In Re Barham, 193 B.R. 229 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 1996). · Go Syfert
In Re Barham, 193 B.R. 229 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: TD Bank, N.A. v. LaPointe (bap1, 2014-02-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) TD Bank, N.A. v. LaPointe
1st Cir. BAP · 2014 · confidence medium
Corp. (In re Randall), 263 B.R. 200, 202 (D.N.J.2001) (holding that § 1322(c)(1) right to cure is not extinguished until rights of redemption have expired under state law); In re Spencer, 263 B.R. 227, 231 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2001) (referring to state law and finding that, in Illinois, "foreclosure sale is not complete until an order confirming the sale has been entered”); In re Beeman, 235 B.R. at 526 ; In re Barham, 193 B.R. 229, 232 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1996) (determining that property is "sold” only when a foreclosure sale has been completed under state law).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Jenkins
Bankr. E.D. Ark. · 2010 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Christian v. Citibank, 214 B.R. 352, 355 (N.D.Ill.1997); In re Downing, 212 B.R. 459, 461 (Bankr.D.N.J.1997); In re Ross, 191 B.R. 615, 618 (Bankr.D.N.J.1996); In re Barham, 193 B.R. 229, 231-32 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1996); In re Reid, 200 B.R. 265 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.l996)(quoting In re Jaar, 186 B.R. 148 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1995)); In re Blair, 196 B.R. 477, 479-80 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.1996); In re Ross, 191 B.R. 615, 618 (Bankr.D.N.J.1996); In re Jaar, 186 B.R. 148, 151-54 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1995).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Bardell (2×)
Bankr. N.D.W. Va. · 2007 · confidence medium
In re Beeman, 235 B.R. 519, 525 (Bankr.D.N.H.1999) (holding that the debtors were entitled to cure the mortgage arrearage through their Chapter 13 plan because the creditor’s failure to record the sale deed prior to the bankruptcy filing rendered the sale incomplete under state law); Christian v. Citibank, F.S.B., 214 B.R. 352, 355-56 (N.D.Ill.1997) (holding that the debtor had the right to cure the default because the foreclosure sale was not complete under state law until it was *471 confirmed by a court); In re Downing, 212 B.R. 459, 462 (Bankr.D.N.J.1997) (holding that the debtors could …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Woodford
Bankr. W.D. Ky. · 2006 · confidence medium
Mortgage Corp. v. Smith (In re Smith), 85 F.3d 1555, 1561 (11th Cir.1996); In re Beeman, 235 B.R. 519, 525 (Bankr.D.N.H.1999); Inre Faulkner, 240 B.R. *157 67, 68-69 (Bankr.W.D.Okla.1999); Homeside Lending, Inc. v. Denny (In re Denny), 242 B.R. 593, 596 (Bankr.D.Md.1999); Schinck v. Stephens (In re Stephens), 221 B.R. 290, 294 (Bankr.D.Me.1998); In re Rombo, 199 B.R. 747, 751 (Bankr.W.D.Okla.1996); In re Barham, 193 B.R. 229, 231-32 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Beneficial Mortgage Co. of North Carolina, Inc. v. Barrington & Jones Law Firm, P.A. (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Accordingly, Judge Small of the Eastern District of North Carolina U.S. Bankruptcy Court has determined that, for bankruptcy purposes, “in North Carolina, a property has not been ‘sold at foreclosure sale’ under 11 U.S.C. § 1322 (c)(1) until all of the state procedural requirements for completion of the sale, including the expiration of the upset bid period, have been met.” In re Barham, 193 B.R. 229, 232 (Bankr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE CO. OF NORTH CAROLINA INC. v. Barrington (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Accordingly, Judge Small of the Eastern District of North Carolina U.S. Bankruptcy Court has determined that, for bankruptcy purposes, "in North Carolina, a property has not been `sold at foreclosure sale' under 11 U.S.C.§ 1322(c)(1) until all of the state procedural requirements for completion of the sale, including the expiration of the upset bid period, have been met." In re Barham, 193 B.R. 229, 232 (Bankr.E.D.N.C. 1996).
cited Cited as authority (rule) LaSalle National Bank v. Price (In Re Price)
Bankr. D. Md. · 2003 · confidence medium
Another case cited by Debtor is In re Barham, 193 B.R. 229, 232 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1996), that was decided under North Carolina law.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Townsville
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 2001 · confidence medium
Compare *120 McEwen v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 194 B.R. 594, 596-97 (N.D.Ill.1996) (quoting Citicorp Savings of Illinois v. First Chicago Trust Co., 269 Ill.App.3d 293 , 206 Ill.Dec. 786, 793 , 645 N.E.2d 1038, 1045 (1995)) (concluding that a foreclosure has sale has not been conducted under the law of Illinois until the judicial sale has been confirmed by the court because “ 'the highest bid received by a sheriff at a judicial sale is merely an irrevocable offer to purchase the property and acceptance of the offer takes place when the court confirms the sale.’ ”); In re B…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Impac Funding Corp. v. Simpson (In Re Simpson)
8th Cir. BAP · 1999 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Christian v. Citibank, 214 B.R. 352, 355 (N.D.Ill.1997); In re Downing, 212 B.R. 459, 461 (Bankr.D.N.J.1997); In re Reid, 200 B.R. 265 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1996); In re Blair, 196 B.R. 477, 479-80 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.1996); In re Barham, 193 B.R. 229, 231-32 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Faulkner
