Archive for the ‘an’ Category
Sunday, February 27th, 2011
Earlier this month on my Atlanta-bankruptcy web site blog I discussed an interesting case involving mortgage loan deficiency claims that was issued by the Georgia Court of Appeals and Georgia Supreme Court. In the River Farm vs. Suntrust case, the Georgia courts ruled that a mortgage lender could sue a defaulted borrower on the promissory note and thereby bypass the deficiency confirmation process associated with a foreclosure. This ruling is important because property values in Georgia have been trending downward and more and more often I am seeing cases where the balance due on a mortgage exceeds the fair market value of my client's home.
This court case should be of concern to you if you intend to walk away from your home because you are delinquent or if your are so "underwater" with your mortgage that it does not make sense to fight to keep a home that may never be worth what is owed on it. If you do walk away (without filing bankruptcy), your lender may sue you on the mortgage loan contract instead of foreclosing. The lender would refrain from foreclosing to avoid a legal requirement associated with foreclosure that would require the lender to appear before a judge to argue that the foreclosure sale price was reasonable.
In my article, I pointed out that this change in the law might encourage more people to file bankruptcies since a bankruptcy can discharge any deficiency claim.
However, there is another potential problem area that could arise if your lender holds off on foreclosing. This problem area relates to homeowners' association (HOA) dues.
Under Georgia law, homeowners' associations enjoy special protections. Unpaid dues can automatically can become liens that encumber your property. As HOA lawyers read the law, if you file a bankruptcy and surrender your home, your delinquent HOA dues as of the date of filing will be discharged. However, ongoing dues that accrue after the filing remain your obligation until title passes. In other words, if your HOA dues are $100 per month and you file Chapter 7 bankruptcy on February 28, your dues begin accruing again on March 1. If your lender does not foreclose until November, you would, in theory, be responsible for 8 months of dues, or $800, after your filing, even though you have stated your intention to surrender your house in bankruptcy.
Obviously, a provision of the law that involuntarily re-obligates you to hundreds or thousands of dollars of monthly dues on an asset you have surrendered seems contrary to the public policy associated with bankruptcy. Nevertheless, this is how lawyers for homeowners' associations read the law.
I discussed this issue with an attorney at a law firm that represents HOA's in the Atlanta area and throughout Georgia. This lawyer offered the above explanation of the law but he said that as a practical matter, his firm has not and does not plan to sue a homeowner for HOA dues that arise after a bankruptcy case has been filed, as long as the homeowner vacates the premises. However, the homeowner is presumably fair game if he remains in the house (or rents it out) while the bank is dilly-dallying about foreclosing.
He also advised me that his firm does not report post-petition HOA delinquencies to credit bureaus.
The problem here, of course, is that the HOA lawyer's explanation of policy is just that – a voluntary policy. Is it possible that this HOA law firm or one like it could change its policy? Is it possible that the HOA itself might sell this receivable to a debt buyer who would not hesitate to sue you?
I would not assume that an HOA or a debt buyer will necessarily write off otherwise collectible debt, but until this issue is litigated in a Georgia court, we will not know the answer to this issue. I do think that a homeowner who remains in a house after surrendering that house in a bankruptcy will face an increased likelihood of an HOA lawsuit. I will also continue my practice of rejected the HOA contract as part of my bankruptcy filings.
Posted in Foreclosure issues, Georgia Bankruptcy, Mortgage, Repossession issues, accruing, an, area, associations, case, claims, deficiency, delinquent, dilly dallying, discussed, dues, enjoy, foreclosing he, foreclosing , hoa, homeowners, homeowners association lawsuits, interesting, involving, law i, loan, month, mortgage deficiency claims, ongoing, problem, protections , read, relates, special, the, unpaid | Comments Off
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010
My Bankruptcy Law Network colleague Dana Wilkinson, who practices in South Carolina, reports on an unbelieveable scam perpetrated by a collection agency in Pennsylvania. According to a press release issued by the state attorney general, the Unicredit Collection Agency created a bogus "court system" to trick consumers into paying debts.
