In re George and Mary Highsmith

Response to Motion to Lift Automatic Stay (using HAMP and the new settlement with 49 States)


This response to a MFRFS in a chapter 7 case contains short, well summarized grounds to deny stay relief because the debtors had not been given a fair chance to qualify for a HAMP loan and the lender had not followed Treasury Regulations in giving the reasons for a prior HAMP denial. The last paragraph mentions the possible benefit to debtors of the 25 billion dollar settlement entered on the date I filed the response which could allow up to a 20k principal reduction in the debtors' loan, which, when combined with HAMP, would allow the debtors to easily meet the new mortgage payments. There is also language which alleges that a MFRFS is never appropriate in a no asset Chapter 7 which will close in 4 to 5 months from filing the case in any event.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Reference Info:Pleadings | Federal, 11th Circuit, Alabama | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ronald Suber, Duck Calhoun and Stone | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Duck Calhoun and Stone on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.