Bankr. W.D. Okla. · 1999 · confidence medium
See, Schinck v. Stephens (In re Stephens), 221 B.R. 290, 297 (D.Me.1998) (regarding 1322(c)(1): “Plainly Not Preemption”); see also, In re Downing, 212 B.R. 459 , 461 and 464 (Bankr.D.N.J.1997) (noting the prior divergence of opinion within New Jersey, the District Court held the sale incomplete until delivery of sheriffs deed); In re Beeman, 235 B.R. 519, 525 (Bankr.D.N.H.1999) (“Congress intended state law to be determinative of when a foreclosure sale is complete”); In re Jaar, 186 B.R. 148, 153 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1995) (must look to state law to determine when a § 1322 foreclosure sal…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Tomlin
Bankr. E.D. Ark. · 1999 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Christian v. Citibank, 214 B.R. 352, 355 (N.D.Ill.1997); In re Downing, 212 B.R. 459, 461 (Bankr.D.N.J.1997); In re Ross, 191 B.R. 615, 618 (Bankr.D.N.J.1996); In re Barham, 193 B.R. 229, 231-32 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1996); In re Reid, 200 B.R. 265 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1996) (quoting In re Jaar, 186 B.R. 148 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1995)); In re Blair, 196 B.R. 477, 479-80 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.1996); In re Ross, 191 B.R. 615, 618 (Bankr.D.N.J.1996); In re Jaar, 186 B.R. 148, 151-54 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1995).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Parks
Bankr. W.D.N.Y. · 1998 · confidence medium
See, e.g., In re Downing, 212 B.R. 459, 464 (Bankr.D.N.J.1997); In re Barham, 193 B.R. 229, 232-33 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McCarn v. WyHy Federal Credit Union (In Re McCarn)
10th Cir. BAP · 1998 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Christian v. Citibank, F.S.B., 214 B.R. 352, 355-56 (N.D.Ill.1997) (state-law approach applied); McEwen v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, 194 B.R. 594, 596 (N.D.Ill.1996) (without addressing issue, court looks to Illinois law to determine when sale occurs); In re Downing, 212 B.R. 459, 462 (Bankr.D.N.J.1997); In re Rambo, 199 B.R. 747, 751 (Bankr.W.D.Okla.1996) (state-law approach applied); In re Barham, 193 B.R. 229, 232 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1996) (same); In re Ross, 191 B.R. 615, 618 (Bankr.D.N.J.1996) (same); In re Jaar, 186 B.R. 148 , 152 & n. 4 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1995) (same); 8 Colli…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Christian v. Citibank, F.S.B.
N.D. Ill. · 1997 · confidence medium
In Re Rambo, 199 B.R. 747, 751 (Bankr.W.D.Okla.1996); In Re Barham, 193 B.R. 229, 232 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Simmons
Bankr. D.N.J. · 1996 · confidence medium
The court in In re Barham, 193 B.R. 229, 231 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1996), implicitly finds ambiguity in *201 the statute, inasmuch as it looks to legislative history as well as North Carolina foreclosure law to determine when the debtor’s ability to cure terminates. 193 B.R. at 232 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Rambo
Bankr. W.D. Okla. · 1996 · confidence medium
The language adopted is “... until such residence is sold at a foreclosure sale that is conducted in accordance with applicablenonbahkruptcylaw ...” This court agrees with the court in In re Barham, 193 B.R. 229, 232 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1996), which held that a property is “sold” at a foreclosure sale only when the foreclosure sale is completed.
cited Cited "see" In Re Bobo
D.D.C. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Barham, 193 B.R. 229 (Bankr.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." JPMorgan Chase Bank v. McKinney (In re McKinney)
Bankr. D. Me. · 2006 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Indeed, as far as the debtor is concerned, the matter settled by the auction is not whether he or she has lost the real estate, it is whether there will be surplus funds or a deficiency judgment. 14 M.R.S.A. § 6323; Cormier, supra. The filing of a post-auction report of sale is not a condition to effective title transfer via foreclosure sale. 14 M.R.S.A. § 6324; compare Faulkner, 240 B.R. at 68 (state law requirement that sale be confirmed by court means that sale has not been "conducted” in accordance with state law until confirmation is had), and In re Barham, 193 B.R. 229, 231 (Bankr.E.…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In RE McKINNEY 1
Bankr. D. Me. · 2006 · signal: compare · confidence medium
The filing of a post-auction report of sale is not a condition to effective title transfer via foreclosure sale. 14 M.R.S.A. § 6324; compare Faulkner, 240 B.R. at 68 (state law requirement that sale be confirmed by court means that sale has not been "conducted" in accordance with state law until confirmation is had), and In re Barham, 193 B.R. 229, 231 (Bankr.E.D.N.C. 1996) (sale not complete until expiration of ten-day post-auction upset bid opportunity), with Colon, 319 F.3d at 915 (state's post-sale confirmation process is insignificant in view of federal concerns). [8] Moreover, problems …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Dwight BARHAM and Maria D. Barham, Debtors
19-01260.
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina.
May 25, 1996.
193 B.R. 229
Gregory P. Chocklett, Raleigh, NC, for Debtors., William E. Brewer, Jr., Raleigh, NC, Ami-cus Curiae for Debtors., Gerald A. Jeutter, Jr., Petree Stockton, L.L.P., Raleigh, NC, for BB & T.
A. Thomas Small.
Cited by 25 opinions  |  Published

