The Essay Scholarship Contest sponsored by our law office has been in existence since 2014 and has evolved since then from a yearly contest with one winner to a bi-annual contest with three winners per contest. Currently, we award $13,000. in combined prizes per year to six deserving contestants. A look back at some of the winning essays can give current contestants inspiration and ideas for their own essays. We have also posted the essays and photos of the winners to give encouragement to potential contestants to enter our contest. The goal of the scholarship is to challenge and to get the best ideas from students about how our society should deal with current issues of debt relief in terms of laws and policies that are effective, practical, fair, and just.
BACKGROUND FACTS AND HISTORY
You are currently on PAGE TWO (2) of the Spring 2024 Scholarship Essay Contest. This PAGE TWO (2) contains the Actual {A} ESSAY and {B} APPLICATION. If you have not yet done so, please read on the preceding PAGE ONE (1) the INSTRUCTIONS for both of these parts. The Actual ESSAY is color coded PINK and the Actual APPLICATION is color coded PURPLE. Both the ESSAY and the APPLICATION are required for your submission.
Please first read the initial section below, entitled, “BACKGROUND FACTS AND HISTORY”; this introductory section, explains the framework in terms of legal history and factual context for our Essay Topic questions. The next section, entitled “***CURRENT TOPIC QUESTIONS***”, contains several alternative Essay Topic questions. Out of the five (5) alternative ***CURRENT TOPIC QUESTIONS***, below, please pick one (1), or more, QUESTIONS for your Essay, by checking off your selected QUESTION(S), in the box(es) next to that (those) QUESTION(S). Please note that each of the five (5) QUESTIONS has two (2) sub-parts, both of which need to be answered for each Essay QUESTION(S) that may be chosen. Please make sure you give an answer to both SUB-PART A) and SUB-PART B).
You must follow the INSTRUCTIONS on PAGE ONE (1) of this Scholarship Section as to length, citations, references and the criteria by which the Essays will be judged. The DEADLINE for Essay submissions for this Spring 2024 Essay Contest is JULY 15, 2024.
BACKGROUND FACTS AND HISTORY : The State of New York (“NYS”) is a judicial foreclosure state (FN 1a) (FN 1b), where foreclosure actions need to be pursued in the form of a law suit, usually in front of the New York Supreme Court, which is the trial level court, where most legal matters, subject to state laws, are handled. Foreclosure actions in NYS, like any legal disputes, have a statute of limitations (“SOL”), which limits the time in which a legal action must commence (FN 2). The SOL is intended to prevent stale claims and therefore pressures a potential plaintiff to bring their dispute to court within a time designated and limited by state statute, and different causes of action have different statutes of limitation (FN 3). In NYS the SOL is six (6) years for foreclosure actions, under New York’s civil procedure statutory code, the Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”), Section 213(4) (FN 4), which states “The following actions must be commence within six years:…4. an action upon a bond or note, the payment of which is secure by a mortgage upon real property…”. Different states have different SOL’s for debt collection (FN 5). The SOL is commonly misunderstood. The SOL is not the length of a law suit. Rather, the SOL is the time in which the lender, after the SOL is triggered, takes to go to Court and start a legal action by filing a Summon and Complaint (FN 6).
What starts / triggers the SOL is different for each cause of action, but for NYS foreclosures it’s “acceleration” (FN 7). “Acceleration” is a legal term meaning that the lender has taken “overt action” to start a foreclosure action (FN 8). Acceleration is not a “default letter”, which just threatens a foreclosure action and demands the reinstatement (or cure) amount; rather acceleration is the actual, full and immediate demand for the entire payoff amount due to the Lender, in an “acceleration letter” and/or the actual commencement of the legal action (FN 9). The actual demanding of the immediate payment of the full balance due under the mortgage loan in an “acceleration letter”, is no longer common, so in reality, the actual acceleration of the loan, usually occurs in NYS with the filing in a foreclosure action, the summons and complaint, which initiate the legal action.
