While a colleague has likened Kentucky’s guaranty statute to Lewis G. Carroll’s Jabberwocky, the statute that frightens us more is Kentucky’s failure to release statute. It is a statute that comes with draconian penalties ($500/day plus attorney’s fees) and a lack of judicial interpretation.
Due to foreclosure and eviction moratoriums, voluntary forbearances, or the influx of government stimulus, the anticipated wave of creditor actions as a result of the pandemic have been held at bay.
The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the “mere retention of property does not violate § 362(a)(3)” of the automatic stay.
In March 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a narrow holding that debt collectors enforcing security interests in nonjudicial proceedings are subject to only one section (Section 1692f(6)) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
We have posted twice before on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ incorrect decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, 786 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2015). There, the court of appeals reversed a district court ruling and refused to enforce a Delaware choice of law provision citing the public policy inherent in the New York criminal usury statute.