1- confirm if Entz-White is good law in CA,
A: Bankr. Code
1322(e) supersedes Entz-White Lumber, to the extent it permits a plan to cure a default at a market (as opposed to contract
) rate of interest. However, Entz-White still applies where a debtor seeks to cure defaults relating to agreements predating October 23, 1994.
2- if in CA, nullifying default penalties is permitted
A: A Chapter 13 plan may provide for curing defaults “within a reasonable time” and maintaining payments while the case is pending on any debt (secured or unsecured) due after the final plan payment (i.e., long-term debts). Bankr. Code 1322(b)(5).
Section 1322(b)(5) does not modify creditor rights; it enables a debtor to reinstate original prebankruptcy agreements with creditors. This is particularly advantageous where the terms of a secured loan are favorable to the debtor (e.g., low interest rate, long maturity, etc.).
Section 1322(b)(5) applies to both secured and unsecured long-term debts. However, debtors ordinarily do not cure defaults and maintain payments on unsecured loans (other than educational loans) because (1) many debtors lack sufficient income; and (2) an obligation that is cured and reinstated under § 1322(b)(5) is nondischargeable.
3- confirm that de-accelerating a note in ch. 13 is also permitted.
The power to cure includes the power to avoid the effect of acceleration clauses calling for payment of the entire loan balance upon default in any installment. In re Taddeo (2nd Cir. 1982) 685 F2d 24, 26–27; see also In re Nelson (9th Cir. BAP 1985) 59 BR 417, 419—debtor can cure prepetition acceleration notwithstanding § 1322(b).
Also, if you know the reason why In re Taddeo has been red flagged, that would be helpful too.
A: Taddeo is still good law to the extent described above.
Hope this helps.