What ends the ticking of the SOL clock caused by acceleration has been subject to more controversy. Until December 30, 2022, when the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (“FAPA”) (FN 10a)(FN 10b) was passed by the NYS legislature and signed into law by NYS Governor Kathy Hochul, there was a concept called “de-acceleration” that was accepted and explained by NYS’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, under the Freedom Mortgage Corp. v. Engle decision (the “Engle decision”) (FN 11), February 18, 2021, which consolidated four (4) appeals into one (1) comprehensive decision seeking to resolve issues concerning the SOL for foreclosure actions in NYS. The Engle decision firstly decided, based on mainstream precedent, that the NYS foreclosure six (6) year SOL starts to run, when the lender accelerates the mortgage loan with an “overt act”, which is usually the commencement of the foreclosure case. Secondly the Engle decision also decided, based on more contentious case law, the corollary, that the NYS foreclosure SOL stops running when the lender ends the foreclosure action, often with a voluntary dismissal, which the Engel decision held constitutes a “de-acceleration” of the mortgage. The Engel decision reasoned that if Lenders have the right through commencing a foreclosure action, to accelerate, then they logically must also have the right to do the opposite, which is to end the running of the NYS foreclosure SOL, through voluntary dismissal which constitutes a “de-acceleration” of the mortgage loan (FN 12). The Engel decision, which was decided in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic, a time of financial uncertainty for many homeowners, was immediately politically controversial in NYS, in that it was considered to be law that overly favored mortgage lenders, by allowing mortgage lenders to have inappropriate control over the SOL, a time limit set by the NYS Legislature, which the Legislature did not want to have manipulated by the very lenders it sought to oversee and regulate through such laws. The holding in the Engel decision also severely limited the ability of mortgage borrowers, in lengthy and problematic foreclosure actions to assert the SOL defense, which was intended to curtail endless foreclosure efforts. The NYS Legislature also regarded the Engels decision to be abusive, in that it caused a two (2) tiered system, with mortgage lenders being given greater rights than mortgage borrowers, and greater rights than plaintiffs in other areas. Here, the mortgage lender was allowed to control its own SOL, something that was viewed as a manipulative and bypassing of the the SOL law, resulting in a disparity and abuse that was codified by the Engel decision (FN 13).
In direct reaction to the Engel decision, the NYS legislature passed the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act or FAPA, which signed by the Governor and became law on December 30, 2023. FAPA, per its boldly stated legislative purpose, FAPA clearly delineated in its introductory sections, that it was specifically geared to stop lenders and Courts from manipulating the six (6) year foreclosure SOL. FAPA decisively and unambiguously stated that there is no right for Lenders to de-accelerate. Since its passing some cases have closely followed FAPA’s language in giving retroactive effect to pending foreclosure actions where the law would support a finding that the SOL was violated (FN 14). However, the acceptance of FAPA has not been uniform and it has been criticized by lenders counsel as overly generous to borrowers (FN 15), and has raised questions as to whether FAPA’s retroactive effect is constitutional. (FN 16a)(FN 16b) Yet, despite the ongoing controversy, FAPA has been the controlling legislation and law, as to the SOL for foreclosures in NYS, since it was passed.
Congratulations to our Spring 2024 Scholarship 3rd winner, Karsna D. Thomas!
DEFINITIONS
“CHAPTER 13 CASES” – “Chapter 13 Cases” are cases filed under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter, “Chapter 13”). Chapter 13 Cases are sometimes described as “wage earner bankruptcy” cases, because they mainly are used by individuals with regular income to cure defaulted mortgage obligations for their homes. Traditionally Chapter 13 allowed up to sixty (60) months or (5) years, under a Chapter 13 plan, for debtors to catch up on their obligations and mortgage arrears. Under a traditional Chapter 13 plan, the debtor also, at same time, resumed on a going forward basis, paying their regular, monthly mortgage obligations. (Hereinafter, a “Traditional Chapter 13 Plan”). The problem with the Traditional Chapter 13 plan has been that once the debtors’s arrears exceeded a relatively low amount it was difficult for many debtors to both pay their monthly mortgage payment AND pay a monthly “catch up payment” under a chapter 13 plan, given that the plan length could not exceed 60 months. This problem had been partially overcome under Loss Mitigation Programs adopted by some of the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts (See, below). (FN #1 – For a discussion of different kinds of Chapter 13 plans, please see the Chapter 13 section of this website which is linked above).
“MORTGAGE MODIFICATION” NEGOTIATIONS AND AGREEMENTS” – “Mortgage Loan Modification Agreements” are negotiated mortgage default settlements, that modify the existing mortgage balance to incorporate the mortgage’s arrears into the loan principal balance (hereinafter, “Mortgage Modifications”). Mortgage Modifications are by far the most prevalent manner of consensually, reaching a settlement, between borrower and lender, that allows the saving of real estate, especially mortgaged homes in distress. Modification Agreements are discretionary on the part of the lender who reviews the borrower’s application for the modification in terms of available income, monthly expenses, the hardship that caused the default, the payoff amount of the loan, the amount of arrears and the value of the property. The effort to get a Modification is pursuant to an application and subject to a negotiated process involving documents, information and constant updates. (FN #2 – For a discussion of Mortgage Modification, please see the Mortgage Modification section of this website which is linked above).
“FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES” IN STATE COURT – During the last economic crisis, which resulted from excessively, aggressive mortgage lending, which eventually led to widespread foreclosure, from 2007-2010 (the “Foreclosure Crisis”), many state court systems and state legislatures, including that of the State of New York State (hereinafter “NYS”), embraced Mortgage Modifications as a potential solution. They passed laws and implemented systems, that actively encouraged settlement discussions, between the lender’s and borrower’s attorneys, at the commencement of foreclosure proceedings, under court supervision, to expedite, coax and motivate the parties to seek settlement, or loss mitigation, mainly in the form of Mortgage Modifications. In the NYS Supreme Courts, which are NYS’s lower level state courts administering foreclosure actions, these were called Mandatory Foreclosure Settlement Conferences (herein “Settlement Conferences”) and they have became institutionalized as part of the beginning of a foreclosure proceeding in NYS. Under the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules (“NY CPLR”) Rule 3408 participation, good faith negotiations and cooperation during Settlement Conferences are statutorily required of both sides. Both the lender and the borrower are required to engage in several conferences, in State Court, where the Court supervises the parties’ efforts at potential resolution; however, the reaching of an actual agreement was not required. (FN #3- For the statutory underpinnings to Settlement Conferences in the New York State Courts, please see Rule 3408 of the NY CPLR which is linked above).
“LOSS MITIGATION PROGRAMS” IN THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS – It was during this time, and in this context that Mortgage Modifications became accepted by the judicial boards of many districts of the United States Bankruptcy Courts, including those of the Southern District of New York (hereinafter the “SDNY”) and the Eastern District of New York ( hereinafter, “EDNY”) { LINKS TO SDNY Bankruptcy Loss Mitigation Order and EDNY Bankruptcy Loss Mitigation Order implementing Loss Mitigation Programs in those districts}, as well as many other federal districts through the United States, which district by district, decided for that district, whether and how to incorporate Mortgage Modifications, and other methods of resolving mortgage arrears by consensual settlement. This system of seeking Mortgage Modifications within the Bankruptcy Courts was called “Loss Mitigation”, and the pursuit of modifications, as prevalent solutions in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, became not just a practical tool in the bankruptcy courts to help homeowners achieve the goals of Chapter 13, but absolutely necessary where the homeowner’s arrears exceeded a relatively small amount, where the traditional 60-month catch up plan was not sufficient. The Loss Mitigation Program in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts was justified not just based on practical needs, but it was also arguably based on Section 105(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which broadly gives general powers to the bankruptcy courts to implement the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. (FN #4- For the judicial orders and rules forming the underpinnings to Settlement Conferences in the United States Bankruptcy Courts, please see the sample rules for the the judicial districts of the SDNY and EDNY which are linked above). (FN #5- For Section 105 of the Bankruptcy Code, which is the statutory general powers clause, used to give the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, the authority to implement the Loss Mitigation Program; please see Section 105(a) of the U.S.Bankruptcy Code which is linked above).
During the Covid-19 Pandemic (the “Pandemic” or “Covid”) many households, that were having difficulty paying the monthly mortgage obligations on their homes, due to economic disruptions caused by the Pandemic, were given temporary relief in the form of “Forbearance Agreements” by their lenders. The CARES Act, passed by the United States Congress on March 25, 2020, provided a forbearance option for all borrowers, of any federally backed mortgage, who experienced a Covid hardship.
(For information about the CARES Act, see FN # 1). Forbearance agreements — in the form of both formal written agreements and oral understandings — were readily given in the beginning of the Pandemic, by not only government backed lenders, pursuant to the CARES Act, but also voluntarily by non-government backed lenders, and temporarily excused a certain number of monthly mortgage payments. Forbearance Agreements, were often periodically extended every several months, but usually were only focused on the present emergency, so often lasted between six (6) to eighteen (18) months. While the Forbearance Agreements did not permanently excuse these amounts, they also did not commit the lender or the borrower to any specific method of later repaying the amounts temporarily excused. (For information about Forbearance Agreements given during the Pandemic under the CARES Act, See FN #2 and FN#3, and for information about forbearance of government backed loans under specific government programs, see FN #4 ). The CARES Act ended on December 26, 2020, and while some of the same help it provided, continued as help in other forms and under additional laws and programs, the federal response to the Covid-19 Pandemic, as a crisis focused response, was intense and impressive in terms of resources and size, but at the same time had an inherent expiration. Now, post-Pandemic, the question has been how to deal with these Covid-caused mortgage defaults (hereinafter “Covid Defaults” or “Covid Arrears”), which were often temporarily allowed and to some extent encouraged by widespread and readily available Forbearance Agreements. Could Covid Arrears, now be demanded by the lenders and how could they be demanded? Should lenders be allowed to demand that these Covid Arrears be paid all at once, or over a period of time, or should lenders be required and/or incentivized to put Covid Arrears into a modification agreement, if the borrower is eligible?