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY

A. THOMAS SMALL, Chief Judge.

The matter before the court in this chapter 13 case is the motion for relief from the automatic stay filed by Branch Banking & Trust Company (BB & T). This motion presents an important issue of first impression to this court regarding 11 U.S.C. § 1322(e), which was added to the Bankruptcy Code by the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994. Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103-394, § 301, 108 Stat. 4106, 4131 (1994). A hearing was held in Raleigh, North Carolina on February 20,1996.

BB & T holds a Note and Deed of Trust on the debtors’ residence that was executed on November 29, 1994, in the original principal amount of $54,800. Prior to the filing of this bankruptcy petition, the debtors, Dwight and Maria Barham, defaulted on their obligation to BB & T. BB & T initiated a foreclosure proceeding in state court, a hearing was held pursuant to North Carolina foreclosure law, and an order was entered giving BB & T permission to hold a foreclosure sale. See, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 45-21.16 to § 45-21.17. The foreclosure sale was held on December 28, 1995, and the debtors filed their chapter[*231] 13 petition five days later, on January 2, 1996, during the statutory upset bid period prescribed by North Carolina law. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 45-21.27. The debtors now want to cure their mortgage default and maintain their regular mortgage payments through their chapter 13 plan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5). BB & T contends that the debtors lost these rights when the foreclosure sale was held and that it is entitled to relief from the automatic stay.

The Bankruptcy Code provides that chapter 13 debtors may modify the rights of secured creditors, but not of a creditor “secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence];.;]” 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2). However, § 1322(b)(5) further provides that “notwithstanding” § 1322(b)(2), chapter 13 debtors may cure a default and maintain payments during the bankruptcy case of a debt on which the last payment is due after the final plan payment. 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5). Pri- or to the 1994 amendments, the Bankruptcy Code gave no guidance as to when the right to cure a mortgage default that is granted under § 1322(b)(5) terminates, and the cases on this subject were conflicting.

In In re DiCello, 80 B.R. 769 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1987), this court held that expiration of the right to cure a mortgage default under § 1322(b)(5) occurs in North Carolina when the foreclosure sale is held because that is the time at which the mortgagor’s rights were altered. DiCello reasoned that after a foreclosure sale a mortgagor could still redeem the property by paying the entire indebtedness, but a mortgagor could not cure a mortgage default because following a foreclosure sale there is no longer any default to cure.

DiCello was decided in the absence of any guidance from Congress as to the point during the foreclosure process when the right to cure a mortgage expires. The amendments made to the Bankruptcy Code in 1994 added subsection (e) to § 1322, which now provides some direction. 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c) provides in applicable part that:

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b)(2) and applicable nonbankruptcy law—
(1) a default with respect to, or that gave rise to, a lien on the debtor’s principal residence may be cured under paragraph (3) or (5) of subsection (b) until such residence is sold at a foreclosure sale that is conducted in accordance with applicable nonbankraptey law[.]

11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(1).

BB & T argues that the language of § 1322(c) is clear, the date the foreclosure sale is conducted determines when the debtors’ right to cure ends. According to BB & T the foreclosure sale of the Barham’s residence was completed prepetition, the debtors are no longer entitled to cure their mortgage default, and BB & T is entitled to relief from the automatic stay. Conversely, the debtors maintain that their right to cure does not terminate until the sale is completed and that their residence has not been “sold at a foreclosure sale” for the purposes of § 1322(e)(1) until the expiration of the ten day upset bid period provided by North Carolina law. In the court’s opinion, a property is not “sold at foreclosure sale” in North Carolina until the termination of the upset bid period.

