In re Brandt

8 Citing cases

  1. In Matter of Brandt

    434 B.R. 493 (W.D. Mich. 2010)   Cited 9 times
    Observing that "if any hypothetical purchaser of the property would have constructive notice of the mortgage interest, then Trustee cannot avoid the mortgage," but finding that a filing not in compliance with the Land Division Act does not give constructive notice

    Plaintiff-Appellee Thomas C. Richardson ("Trustee") is the trustee for the bankruptcy estate. On November 30, 2009, Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge James D. Gregg entered an opinion and order holding that Trustee could avoid Wells Fargo's mortgage pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544, because the recorded mortgage was defective and could not be enforced against a hypothetical good faith purchaser lacking actual notice of the mortgage under Michigan law. Richardson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In re Brandt), No. 08-80342 (Bankr. W.D.Mich. Nov. 30, 2009). Wells Fargo challenges that ruling.

  2. B-Bar Tavern Inc. v. Prairie Mountain Bank (In re B-Bar Tavern Inc.)

    497 B.R. 84 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    As authority Plaintiff cites Simon v. Zaptocky (In re Zaptocky), 231 B.R. 260 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1998), aff'd. Simon v. Chase Manhattan Bank (In re Zaptocky), 250 F.3d 1020, 1024 (6th Cir.2001), and Richardson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Inc. (In re Brandt), 421 B.R. 426 (Bankr.W.D.Mich.2009). PMB replies that, even if the TI is defective, a recorded defective instrument provides constructive notice.

  3. In re Hudson

    455 B.R. 648 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2011)   Cited 25 times
    Finding that bankruptcy court could render final judgment even though it was reviewing state law issues when proceeding “arises under” Bankruptcy Code

    The Trustee argues that the Bank cannot have a valid mortgage on Lot 5. “With regard to platted property, Michigan law is absolutely clear—all recorded sales, conveyances or mortgages must contain the caption of the plat and the lot number.” Richardson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Co. (In re Brandt), 421 B.R. 426, 429 (Bankr.W.D.Mich.2009) (citing Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 560.255) (emphasis in original), aff'd., 434 B.R. 493 (W.D.Mich.2010). In the Brandt appellate decision, it is stated:

  4. Brandt v. Weyant

    No. 3:09-bk-08066 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. Sep. 20, 2010)

    When used in conjunction with "not," however, "may" is not deemed to connote discretion, rather "may not" most often is construed as if it were "shall not." As the bankruptcy court in Richardson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In re Brandt), 421 B.R. 426, 430 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2009), explained "while there may be some ambiguity when a legislature uses the term 'may' to authorize some action (as opposed to the term 'shall'), there is no grammatical ambiguity created when the legislature provides that something 'may not' be done. In a statute, the phrase 'may not' has exactly the same meaning as 'shall not.'"

  5. Brandt v. Weyant (In re Brandt)

    437 B.R. 294 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    When used in conjunction with “not,” however, “may” is not deemed to connote discretion, rather “may not” most often is construed as if it were “shall not.” As the bankruptcy court in Richardson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In re Brandt), 421 B.R. 426, 430 (Bankr.W.D.Mich.2009), explained “while there may be some ambiguity when a legislature uses the term ‘may’ to authorize some action (as opposed to the term ‘shall’), there is no grammatical ambiguity created when the legislature provides that something ‘may not’ be done. In a statute, the phrase ‘may not’ has exactly the same meaning as ‘shall not.

  6. Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Calloway (In re Calloway)

    429 B.R. 802 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2010)   Cited 5 times

    And while the mortgage in Argent contained no legal description, the Security Deed in this case did contain an ostensibly complete legal description that described a parcel of land situated on Puckett Road and owned by the Debtor. The facts in Richardson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In re Brandt), 421 B.R. 426 (Bankr.W.D.Mich.2009) were virtually identical to those in Argent. The legal description of property purchased by Brandt referred to a lot number on a subdivision plat recorded in the official county records.

  7. Moseley v. Smith

    No. 2013-CT-01205-SCT (Miss. Dec. 16, 2015)

    Indeed, "while there may be some ambiguity when a legislature uses the term 'may' to authorize some action (as opposed to the term 'shall'), there is no grammatical ambiguity created when the legislature provides that something 'may not' be done. In a statute, the phrase 'may not' has exactly the same meaning as 'shall not.'" Richardson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. (In re Brandt), 421 B.R. 426, 430 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2009), see also Stringer v. Realty Unlimited, Inc., 97 S.W.3d 446, 448 (Ky. 2002) ("'[W]here other words are used in connection with 'shall,' 'must,' 'may' or 'might,' which clearly indicate mandatory or directory construction, as the case may be, we have never ignored the force of the descriptive or qualifying language.' . . . Courts that have construed 'may not' have consistently held that the phrase is mandatory and not permissive or discretionary.") (quoting Clark v. Riehl, 313 Ky. 142, 230 S.W.2d 626, 627 (1950)). Indeed, "[c]ourts addressing the scope of SCRA § [3936](a) have uniformly concluded that 'may not' is mandatory, not permissive, offers no room for discretion, and that the provision tolls any statute of limitations, general or special, for the period of the service member's active duty."

  8. Wikle v. Boyd

    297 So. 3d 1255 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    "When used in conjunction with ‘not,’ however, ‘may’ is not deemed to connote discretion[;] rather ‘may not’ most often is construed as if it were ‘shall not.’ As the bankruptcy court in Richardson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In re Brandt), 421 B.R. 426, 430 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2009), explained ‘while there may be some ambiguity when a legislature uses the term "may" to authorize some action (as opposed to the term "shall"), there is no grammatical ambiguity created when the legislature provides that something "may not" be done. In a statute, the phrase "may not" has exactly the same meaning as "shall not."