The legislative response to the Covid-19 Pandemic was both on a federal and on a state level and often involved cooperation between the federal and state governments, including the Homeowner Assistance Fund (“HAF”), a federal program of $9.961 billion to help households throughout the United States who were behind on their mortgages due to the impact of Covid-19. (See, FN #5 for information about the Homeowner Assistance Fund (“HAF”), a federal program to help homeowners impacted by Covid-19 catch up on mortgage and housing payments). Often the longer term and/or more direct response was handled on a state level. For example, the State of New York had a federally funded program based on HAF, the New York State Homeowner Assistance Fund (“NYSHAF”), which starting on January 3, 2022, began accepting applications in order to distribute up to $539 million in funds to eligible homeowners impacted by the Pandemic to “avert mortgage delinquency, default, foreclosure, and displacement…” The program was intended to give eligible homeowners, with a Covid Default, a grant (not requiring repayment) of up to $50,000. per eligible household. While this program increased its contribution size by increasing the cap per household, it was very short lasting; because it was first come, first serve, it quickly ran out of funds and stopped accepting applications on February 18, 2022, or within a month and a half. (See, FN # 6 for information regarding NYSHAF; and see FN # 7 for the results of NYSHAF ).
The federal government has also sought to encourage lenders to give modification agreements to homeowners with Covid-caused mortgage defaults, with amendments as part of the CARES Act to RESPA’s Regulation-X, which allowed lenders to prioritize and grant “stream-line modifications” for incomplete mortgage modification applications for applicants whose mortgage defaults were Covid-caused. These amendments to RESPA’s Regulation-X, which applied to all residential lenders and servicers, were part of the CARES Act, with the Interim Final Rule (“IFR”) issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB’) on June 23, 2020 (see FN #8 and FN #9 for the CFPB’s IFR). One year later, on June 28, 2021, after comments by mortgage and banking trade associations, the CFPB tempered some of the stricter rules in the IRF and issued the Final Rule (“FR”) to amend Regulation X to assist mortgage borrowers affected by the Covid-19 emergency. (See, FN #10 and FN #11 and FN #12 and FN #13 for for the text and commentary about the CFPB’s FR). These amendments by the federal government to Regulation-X were meant to be temporary, but they expired on December 31, 2021, only six (6) months after the Final Rule was issued. (See, Notification Letter including amendment expiration date, as FN #13). Although many of the federal responses to Covid-19 were crisis oriented and ended with the expiration of the CARES Act and its associated amendments and regulations, their policy encouragement to give Covid-caused defaults a greater opportunity for mortgage modification has been voluntarily incorporated into the decision-making of many mortgage lenders. (See, predictions as to post-pandemic future for mortgage industry, as FN #14)
In the State of New York State (“NYS”), on June 23, 2020, the governor signed into law, Banking Law Section 9-x, which like the Federal Regulation-X, was also meant to deal with Covid Defaults beyond just the initial forbearance agreement response. However, unlike the federal rule, the New York State rule was not meant to be temporary legislation, and is not only still in effect, but also more strongly seems to require lenders to give persons who fell behind with their mortgages, due to Covid-19, both temporary and permanent relief. Unlike the broader, but expired, federal law, NYS’s Rule 9-X only deals with conventional and private loans, where the lender or servicer are registered in New York State, and does not deal with federally backed loans. NYS’s Rule 9-X in 9-X(2)(a)(b) requires lenders to give those with Covid Defaults a forbearance agreement of up to 180 days with a potential extension of another 180 days, “subject to the mortgagor demonstrating continued financial hardship” for a combined 360 days, or almost a year in Covid-based forbearance. Loans subject to NYS’s Rule 9-X were required to have been current on March 7, 2020 (or if in arrears, not yet in foreclosure or accelerated) and to have fallen behind with mortgage payments based on a Covid hardship, during the “covered period” which is March 7, 2020 until December 31, 2021 (or until the date government closures due to Covid ended in the borrower’s county). See, NYS Rule 9-X(a). (See, FN #15 for the text of NYS’s Banking Law Section 9-x, and see FN #16 for Frequently Asked Questions regarding Rule 9-x).
