denied when the claimed property is no longer legally owned at the time of the bankruptcy filing and when the debtor fails to substantiate the exemption under applicable law. If you are involved in a bankruptcy proceeding in California, it is essential to consult with a qualified attorney before taking action.

Factual Setting and Procedural Background

It is reported that the debtor filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in December 2021, several months after a state court judgment had been entered against her. The judgment required her to transfer her interest in a residential property to her daughter. It is alleged that pursuant to this judgment, a quitclaim deed transferring the property was recorded on December 10, 2021, five days before the bankruptcy petition was filed.

It is further reported that despite this transfer, the debtor claimed a homestead exemption in the property. The Chapter 7 trustee objected, asserting that the debtor no longer owned the property at the time of the petition and therefore could not claim it as exempt. The bankruptcy court agreed, sustaining the objection and concluding that because the debtor lacked a legal or equitable interest in the property as of the petition date, it never became part of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Continue reading

by

Bankruptcy proceedings often involve not just questions of debt relief but also serious disputes over property rights, trust ownership, and trustee powers. When a debtor attempts to shield property by placing it in trust or disputes the trustee’s control over valuable real estate, the court must step in to determine what belongs to the estate and what does not. A recent California bankruptcy ruling illustrates how these conflicts are resolved in Chapter 11 and illustrates how the law of the case doctrine can prevent re-litigation of issues already decided. If you are considering bankruptcy or are already involved in proceedings where ownership of trust or jointly held property is contested, it is critical to speak with a California bankruptcy attorney as soon as possible.

Case Setting

It is reported that the debtor filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California and disclosed an interest in real property located on June Street in Beverly Hills, California. The debtor listed the property with an estimated value of $4.9 million and noted only a $15,000 tax lien as an encumbrance. The filing also disclosed roughly $32 million in liabilities.

It is alleged that although the debtor originally included the June Street property as part of his bankruptcy estate, he and other affiliated parties, including his wife and several family trusts—later claimed that the property was not his and was instead held by various trusts. In response, the Chapter 11 trustee filed a quiet title action seeking a declaration that the property belonged to the estate. Continue reading

by

California bankruptcy law offers certain protections to debtors through the homestead exemption, which allows individuals to shield a portion of their home equity from creditors. However, these protections are not absolute. A recent California bankruptcy decision highlights the limitations of the exemption when a debtor fails to meet the required residency and procedural requirements. If you need assistance with a bankruptcy issue, it is in your best interest to seek the counsel of a Sacramento bankruptcy attorney as soon as possible.

Procedural History and Factual Background

It is reported that the debtor filed a Chapter 7 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, seeking to exempt a residential property located in Shingle Springs under California’s homestead exemption. The property was held in the name of a family trust in which the debtor held an interest. The Chapter 7 trustee objected to the claimed exemption, arguing that the debtor had not resided at the property during the relevant period and that the trust ownership did not qualify for exemption under applicable law.

It is further reported that the bankruptcy court held an evidentiary hearing, during which the debtor testified regarding her living arrangements and her intent to reside at the Shingle Springs property. The court reviewed testimony, documents, and the procedural history, including the timing of the debtor’s relocation to the property and the date of her bankruptcy filing. Following the hearing, the bankruptcy court denied the exemption on the grounds that the debtor had not established that the property was her principal residence as of the petition date. Continue reading

by

Bankruptcy courts overseeing mass tort reorganizations involving institutions accused of systemic abuse must balance transparency with privacy. In a recent decision, a California bankruptcy court permitted the release of anonymized abuse claims data and internal board minutes in the Chapter 11 proceedings involving a major religious institution. The ruling reflects how bankruptcy courts weigh public interest, survivor participation, and institutional accountability. If you are navigating a complex Chapter 11 matter, especially one involving sensitive claims or mass tort liabilities, it is vital to consult with an experienced California bankruptcy attorney.

History of the Case

It is reported that the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors filed a motion seeking court authorization to disclose two categories of information gathered during the bankruptcy proceedings: the minutes of the Debtor’s Independent Review Board and aggregated, anonymized Claims Data extracted from hundreds of confidential sexual abuse claims filed by survivor claimants. The Committee argued that disclosure of both categories of information would promote transparency, advance public safety, and help build trust in the Chapter 11 process.

It is further reported that the Debtor opposed the motion, arguing that the materials were protected under prior court orders and that their release served no legitimate bankruptcy purpose. The Debtor specifically claimed that the information was “scandalous” under 11 U.S.C. § 107(b) and should remain confidential to protect the privacy interests of the church, its clergy, and its administrative personnel. The Debtor also argued that the disclosure could undermine mediation efforts and damage its reputation. Continue reading

by

Default judgments are disfavored in bankruptcy litigation, particularly when they prevent a party from presenting defenses to serious financial allegations. The strong policy preference for adjudicating cases on the merits rather than on procedural missteps was demonstrated in a recent California ruling in which a creditor successfully challenged a bankruptcy court’s refusal to set aside default in an adversary proceeding. If you are navigating a bankruptcy adversary proceeding, it is crucial to consult a knowledgeable California bankruptcy attorney to protect your rights.

Case Setting

It is reported that the debtor filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August 2021. In 2022, a creditor affiliate asserted a claim against the debtor for unpaid contract obligations. The debtor then reportedly initiated adversary proceedings against that creditor and others, alleging claims such as unjust enrichment and preferential transfers. The creditor and its affiliates retained the same attorney, who allegedly failed to comply with discovery rules, missed filing deadlines, and failed to appear at hearings. Despite these issues, the same attorney was later retained to represent another related entity in a new complaint filed by the debtor in August 2023.

It is alleged that when the debtor initiated a second adversary proceeding against this related entity, the same attorney failed to file a timely answer, resulting in the entry of default in October 2023. Although the attorney filed a motion to set aside the default, it was rejected after the bankruptcy court found his conduct to be part of a broader pattern of gamesmanship. Allegedly, the attorney later filed additional motions, offering explanations including misfiling, travel-related delays, and clerical errors. Despite these submissions and the retention of new counsel, the bankruptcy court repeatedly denied all motions to set aside default. Continue reading

Contact Information
428 J Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 361-6028



We are a Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Code. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Matthew D. Roy
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design