Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Mendoza v. Temple-Inland Mortgage Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided May 12, 1997No. 95-40859Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice, District Judge
I find that it was an abuse of discretion for the bankruptcy court to include a “drop dead” clause in its April 13, 1995, Order Conditionally Modifying Stays, and for this reason only, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
As the majority summarizes, Josephine Mendoza’s Chapter 13 Plan of Reorganization provided for the payment of the current mortgage on her residence, the pre-petition six-month arrearage on the mortgage, and a trustee’s fee. Mendoza, as a result of an illness, was forced to miss work and was eventually dismissed from her job, causing her to miss two of her monthly…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- In the Matter of S.I. Acquisition, Inc., Debtor. S.I. Acquisition, Inc. v. Eastway Delivery Service, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1987
- In Re Briggs Transportation Company, Debtor. Lend Lease, a Division of National Car Rental Systems, Inc. v. Briggs Transportation Company, in Re Briggs Transportation Company, Debtor. General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Briggs Transportation CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1986
- In Re McCollumUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · 1987
- In Re Aqua AssociatesUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1991
- In Re Morysville Body Works, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1988
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.