Besides giving temporary forbearance, NYS’s Rule 9-X, under subsection 9-X(3)(a)-(d) requires the lender to give those qualifying under the rule, permanent relief in terms of giving the borrower the option of addressing the above referenced Covid forbearance amount (which is potentially 180-360 days of forborne payments) as follows: (a) an extension of the loan term for the length of the forbearance, without additional interest, late fees or penalties on the forborne amount; OR (b) repaying the arrears on a monthly basis over the remaining term of the loan, without penalties or late fees due to the forbearance; OR (c) negotiating for a “loan modification or any other option that meets the changed circumstances” of the borrower; OR (d) if the borrower and the lender cannot “reasonably agree on a mutually acceptable loan modification” the lender shall offer to defer arrears accumulated during the forbearance period as a non-interest bearing balloon loan payble at the maturity of the loan or when it is satisfied without interest being charged as a result of the forbearance. In Rule 9-X(4), the new law continues to state that, “adherence with this section shall be a condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action stemming from missed payments which would have otherwise been subject to this section“. (See, commentary about NYS”S Rule 9-X, FN #17 and FN #18 and FN#19). How NYS’s Banking Law Section 9-x plays out and whether it will be broadly and uniformly applied by mortgage lenders to deal with NYS Covid Defaults and whether its compliance will be litigated in NYS courts, in potential, future foreclosure litigation, remains to be seen. (See, warning by NYS Attorney General to Servicers, as FN #20).
These alternative federal and state legal remedies: forbearance agreements, outright grants of the funds in arrears, liberalized standards to modify the loan and/or other remedies for permanent relief to the borrower, including, putting arrears in the back of the loan or paying arrears over additional time or repaying the arrears over the balance of the loan — all depend on the interaction of the borrower, the lender, the government and the courts in arriving at policy and laws to properly address Covid Defaults. The questions below explore what you believe is the appropriate policy and legal approach to Covid-19 related arrears? Is Covid-19, except from its scale, different from other crises? Does government have an obligation to help with Covid related mortgage arrears? If so, in what way, for how long, for how much and in what manner?
This essay focuses on the Homestead Exemption under Federal Bankruptcy Law which incorporates both the Federal Homestead Exemption and each state’s separate and distinct laws as to the Homestead Exemption.
The amount of the Homestead Exemption differs greatly among the states and what also differs is the legal approach to the exemption: whether states only use their own State Law Homestead Exemption, or only use the Homestead Exemption provided under Federal Law, or give Debtors a choice between the the two laws, and allow Debtors to pick between the State and the Federal Homestead Exemption.
We ask contestants to compare, contrast and comment upon the various state approaches to the Homestead Exemption, which in their opinion are better, and why, and whether there should be different state by state approaches or one common federal approach in the entire country.
The United States Bankruptcy Code, as Federal Law, is operative in all fifty (50) States of the United States of America. However, the Bankruptcy Code, in deference to the rights of each state to be their own sovereigns, with the ability to enact laws for the Citizens of their respective State, contains certain provisions reflective of this principle. One of those sections is found in 11 U.S.C. Section 522(b), which allows the debtor to claim the Federal Bankruptcy Exemptions (found under Section 522(d)) or those exemptions found under Federal Non-Bankruptcy Law (such as Social Security benefits under 42 USC 407) and Local and State Law exemptions which are applicable as of the date of the filing of the Bankruptcy Petition.
Congratulations to our Spring 2022 scholarship first winner, Stacy Bediako!
Congratulations to our Spring 2022 scholarship third winner, Kylie Marozsan!
This Former Spring 2022 Essay Contest is Now Closed. It was Open Until May 15, 2022. Winners have been selected and their winning essays and award winners have been posted.
Before 1976, many debtors in bankruptcy proceedings could discharge student loan debt, whether public or private. In 1976, Congress amended the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include Section 439A, which makes student loans non-dischargeable in bankruptcy unless (a) more than five (5) years have passed since the repayment plan was entered into, or (b) not discharging the loans would cause the debtor and their dependents an undue hardship.