Unicredit employees dressed like sheriff's deputy's and "served" papers resembling lawsuits on consumers
Unicredit issued fake "court notices" for hearings and depositions
Unicredit built a fake courtroom, complete with a fake judge, where debtors would be intimidated into providing access to bank accounts or surrendering car titles
The Pennsylvania attorney general has shut down Unicredit and has filed suit against the company seeking restitution for harmed consumers.
What can we learn from the Unicredit story? First, you should always be very suspicious of anyone who threatens legal proceedings, implies that you have no right to challenge a debt or suggests that you must resolve a debt issue immediately. Under Georgia law, at least, a lawsuit must be served by a sheriff's deputy (who has identification) or a process server. After service you have 30 days to file a response. No judgment will be issued any faster than 45 days after service – 30 days to file a response and 15 days to open a default by paying court costs and filing fees (which amount to less than $200).
Secondly, sheriff's deputies are not in the business of collecting debts. Their job is to serve papers only. If the person who looks like a deputy starts discussing the merits of the lawsuit against you, a red flag should go up.
Third, recognize that collection agents are not your friends and they are not on your side. Do not believe anything a collection agent tells you. When in doubt, call a bankruptcy lawyer – we will always talk to you over the phone at no charge.
Posted in Attorney, Consumer Protection, a, agency, an, and, bogus, built, car, collection, collection agency scams, collection agency tactics, consumers unicredit, courtroom, created, debts unicredit, depositions unicredit, dressed, employees, fake, general, hearings, issued, learn, paying, pennsylvania, pennsylvania , perpetrated, press, release, reports, scam, story , surrendering, the, titles the, unbelieveable, unicredit | Comments Off
Wednesday, July 14th, 2010
The United States Supreme Court rarely accepts cases that affect consumer bankruptcy debtors. Recently, however, the Court considered an issue that potentially impacts all debtors – the treatment of exemptions.
The term "exemptions" refers to property you own that is protected from the reach of the trustee or creditors. For example, every state provides for exemptions that include your clothes, a certain amount of household goods, a certain amount of equity your car, and a certain amount of equity in your home. Georgia has fairly stingy exemptions – you can read the Georgia exemption law by clicking on the link.
When property is declared as exempt, it does not count for purposes of counting up your assets. If you own property that exceeds the exemption available to you, that property could be seized and sold by a Chapter 7 trustee or it could force you to pay back a higher percentage of your unsecured debt in a Chapter 13. Exemption planning and exemption calculation are important functions for consumer bankruptcy lawyers.
The Supreme Court decision in Schwab v. Reilly requires debtors and their attorneys to be more exact when identifying exemptions, and applies to cases filed in Georgia and everywhere else in the United States. The article that follows is a guest post written for this blog by Brandon Moreno, Vice President of the Utah Bankruptcy Hotline. The Utah Bankruptcy Hotline maintains a network of unaffiliated Utah bankruptcy lawyers who provide debt relief and bankruptcy counsel to consumers in Utah.
On June 17, in Schwab v. Reilly, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that limits the extent to which individuals filing under Chapter 7 can exempt their property from the bankruptcy estate. The case arose out of the interplay between two important rules. One imposes dollar-value limits on the extent to which a debtor can exempt certain types of property. The other requires interested parties to object to a debtor's claimed exemptions within 30 days after the conclusion of the creditors' meeting, or else lose the ability to retain any of that property for the bankruptcy estate.
The question in Schwab was, what happens when a debtor both reports an asset with an estimated market value and claims an exemption for the asset equal to the market value, the trustee does not object because the claimed exemption falls within the applicable-dollar value limit, and it later becomes apparent that the asset's true market value exceeds the claimed value and the applicable dollar-value limit? According to some lower courts, the trustee's failure to object entitled the debtor to an exemption equal to the entire market value, regardless of whether that value exceeded the limit imposed by the rules. In Schwab, however, the Supreme Court rejected that approach. According to the Court, the trustee need not have objected to the exemption to preserve the estate's ability to recover value in the asset beyond the value the debtor declared exempt. The rationale for this conclusion was that the trustee had no basis for objecting in the first place–on its face, the exemption appeared to comply with the limit imposed by the rules, and there was no way of knowing beforehand that the asset would appreciate in value beyond the limit.