The legislative history to § 301 of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, which created 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c), states that § 1322(e)(1) was intended to overrule In re Roach, 824 F.2d 1370 (3d Cir.1987), which held that the debtor’s right to cure ended when the foreclosure judgment was entered, prior to the foreclosure sale. H.R.Rep. No. 103-835, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., 52 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3340, 3361. The legislative history further states that the substance of § 1322(e)(1) was designed to “safeguard]; ] a debtor’s rights in a chapter 13 case by allowing the debtor to cure home mortgage defaults at least through completion of a foreclosure sale under applicable nonbankraptey law.” [1] Id. (emphasis added).

[*232] Section 1322(c)(1) specifies that cure rights end when a debtor’s residence “is sold at a foreclosure sale that is conducted in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law[.]” 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(1). Consequently, keeping the legislative history in mind, the court must examine North Carolina foreclosure law to determine the time now specified by the Bankruptcy Code for the termination of cure rights on debtors’ residences.

North Carolina has established an upset bid procedure whereby any person may purchase real property after a foreclosure sale by bidding a minimum of 10% more than the sale price or the last upset bid, complying with the statutory procedures, and making the bid prior to the close of business on the tenth day after the sale or last upset bid. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 45-21.27 (Supp.1995). Furthermore, North Carolina General Statute § 45-21.29A states that “[i]f an upset bid is not filed following a sale, resale, or prior upset bid within the [ten day] period specified ... the rights of the parties to the sale or resale become fixed.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 45-21.29A (Supp.1995).

Indeed, North Carolina cases interpreting the foreclosure statutes have stated that the final and highest bidder at a foreclosure sale is merely a “proposed purchaser” who has no rights, or entirely voidable rights, to the property until the upset bid period terminates. Cherry v. Gilliam, 195 N.C. 233, 141 S.E. 594 (1928). Another case held that a foreclosure sale “cannot be consummated” until the expiration of the upset bid period. Shelby Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Black, 215 N.C. 400, 2 S.E.2d 6 (1939).

The court therefore concludes that pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(1), a property is “sold” at a foreclosure sale only when the foreclosure sale is “completed.” And in North Carolina, a foreclosure sale is not completed at the auction, but rather only after the expiration of the, ten day upset bid period. Only at the end of the upset bid period does the purchaser’s rights to the property become “fixed.” Consequently, in North Carolina, a property has not been “sold at foreclosure sale” under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(e)(1) until all of the state procedural requirements for completion of the sale, including the expiration of the upset bid period, have been met.

Additionally, in 1993, North Carolina General Statute § 45-21.22 was amended to include a provision that if a bankruptcy petition is filed (1) after the notice and hearing provided for in § 45-21.16 has been completed and (2) after the Clerk of Superior Court has authorized the foreclosure and (3) prior to the expiration of the upset bid period, then if the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 is subsequently lifted with respect to the foreclosure, the foreclosing trustee need not comply with the notice and hearing procedure again, but may proceed to readvertise the property and sell it. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 45-21.22(e) (Supp.1995). The effect of this new statutory provision with respect to the validity of an initial foreclosure sale is not clear, but the statute is another indication that a property is not deemed sold until the upset bid period has expired.

In reaching its decision today, the court is cognizant of the possibility that a mortgagor’s rights may be altered by a foreclosure sale under North Carolina law, but 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c) says that the time limit on a chapter 13 debtor’s ability to cure a mortgage default is to be determined “notwithstanding ... applicable nonbankruptcy law.” Since the restriction on a chapter 13 debtor’s ability to cure is now determined only by when the foreclosure sale is completed, and not when the parties’ rights are altered, DiCello should not apply to chapter 13 cases [2] commenced after the October 22, 1994 enactment of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994. Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103-394, § 702, 108 Stat. 4106, 4150 (1994). A mortgagor who files a chapter 13 petition during the upset bid period may now, by virtue of § 1322(c)(1), cure the mortgage default under either § 1322(b)(3) or § 1322(b)(5).

[*233] Accordingly, the Barhams still have the right to cure mortgage arrearages pursuant to §§ 1322(c) and 1322(b)(3) or (b)(5), and BB & T’s motion for relief from the automatic stay is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

1

. Floor statements are somewhat less reliable than actual congressional reports, however, the comment of Senator Grassley might favor interpreting the time of sale for § 1322(c)(1) as the time of the auction, although the context makes his intent unclear. (“There may be several months between the court order and the foreclosure sale. Section 301 [now § 1322(c)] will preempt conflicting State laws, and permit homeowners to present a plan to pay off their[*232] mortgage debt until the foreclosure sale actually occurs.”) 140 CoNG.ftec. SI4462 (daily ed. Oct. 6, 1994) (statement of Sen. Grassley) (emphasis added).

2

. The court expresses no opinion regarding the application of DiCello in chapter 11 cases.