In 1978, Congress passed the Bankruptcy Reform Act, commonly referred to as the Bankruptcy Code, which has been periodically amended to further limit a debtor’s ability to discharge student loan debt. The most recent changes to the code were passed in 2005 when Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (“BAPCPA”). Under BAPCPA, Congress excepted certain student loans from discharge, namely, (i) if they were made, insured or guaranteed by the government, (ii) made under any loan program funded in whole or in part by the government or nonprofit institution, or (iii) private loans which are considered “qualified education loans”.
Currently, the majority of Bankruptcy Courts apply the three-pronged “Brunner Test”, established in Brunner v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp. (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 1987) to discharge a student loan based upon an “undue hardship”. To establish an undue hardship under Brunner, a debtor must show (1) based upon debtor’s current income and expenses, they cannot maintain a normal standard of living for themselves or their dependents if forced to repay the loans, (2) the state of affairs is likely to persists for a significant portion of the repayment period, and (3) the debtor has made good-faith efforts to repay the loans. A minority of circuits apply the “totality of the circumstances test” which does not require the third-prong in Brunner.
According to the Education Data Initiative, approximately $43.2 million American student borrowers are in debt by an average of $39,351 each.[1] Currently, student loan debt in the United States totals $1.75 trillion and grows six (6) times faster than the nation’s economy. Id.
Please Discuss:
(1) both the history and current bankruptcy court policies regarding the dischargeability of student loan debt;
(2) how this policy could be changed to balance the competing interests of alleviating the burden imposed on student borrowers versus preventing abuse by borrowers; and
(3) to what extent should bankruptcy law and the bankruptcy courts be used to resolve the student loan dilemma, and how can bankruptcy policy be part of larger national policy approach to remedy the crisis in funding higher education.
The essay should not exceed 2,000 words and should use facts and references to support an argument for a position
Congratulations to our Previous Fall 2021 scholarship first winner, Stephanie Adams!
Congratulations to our Previous Fall 2021 scholarship second winner, Kyle Mann!
Congratulations to our Previous Fall 2021 scholarship third winner, Matthew Larkby!
The Previous Fall 2021 Scholarship Essay Contest – (See Winning Essays and Winners Below)
The 2021 Fall Essay Contest dealt with the ongoing foreclosure and eviction moratorium in New York State, that lasted almost two (2) years, from March 2020, until January 15, 2022. In the Fall of 2021 the federal moratoriums had already to a large extent ended and were being continued selectively on a state by state level, depending on the politics and conditions in that state. Certain states including New York State continued the moratoriums on a state level. It was hard to tell in the Fall of 2021 for how long New York State would continue its moratoriums in that there were many cost versus benefit issues as the pandemic continued and many questions as to how long these moratoriums could realistically continue. On the one hand Covid-19 did have a disproportionate affect on New York State and it was not an appropriate time for vulnerable persons to worry about losing their homes. on the other hand there were real questions whether the moratoriums were the appropriate way to protect persons affected by Covid or whether they were well intentioned but overly broad solutions that could potentially cause harm to marginal landlords while protecting many people not truly hurt by Covid.
The wording of the essay topic dealing with the ongoing New York State moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures is below. We received many excellent essays. The three students winning first, second and third place for their essays are shown below with a link to their essays.
“During the last year, due to the Covid-19 pandemic and interruptions to our economy, many states and the federal government imposed foreclosure and eviction moratoriums that protected non-paying mortgage borrowers and tenants. While this protection in many cases was needed to protect persons in financial hardship stay in their homes during a pandemic, it at the same time caused hardship for mortgage holders and landlords who could not enforce payment obligations. Please discuss whether and under what circumstances such foreclosure and eviction moratoriums can and should be imposed by the federal and/or state/local governments and whether and under what circumstances such moratoriums should continue. Please cite specific laws and references in developing your arguments.”
Congratulations to our 2021 scholarship third winner, Makayla Shoults!
The 2021 Spring Essay Contest dealt with the newly enacted Subchapter V to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and how it may be helpful for small business debtors seeking to reorganize their finances in better way than the former provisions of Chapter 11 dealt with small business debtors. Subchapter V was passed by Congress in late 2019 but in March of 2020 it was expanded as part of the CARES Act legislation which broadly dealt with the Covid-19 pandemic. This was an exciting and timely topic that in part addressed reorganizations for some of the hardest hit businesses during the global pandemic, small businesses. We received many excellent essays. The three students winning first, second and third place for their essays are shown below with a link to their essays.
Contact Us
Contact Us