The Court's analysis was somewhat complex, but an example helps to illustrate the effect of the ruling. Imagine that an individual files for Chapter 7 protection and reports an asset–in this example, office equipment–to which he assigns an estimated market value of $5,000, that he claims a $5,000 exemption for the equipment, and that the applicable dollar-value limit on office equipment exemptions is also $5,000. Given the dollar-value limit, the trustee concludes that the claimed exemption is appropriate and therefore does not object. The thirty-day objection period then passes, and a third-party appraises the equipment and assigns a market value of $8,000. Under the prior approach of some lower courts, the trustee's failure to object would have entitled the debtor to an $8,000 exemption for the equipment. But Schwab invalidates that approach and establishes that the debtor will be entitled to an office equipment exemption of $5,000, even though the true value of the equipment exceeds that amount by $3,000. The $3,000 remainder goes to the bankruptcy estate, to be distributed among the creditors.
For individuals contemplating Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the lesson of Schwab is twofold: First, even if you accurately report an asset's value and claim a valid exemption equal to that value, you cannot later capture any serendipitous increase in value beyond the limits imposed by the rules. Second, if for some reason it is important to you to exempt the full market value of an asset or the asset itself, rather than a particular monetized interest in the asset, Schwab suggests that it might be appropriate to claim an exemption for "full fair market value (FMV)" or "100% of FMV." Thus, going back to the example above, the debtor might try to claim an exemption of "100% of FMV" for his office equipment, rather than $5,000. A court could reject this claim if it later became apparent that fair market value exceeds the $5,000 limit. But Schwab also suggests that phrasing an exemption claim in this manner effectively places other parties on notice that the debtor seeks to exempt the entirety of the asset's value. If a debtor provides this notice and others nevertheless fail to object, the debtor may be able to keep a subsequent increase in market value beyond the otherwise applicable dollar limit.
Posted in 13 , Bankruptcy, Chapter 7, Chapter 7 issues, Debtors, Exempt Property, Protected property issues, a, accepts, an, and, appraises, assigns, bankruptcy exemptions, calculation, cases, chapter, claimed, court, entitled, equipment, exemption, falls, hotline, hotline , maintains, market, network, object, office, passes, planning, rarely, reilly, rejected, requires, schwab, states, supreme, the, third party, united, united states supreme court bankruptcy decision, utah, v, the | Comments Off
Sunday, June 6th, 2010
Because the bankruptcy system operates efficiently and quickly and it serves hundreds of people every day, I sense that many bankruptcy debtors forget that everything they submit to the bankruptcy court is done so under penalty of perjury. I recently ran across an article from a Texas newspaper about a Chapter 7 debtor who ended up in federal prison, convicted of bankruptcy fraud, because he failed to disclose an $84,000 insurance payment, proceeds from the sale of a vehicle and several bank accounts. This particular debtor used Chapter 7 to discharge over $1 million in liabilities.
I bring this case to your attention for several reasons. First, you should recognize that Chapter 7 trustees are very conscious of the likelihood that a certain percentage of debtors will fail to disclose assets. While it may seem that your Chapter 7 trustee is not paying much attention to any particular case, I suspect that trustee training programs provide trustees with profiles of the types of debtors likely to omit important information as well as resources to search for evidence of hidden assets.
In the Texas debtor's case I wonder how he thought that a vehicle sale would be missed by the trustee, given that vehicle liens are public record, as are vehicle registrations.
These days almost any sale of real estate or motor vehicles will generate a paper trail of tax forms, insurance records and title documents. Further I have personally seen situations where an unhappy ex-wife or a former friend will draft a "poison pen" letter to the trustee will allegations about improper activities by a bankruptcy debtor.
Second, be aware that Chapter 7 trustees and the U.S. trustee like to pursue fraud cases periodically to send a message to debtors and debtors' lawyers that the trustees are paying attention. Bankruptcy lawyers may be tempted to say "don't worry about it," to avoid extra expense and complication but playing fast and loose with disclosure rules can create major problems for both debtors and their lawyers.
Occasionally I meet with a client who may say something like "between you and me, no one knows this but…." This type of statement is the last thing that any bankruptcy lawyer wants to hear. From my perspective that client is really saying "I am thinking about committing a federal crime and I want you to help me." My license to practice law is not worth the fee for any one case and I have and will continue to decline representation for any client who wants to use my office to file inaccurate schedules.
