You are here

In re Haake, Case No. 12-11398-11 (09/18/2012) (483 B.R. 524) -- Judge Thomas S. Utschig

Case Summary:
The debtor was a Minnesota resident who purchased her home through a contract for deed. The contract called for full payment of the balance due by a specific date. After she failed to pay, the vendor served the debtor with a notice of cancellation of the contract in accordance with Minnesota law. She filed bankruptcy in an effort to save her home. The vendor moved for relief from the stay and argued that her right to “cure” the contract had expired under § 108(b) and she had no further right to the property. The court ruled that under relevant Eighth Circuit precedent, a notice of cancellation of a contract for deed created a cure period under § 108(b) that was not stayed by § 362(a); as such, the debtor’s redemption rights had expired. Even if she still held an interest in the property, the debtor could not modify the contract for deed because of the anti-modification provisions of § 1123(b)(5). The motion for relief from stay was granted.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 108(b)
11 U.S.C. § 1123(b) -- Contents of Plan

Key Terms:
Anti-Modification Provisions


Date: 
Tuesday, September 18, 2012