College: Temple University (1990)
Law School: Widener University School of Law (1995);
Certificate of Achievement in Secured Transactions
Other Professional Affiliations:
American Bankruptcy Institute; National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees (NACTT); Pennsylvania Creditors Bar Association (PACBA)
Beginning in 1995, Mr. Becket has represented Becket & Lee’s clients in a variety of bankruptcy related litigation. His specialties include preference defense, automatic stay violation defense, student loan discharge defense, and representation of secured creditors in all aspects of consumer bankruptcy. Some of his significant cases include:
Howe v. Creditors Interchange Receivables Mgmt., LLC (In re Howe), No. 09-0010, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 2778 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. May 27, 2009) (finding that creditor bank falls outside the ambit of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and cannot be vicariously liable for acts of a debt collector).
Armstrong v. Access Group (In re Armstrong), 394 B.R. 43 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2008) (denying, for failure to show undue hardship, the debtor a discharge of her student loans).
Rowell v. Chase Manhattan Auto. Fin. Corp. (In re Rowell), 359 F. Supp. 2d 645 (W.D. Mich. 2004) (opining that a bank’s repossession of an automobile was not a violation of the automatic stay because the lender’s conduct was neither egregious nor intentional, given the questionable notice of the bankruptcy and the prompt return of the car to the debtor who could show no damages resulting from the temporary repossession).
MBNA Am. v. Locke (In re Greene), 223 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2000) (determining that debtors’ payment to a credit card lender could not be avoided by the trustee because it was made outside the relevant statute’s ninety day time limit which was unaffected by extensions to such limits afforded in other contexts by bankruptcy’s procedural rules).
In re Patti, No. 98-17719DWS, 1999 Bankr. LEXIS 400 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Apr. 15, 1999) (affording relief from the automatic stay to creditor who showed that the collateral was not necessary for the production of the debtor’s income).
In re Gates, 214 B.R. 467 (Bankr. D. Md. 1997) (denying a motion to reconsider an order allowing an oversecured (based on replacement value) claim in full, rather than in the amount of the trade-in value as asserted by the debtor).