Nobody likes to surrender assets, especially in a bankruptcy case that may have come about because of factors beyond one's control (such as a layoff, unfair treatment by a lender, a lawsuit judgment that you did not know about). In most bankruptcy cases you will not lose in assets. However, losing a few hundred or thousands of dollars is a far better fate than federal prison.
Posted in 84, Chapter 13 issues, Chapter 7 issues, Debtor, Discharge issues, Fraud, Fraudulent Transfers, General consumer bankruptcy info, Insurance, Trustee, a, an, and, assets in, assets nbsp, bankruptcy crime, bankruptcy fraud, cases, committing, crime, disclose, documents nbsp, ended, evidence, failed, failure to disclose assets in bankruptcy, federal, hidden, periodically, prison, programs, provide, pursue, records, texas, the, title, training, trustees | Comments Off
Thursday, May 6th, 2010
Last month, my friend and colleague, Charleston bankruptcy attorney Russ Demott published an interesting article on his web site entitled "Fired for Filing Bankrutcy? No way!" This article was written by Elyria, Ohio bankruptcy lawyer Bill Balena, who notes that the Bankruptcy Code specifically forbids "employee discrimination" based on a bankruptcy filing if:
- You are, or have gone through a bankruptcy proceeding
- You are insolvent either before filing a bankruptcy or while your petition is pending;
- You have not paid a dischargeable debt
Let's take a closer look at what the Code actually says. Pay particular attention to the different language that applies to government employers vs. private employers.
Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code contains the following language:
As to governmental units:
[with limited exceptions] a governmental unit may not deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a license, permit, charter, franchise, or other similar grant to, condition such a grant to, discriminate with respect to such a grant against, deny employment to, terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, a person that is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or a debtor under the Bankruptcy Act, or another person with whom such bankrupt or debtor has been associated, solely because such bankrupt or debtor is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or debtor under the Bankruptcy Act, has been insolvent before the commencement of the case under this title, or during the case but before the debtor is granted or denied a discharge, or has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in the case under this title or that was discharged under the Bankruptcy Act.
As to private employers:
No private employer may terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, an individual who is or has been a debtor under this title, a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act, or an individual associated with such debtor or bankrupt, solely because such debtor or bankrupt—
(1) is or has been a debtor under this title or a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act;
(2) has been insolvent before the commencement of a case under this title or during the case but before the grant or denial of a discharge; or
(3) has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in a case under this title or that was discharged under the Bankruptcy Act.
As you can see, the restrictions on discrimination are not identical.
Specifically the limitation on governmental action against insolvent or bankrupt employees or job applicants includes the following prohibitions:
- deny employment to
- terminate the employment of
- discriminate with respect to employment against
By contrast the limitations on private employers against insolvent or bankruptcy employees includes the following prohibitions:
- terminate the employment of
- discriminate with respect to employment against
Now I have not litigated this issue – but I think that a private employer could make a strong argument that the Bankruptcy Code does not forbid denying employment to an insolvent or bankruptcy individual who is applying for a job.
Further, as Mr. Balena points out, if you are applying for a job as an "at will" employee, a prospective employer does not have to explain why he is not hiring you – it can be for any reason. I can't imagine that too many employers would specifically put into writing that you are not being hired because of your credit issues.
In my view, within the context of private employment, Section 525 protections have much more relevance to an employee who already has a job as opposed to a job applicant. Further, I think that Section 525 is somewhat of a toothless tiger in that few employers would specifically identify a bankruptcy as the sole reason for termination (note the language "solely because").
As a practical matter, I cannot recall the last time I observed or even heard of a bankruptcy debtor facing termination or a refusal to hire because of a bankruptcy filing. The sheer numbers of bankruptcy filings in the Northern District of Georgia, for example, are such that almost every company of any size has had one or more employees go through the bankruptcy process. Still, I counsel my clients that Section 525 offers very little in the way of real protection and that there is some risk, even if it is small, that their bankruptcy filing could have a negative impact on employment.
