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.

Published In: Bankruptcy Updates

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