Cano v. GMAC Mortgage Corp. (In Re Cano)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that ”[s]ection 1322(b)(5) provides an explicit exception to § 1322(b)(2)’s prohibition of mortgage modifications”
• providing that the Padilla court \held that § 1327(a) rather than the court order confirming the plan created the legal right from which the § 105 remedy arose\
• “Nothing within [28 U.S.C] §§ 1334 or 157 ties bankruptcy 15 jurisdiction over debtor adversary proceedings to the location of 16 the debtor’s bankruptcy case.”
• dismissing plaintiffs' claim that mortgage lender violated the automatic stay because lender's internal allocation of funds from general account to individual account was not an act to obtain possession of property of the estate
• \[A bankruptcy court] cannot graft into the [Bankruptcy] Code rights and remedies that Congress chose not to create.\
• \The automatic stay has broad application and acts to restrain creditors from taking any action to continue collection efforts against the debtor or property of the estate.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).