16-82933, 18-96030
On cross-motions for summary judgment on the Debtor’s adversary complaint seeking declaratory relief as to the meaning and effect of three reaffirmation agreements previously authorized after notice and hearing, the court granted judgment in favor of State Bank and against the Debtor. In so ruling, the court discussed the relationship of debts to arrearages to find, among other things, that nothing in the reaffirmation agreements indicated that any portion of the indebtedness constituting an arrearage was to be discharged or cancelled.  Further finding that the reaffirmation agreements incorporated the repayment terms of the underlying note and mortgage without waiving any existing default or extending the repayment schedule or maturity date. As a result, prepetition arrearages which had not been cured as of the applicable effective dates were reaffirmed and were not subject to the discharge.