Joel R. Glucksman
Partner
201-896-7095 jglucksman@sh-law.comKey Contacts
Back
Dewsnup v. Timm
In 1992, the United States Supreme Court decided a mortgage bankruptcy case entitled, Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410 (1992). This held that a debtor in a bankruptcy could not use a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding to “strip down” a mortgage lien to the value of the collateral.
In Dewsnup, the mortgage was for a greater amount than the value of the property. The debtor attempted to use bankruptcy to reduce the value of the mortgage to the value of the property, and to discharge the “undersecured” remainder of the mortgage debt. The Supreme Court refused to allow that, thus leaving the debtor in the position of either walking away from the property (that is, abandoning it in the bankruptcy), or agreeing to pay the mortgage bank the full amount of the mortgage.
Applying the Dewsnup Ruling
Despite frequent criticism of Dewsnup’s reasoning, the Supreme Court has just reaffirmed it. In last week’s case of Bank of America v. Caulkett, the debtors both had second mortgages which were completely “under water.” That is, the values of the two properties were each less than the first mortgages, leaving the second mortgages fully unsecured. The Supreme Court, being consistent, followed Dewsnup, and declared that not even completely unsecured mortgages could be “stripped down” in bankruptcy.
The interesting point, however, was that the opinion, a unanimous ruling authored by Justice Thomas, admitted in a footnote that Dewsnup “has been the target of criticism.” Indeed, Justice Thomas cited to Justice Scalia’s dissent in Dewsnup. One might therefore have expected the Supreme Court to consider overruling Dewsnup. Thomas chose not to do this, relying repeatedly on the fact that counsel in Caulkett never asked that Dewsnup be reconsidered. One will note, charitably, for the record, that this omission has not stopped the High Court in the past from targeting issues. Perhaps they are simply laying the ground work for an all-out assault on Dewsnup.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter in more detail, please contact Joel Glucksman, Partner, Chair, Bankruptcy & Creditors Rights Group.
Are you a creditor in a bankruptcy? Have you been sued by a bankrupt? If you have any questions about your rights, please contact me, Joel Glucksman, at 201-806-3364.
- Practices: Bankruptcy & Creditors' Rights
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Fun & Games with Mortgage Bankruptcy
Author: Joel R. Glucksman
Dewsnup v. Timm
In 1992, the United States Supreme Court decided a mortgage bankruptcy case entitled, Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410 (1992). This held that a debtor in a bankruptcy could not use a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding to “strip down” a mortgage lien to the value of the collateral.
In Dewsnup, the mortgage was for a greater amount than the value of the property. The debtor attempted to use bankruptcy to reduce the value of the mortgage to the value of the property, and to discharge the “undersecured” remainder of the mortgage debt. The Supreme Court refused to allow that, thus leaving the debtor in the position of either walking away from the property (that is, abandoning it in the bankruptcy), or agreeing to pay the mortgage bank the full amount of the mortgage.
Applying the Dewsnup Ruling
Despite frequent criticism of Dewsnup’s reasoning, the Supreme Court has just reaffirmed it. In last week’s case of Bank of America v. Caulkett, the debtors both had second mortgages which were completely “under water.” That is, the values of the two properties were each less than the first mortgages, leaving the second mortgages fully unsecured. The Supreme Court, being consistent, followed Dewsnup, and declared that not even completely unsecured mortgages could be “stripped down” in bankruptcy.
The interesting point, however, was that the opinion, a unanimous ruling authored by Justice Thomas, admitted in a footnote that Dewsnup “has been the target of criticism.” Indeed, Justice Thomas cited to Justice Scalia’s dissent in Dewsnup. One might therefore have expected the Supreme Court to consider overruling Dewsnup. Thomas chose not to do this, relying repeatedly on the fact that counsel in Caulkett never asked that Dewsnup be reconsidered. One will note, charitably, for the record, that this omission has not stopped the High Court in the past from targeting issues. Perhaps they are simply laying the ground work for an all-out assault on Dewsnup.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter in more detail, please contact Joel Glucksman, Partner, Chair, Bankruptcy & Creditors Rights Group.
Are you a creditor in a bankruptcy? Have you been sued by a bankrupt? If you have any questions about your rights, please contact me, Joel Glucksman, at 201-806-3364.