Padilla v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In Re Padilla)

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that misallocation of funds, such as the posting of an item from one internal account to another, “is not an act to obtain possession of estate property” and therefore does not violate the automatic stay
• relying on Bradley v. Barnes (In re Bradley), 989 F.2d 802, 804 (5th Cir. 1993)
• “For similar reasons [to the Court’s denial of certification under Rule 23(b)(3)], class certification is improper under Rule 23(b)(2).”
• “[T]he posting of an item from one internal account to another is not an act to obtain possession of estate property.... The improper allocation of payments may violate the confirmed plans, but does not violate the automatic stay.”
• “A confirmed plan constitutes a new contract between the debtor and creditors.”
• “A confirmed plan constitutes a new contract between the debtor and creditors.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).