Back to News

Bankruptcy Case Update: A Flawless Foreclosure is Not Preference

Published on

February 13, 2017

There is a division among bankruptcy courts across the country as to whether a properly conducted sheriff sale can be considered a “preference,” but Pennsylvania courts continue to send a clear message:

They can’t.

In the Western District of Pennsylvania, in a case the attorneys at Barley Snyder were monitoring, a judge recently held that a sheriff sale can’t be reversed or avoided by way of a preferential transfer action. That continues the streak where western Pennsylvania courts have continued to side with creditors when it comes to preference actions arising from sheriff sales rather than debtors, even though courts in other states have sided with debtors.

The facts of the case were undisputed. The individual debtor owned a home that she claimed was worth $200,000. It was subject to a first mortgage in favor of Capital One and a second mortgage held by Fifth Third Bank. Capital One commenced foreclosure for non-payment and obtained a default judgment. At a July sheriff sale, Fifth Third purchased the home for $90,000, with the bank’s deed issued in August. The home’s former owner did not participate in or object to the foreclosure action and sale, conceding she was behind on her mortgage payments and the foreclosure proceedings were completed in full compliance with the applicable law.

The debtor filed her Chapter 11 bankruptcy case October 2 and promptly filed suit seeking a determination that Fifth Third’s purchase was an avoidable preference in the amount of $80,000. Specifically, the debtor alleged the sheriff’s sale met the criteria for a preference since it was a transfer, the transfer occurred within 90 days of her petition, the debtor was insolvent at the time of sale, the transfer was made to satisfy an antecedent debt and that it allowed Fifth Third to secure more than it would have if the case was filed under Chapter 7. The court granted Fifth Third’s motion to dismiss the case even though the former homeowner appeared to meet the conditions for a preferential treatment.

Applying rationale from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in BFP v. Resolution Trust Co. alongside prior decisions from the Western District, Judge Carlotta Bohm found that Fifth Third could not and did not receive more under the qualifications of the law since it purchased the property at a regularly-conducted, non-collusive sheriff’s sale. The court’s determination essentially said properly conducted sheriff’s sales are not, and will not, be considered a preference.

For more information on adversary actions in bankruptcy cases or to discuss esoteric bankruptcy issues, please contact Joseph P. Schalk in Barley Snyder’s Finance & Creditors’ Rights Group.


Related News

View More News
Press Release
March 14, 2023

Barley Snyder Partner Paul G. Mattaini Recognized with Champion for Women Award by the Pennsylvania Bankers Association

For Immediate Release Lancaster, Pennsylvania. – Barley Snyder is pleased...

Learn More
News Alert
March 14, 2023

New ASTM Standard Recognized by U.S. EPA for Phase 1 Reports Now in Effect

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took final action to amend t...

Learn More
News Alert
March 13, 2023

Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank Fail; Regulators Move to Limit Systemic Risk

On Friday, March 10, the largest bank failure since the 2008 financial cris...

Learn More

Other Upcoming Events

View All Upcoming Events
Mar
21
12:00 pm
-
1:00 pm

Bank Regulation & Failure: A Discussion on Current Events in the Banking Industry

Learn More
Mar
23
12:00 pm
-
6:00 pm
event
Location

LendiCon 2023

Learn More
May
12
8:00 am
-
4:45 pm
event
Location

40th Annual Employment Law Seminar

Learn More

Get in Touch

Our attorneys, paralegals and staff look forward to hearing from you. Please reach out to let us know how we can help.

Get In Touch
RECOGNIZED IN
Super Lawyers
Best Law Firms US News
Best Lawyers