In re Haake, 483 B.R. 524

Debtor Haake, a Wisconsin bankruptcy case with Minnesota domicile, purchased a Minnesota-registered home from Rasmussen via a contract for deed in Sept 2010 for $152,000, with $20,000 down; balance due Sept 1, 2011, payments made variably, and default on due date.”
Rasmussen served a notice of cancellation on Mar 12, 2012, triggering termination of the contract after a 60-day cure period if unpaid; bankruptcy petition filed Mar 14, 2012.
Rasmussen moved for relief from the automatic stay to finalize cancellation in Minnesota state court; Haake offered adequate protection by proposing monthly interest and prorated taxes.
Court treats the dispute as a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) to determine whether Haake has a redeemable property interest to reorganize.
Minnesota law governs the contract for deed: vender’s lien, vendee holds equitable title, cancellation under Minn. Stat. § 559.21 is a statutory strict foreclosure that terminates all rights upon cancellation.
Court analyzes cure rights under 11 U.S.C. § 108(b) and anti-modification provisions § 1123(b)(5)/§ 1322(b)(2); concludes no redemption or modification is available, stay lifted.]
The court ultimately grants the stay relief to Rasmussen to pursue Minnesota-court remedies for contract cancellation, and denies Haake’s adequate protection request as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can Haake retain redeemable rights after cancellation under Minn. Stat. § 559.21?	Haake retains equitable title and redemption rights akin to a mortgage.	Cancellation terminates all rights under the contract.	No; cancellation terminates vendee rights once cure period expires.
Does § 108(b) allow curing a default in a chapter 11 plan for a land contract?	§ 108(b) permits curing within the plan period.	Timely cure expired; no cure rights remain.	§ 108(b) does not preserve post-default cure rights here; cure period expired.
Can a chapter 11 plan modify a claim secured by debtor's principal residence under § 1123(b)(5)?	Plan could restructure or cure the contract for deed.	Anti-modification prohibits altering mortgage rights in a residential property.	No; § 1123(b)(5) bars modification of a home mortgage in chapter 11.
Does 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(2) create a modification exception for chapter 11 akin to chapter 13?	Treat land contract like a home loan that can be modified.	No corresponding exception in chapter 11; protections do not apply.	No chapter 11 exception; cannot modify due to anti-modification provision.

Butler v. Goldetsky (In re Butler), 552 N.W.2d 226 (Minn. 1996) (land contracts carry equitable title with vendor remedies including cancellation)
In re Edina Dev. Corp., 370 B.R. 894 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2007) (cancellation timing governs rights under Minnesota law)
In re Maanum, 828 F.2d 459 (8th Cir. 1987) (§108(b) cure period is mutually exclusive with stay)
Nobelman v. American Sav. Bank, 508 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1993) (rights of repayment and terms bargained in mortgage instruments)
In re Wescott, 309 B.R. 308 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2004) (de-acceleration and cure of mortgages in plan context)
In re Clark, 738 F.2d 869 (7th Cir. 1984) (anti-modification focus for home loans in plan)
In re Brown, 249 B.R. 193 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2000) (Illinois installment contracts may be cured up to nonbankruptcy remedy limits)
O'Meara v. Olson, 414 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (judicial cancellation differs from statutory process; strict adherence protects vendee)