TULSHI v. CENLAR, FSB, 3:24-cv-09649

Debtor filed a Chapter 13 petition in March 2023 seeking a mortgage loan modification; lender (Cenlar) offered a modification Plan that required return of three signed documents by July 26, 2023: the loan modification agreement, a promissory note, and a partial-claim mortgage.
Bankruptcy Court approved Debtor’s motion to enter the loan modification on August 4, 2023; Debtor returned a signed loan modification agreement and made monthly payments under the Plan but did not return the promissory note or the partial-claim mortgage.
Debtor’s amended Chapter 13 plan was accepted in December 2023; despite repeated requests from Cenlar, the two missing documents were never executed or returned.
Cenlar moved to vacate the August 4, 2023 order (June 20, 2024), asserting the offer expired for failure to complete the package; the Bankruptcy Court denied Cenlar’s motion on August 14, 2024 but also directed the lender to consider the application to avoid repeated amended-plan filings.
Debtor’s motion for reconsideration of the denial to vacate was filed and denied (September 12, 2024); Debtor appealed to the district court, which affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Debtor accepted the loan modification Plan	Tulshi says acceptance was shown by signing the loan modification agreement and making the modified payments	Cenlar says acceptance required returning all three signed documents by the deadline; the promissory note and partial-claim mortgage were not returned	Court held Debtor did not accept the Plan because acceptance must be absolute and all required documents were not timely executed
Whether the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in denying reconsideration	Tulshi urges reversal based on alleged procedural delays, communications issues, and illness	Cenlar argues Debtor offered no new law or evidence and merely relitigated prior arguments; reconsideration standards not met	Court held denial proper: no new evidence, no intervening law, and no manifest error; denial was not an abuse of discretion

U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n ex rel. CWCapital Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Vill. at Lakeridge, LLC, 583 U.S. 387 (2018) (deference appropriate where court must weigh specialized factual evidence).
In re CellNet Data Sys., Inc., 327 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2003) (appellate review: factual findings reversed only if clearly erroneous).
Donaldson v. Bernstein, 104 F.3d 547 (3d Cir. 1997) (legal conclusions reviewed de novo).
In re Integrated Telecom Express, Inc., 384 F.3d 108 (3d Cir. 2004) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined for appellate review).
Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (grounds for altering or amending judgments/order on reconsideration).
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir. 1985) (motions for reconsideration used sparingly to correct manifest errors or present new evidence).
Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 608 A.2d 280 (N.J. 1992) (contract acceptance must be absolute and match offer).
United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) (definition of "clearly erroneous" for factual findings).