Posted in 525, Attorney, Bankruptcy, Consumer Protection, General consumer bankruptcy info, an, article, bankrupt, charleston, demott, deny, discriminate, discrimination, employees, employers, employers section, employers and bankruptcy filings, employment, government, identical specifically, includes, insolvent, interesting, job termination and bankruptcy filing, limitation, private, prohibitions, published, respect, russ, section 525 of bankruptcy code, terminate, the, vs | Comments Off
Thursday, March 11th, 2010
Recently I met with a client who was looking into filing bankruptcy because of credit card and medical debt. Among his creditors, however, was an individual, an insurance company and fines due a local county. When I asked about this, he explained that about a year ago, he was involved in an auto accident that was his fault. He further explained that the individual sued him and that damages awarded were more than his insurance coverage, and that he also had fines because the accident occurred when he was under the influence.
He was unhappy to learn that Section 523(a)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code specifically excepts from discharge debts arising from the "death or personal injury caused by the debtor’s operation of a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft if such operation was unlawful because the debtor was intoxicated from using alcohol, a drug, or another substance."
I read this Code section to mean that my client cannot discharge:
- any damage award due to the accident victim
- restitution ordered by the local county court
- fines imposed by the local county court
What about property damage arising from this drunk driving accident. I read the Code section to limit non-dischargeability to personal injury so I do not think that property damages would be excepted here.
Washington D.C. bankruptcy lawyer Morgan Fisher wrote a post about DUI damages and bankruptcy dischargeability last year. He notes that an insurance company seeking subrogation damages (recovery of car repair payments from the negligent driver by an insurance company) could argue against dischargeability under other provisions of Section 523. I believe that Morgan is referring to Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(6) which excepts from discharge debts arising from the "willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity."
Morgan also notes that a local Bankruptcy Judge will look to the state law in the jurisdiction where the criminal prosecution is based to determine culpability. I suspect this means that if you are convicted of DUI in a state where the applicable blood alcohol limit is .08, but you file bankruptcy in a state where the limit is .10, you would not be able to argue that Section 523(a)(9) does not apply to you.
I would also suggest that any DUI defendant who is contemplating a plea should look carefully at the language of 523(a)(9) – how the plea is structured in state court could have a bearing on whether the debt was dischargeable. I have not seen this happen, but I would think that a Bankruptcy Judge might have to hold an evidentiary hearing if the state court DUI plea bargain did not conclusively speak to driving under the influence.
Posted in 523(a)(6), 523(a)(9), Bankruptcy, Chapter 7 issues, Creditor discharge actions, DUI and bankruptcy, DWI and bankruptcy, Insurance, Lawyer, a, accident , alcohol, an, and, applicable, bargain, blood, company, court, d c, damages, driving, drunk, dui, entity, excepted, fines, fisher, here washington, injury, limit, malicious, morgan, non-dischageability, plea, post, recovery, seeking, state, subrogation, subrogation and bankruptcy, the, willful, wrote | Comments Off
Friday, February 12th, 2010
As you probably know, there are two types of consumer bankruptcy cases available to you – a Chapter 7 which wipes out debt, and a Chapter 13 which creates a five year payment plan in which you pay back some or all of your debt with your "disposable income." When I prepare a Chapter 13 case, we work with you to create a liveable budget. The money "left over" after you pay for housing, food, transportation, insurance, utilities and other necessities must be sent to the Chapter 13 trustee, who then disburses these funds to your creditors based on a plan of reorganization that we submit to the court.
What happens if you need to file a Chapter 13, you have not yet filed your tax return for last year, but you know that a refund will be coming your way. The simple answer is that unless you are paying back your creditors at 100%, your Chapter 13 will demand that you turn over your tax refund check, and will use that money to pay your creditors. If you know that a refund is headed your way, make sure to tell your lawyer before you file – there are some steps you can take to preserve some or all of your tax refund money.
Your Chapter 13 trustee will also want future refunds paid to the trustee. This situation is easier to handle – you will want to adjust your payroll withholdings so that you do not have any refund coming. As far as the Chapter 13 trustee is concerned, your tax refund is kind of like a savings account that artificially reduces your net pay amount.
All of the Chapter 13 trustees in the Northern District of Georgia require debtors who are paying less than 100% to creditors to include in their Chapter 13 plans a provision that authorizes the IRS to intercept any refund payable during the years that your plan is in effect and send this money to the Chapter 13 trustee. And until now, the IRS has cooperated with the Chapter 13 trustees in redirecting refund money.
In January, 2010, however, a federal district court in Michigan has rules that the Chapter 13 trustee does not have the power to compel the IRS to serve as its collection agent. In the case of United States v. Carroll, a judge in the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that there is no legal basis for the IRS to withhold money and deliver it to the trustee because Congress has not waived the IRS' "sovereign immunity" that would otherwise leave the IRS vulnerable to contempt actions and other enforcement actions by the trustee (in other words, if the IRS failed to withhold a debtor's refund, the trustee would not have the right to sue the IRS for damages or for remedial action). The Michigan judge issued an order forbidding the bankruptcy courts there from confirming any Chapter 13 plan that has the income tax refund seizure language.
I would not be surprised if bankruptcy courts elsewhere in the nation begin to follow the path set by the Michigan judge. We'll know soon enough, but I suspect that the trustees in the Northern District may discontinue their demand for an income tax provision involving the IRS in Chapter 13 plans.
I do not expect, however that Chapter 13 trustees here or elsewhere in the country will permit Chapter 13 debtors from keeping large tax refunds. I suspect that trustees will still demand provisions that obligate debtors to tender their tax refunds but they will expect the debtors to send in the money, rather than having it withheld by the IRS. I will continue to advise my clients to minimize their refunds to avoid the problem entirely.
Needless to say, losing this automatic tax refund payment mechanism will make enforcement of tax refund plan provisions much more difficult. It will be interesting to what if anything Chapter 13 trustees do to address this potential administrative nightmare.
Posted in 2010, Bankruptcy, Chapter 13 issues, Chapter 13 plan calculations, Irs, Tax issues, a, an, automatic, chapter 13 plan, chapter 13 trustee, court, courts, district, enforcement, federal, forbidding, income, intercept, issued, january, judge, keeping, language i, large, losing, mechanism, michigan, money in, order, payable, payment, plan, provisions, redirecting, refund, refunds , seizure, tax, tax refunds in chapter 13, the, | Comments Off
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010
My office colleague, Susan Blum is in the process of filing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy for a young woman. Our client currently lives in a rented apartment, and her lease runs through July of this year. Our client would like to find a cheaper place to live, however, she is concerned that she may not be eligible to sign a new lease after filing for bankruptcy. Our client asked for our advice about what to do.
First, we advised out client that her bankruptcy filing would not prevent her from finding a new apartment later this year and signing a lease. However, the the months immediately following a bankruptcy are a time when a debtor's credit is most damaged – it is very possible that our client would have a difficult time finding a landlord who would lease her an apartment right after the bankruptcy.
A better option in cases like this would be for our client to to sign a new lease prior to filing bankruptcy and reject the current lease in the bankruptcy filing.
Under the bankruptcy law a lease is considered an "executory contract," meaning that our client still has on-going obligations to perform under the contract. In this case, our client has the contractual obligation to pay her lease. Other examples of executory contracts are vehicle leases, health club memberships and cell phone contracts.
The bankruptcy law allows a debtor to "reject" or "assume" an executory contract. If the contract is assumed, the debtor remains obligated under the terms of the contract. If the contract is rejected, the debtor's obligations terminated.
In our client's case if she rejects her old apartment lease, the law deems the lease contract as breached as of the day before the bankruptcy filing. The landlord is entitled to repossess the apartment in accordance with state law. Any damages that the landlord might suffer are treated as pre-petition general unsecured claims. Per the Bankruptcy Code, the rejection damages that the landlord is entitled to are limited to either 15 percent of the balance of the rent that is left in the lease or the rent due for one year from the filing date or the date the apartment was surrendered, whichever is earlier. Fortunately the debtor can include any outstanding rent in her petition and wipe out the debt along with other unsecured debt.
Susan's client took our advice and has already signed a new lease on an apartment and she will be rejecting her current lease in the Chapter 7, including all future rent and penalties incurred for not fulfilling the lease’s terms.
Posted in Apartment, Bankruptcy, Current, Executory Contracts, Law, a, an, and, apartment leases, canceling leases, cell, club, contract, contracts the, deems, filing, health, lease, lease , memberships, phone, reject, rejecting, rejects, signing, susan blum, the, year | Comments Off
