Archive for the ‘and’ Category
Tuesday, August 10th, 2010
As you may know, last year Congress passed a law called the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. This law, nicknamed the CARD Act of 2009, was designed to regulate a variety of unpopular credit card tactics, such as interest rate increases without notice, inactivity fees and unfair interest calculations.
According to credit card industry analysts, the CARD Act of 2009 will eliminate over $390 million in fees for credit card issuers. Not surprisingly, the credit card companies do not intend to walk away from this fee income. For every fee and penalty eliminated by the CARD Act, credit card issuers are finding replacements. For example the annual fee for many cards has been increased, sometimes dramatically. Card issuers are also sending corporate card applications (called "professional cards") to consumers. Corporate cards are not included in the CARD Act.
The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story explaining how the credit card companies intends to recoup their lost fee income. The bottom line: the CARD Act of 2009 will eliminate some consumer-unfriendly tactics used by the credit card companies, but it will trigger an equal number of new consumer-unfriendly tactics. Caveat Emptor.
Posted in CARD Act of 2009, Congress, Consumer Protection, Credit, Disclosure, Law, a, accountability, act, act the, and, applications, called, card, corporate, credit card company tactics, credit card fees, dramatically , fees, inactivity, included, issuers, issuers , journal, notice, passed, responsibility, sending, street, tactics, the, unfair, unpopular, wall, year | Comments Off
Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010
I recently received an email from a blog reader asking about his obligations to his mortgage company when he does not reaffirm:
I have read your blog and you are very through so I write you with hopes that you might answer this question for me. I file Chapter 7 in 08, and did not reaffirm my loan. I am still living in the house and did make some payments. However, i have not for the last 8 months. It is my understanding that I must sign a document to reaffirm and that continuing payment in itself is not a reaffirmation…or? Well it gets a little more complicated. My house is valued at $410,000 and the bank has offered me a deal that is going to be hard to refuse. They have agreed to let me do a short re-fi in the amount of 180k. If I agree to that is that in itself a reaffirmation?
Here is my response: in most cases, when you take out a mortgage loan, you are signing two different types of agreements. The first type is a promissory note whereby you personally agree to make the payments. The second type of obligation creates a property lien, meaning that you, as the owner of the property, pledges that property as collateral for the loan.
When you file a Chapter 7 and receive your discharge, your personal obligations are extinguished. However, a Chapter 7 discharge does not eliminate the mortgage company's lien against your property. If you "reaffirm" your mortgage, you are actually reaffirming the promissory note and your personal obligations to pay.
For years, many bankruptcy attorneys advised their clients to avoid signing reaffirmation agreements for mortgages, car loans or any other secured debt. The reasoning – even without a personal "guarantee" lenders are protected by the property lien. If the lender is willing to accept payments (the so-called "stay and pay" option), the now discharged debtor keeps his property, keeps making payment, but does not have personal liability on the note.
If the debtor misses payments, the lender would still have the right to foreclose or repossess based on the property lien. The debtor would not have personal liability for any foreclosure or repossession deficiency because his personal liability was extinguished in the bankruptcy.
There is a downside to this "stay and pay" strategy. First, the debtor does not get any credit report benefit for making payments. Because the debtor's personal obligations have been extinguished, the lender no longer reports either a positive or a negative payment history. A positive payment history from a mortgage company can be a good way to restore credit after bankruptcy, and if you do not reaffirm, you will not get this benefit.
Second, there is the "uncertainty factor" if you do not reaffirm. Most mortgage or vehicle finance installment notes contain a default provision that includes bankruptcy as a default trigger. In theory, at least, once your bankruptcy is closed (and the automatic stay of bankruptcy terminated), your lender could declare your loan in default and take action under State law to recover the collateral. In my experience, lenders would much rather have monthly payments than your collateral but this risk does exist.
Finally, many of my readers have asked me if there is such a thing as "constructive reaffirmation" meaning that by making payments, are you in effect re-obligating yourself? Are you creating a contractual obligation by your actions?
I think that the answer to this depends on State law but I would suspect that a mortgage or vehicle lender would have a hard time making this argument. In many States (such as in Georgia) a financial obligation related to real estate must be written and they must have specific terms. As a matter of general contract law, a contract usually will not be enforceable if its terms are not specified. I would argue therefore that a debtor's actions of simply making payments and the lenders actions of accepting such payments should not be enough to create personal liability on the part of the debtor. I would be interested to know if any of the attorneys who read this blog have a different opinion or if anyone is aware of any case law that says otherwise.
At a minimum, if a lender tries to make the argument that you have somehow re-obligated yourself personally by your act of making payments, I would insist that the lender provide you with case law or other support for its position, and you should consult with a lawyer before agreeing to any payment or taking any action (like signing a new, valid contract) that could create personal liability.
My reader states that his lender has proposed a refinance for $180,000. He did not say, but I presume that his prior (discharged) mortgage was much higher than this and that his current payments under the "stay and pay" are based on this higher balance. If he enters into a mortgage contract for $180,000, that contract will function like any other mortgage – and include both personal liability under a promissory note as well as a property lien. It is not a reaffirmation because the bankruptcy is over – instead, the proposed $180,000 loan deal is equivalent to a new mortgage. This proposed deal could result in lower payments plus positive credit history, but it will also create personal liability that currently does not exist. I would certainly advise my reader to discuss his options with an attorney so that he will fully understand the implications of his decision.
Posted in Chapter 7 issues, Lenders, Mortgage, Mortgage modifications, Obligation, Post bankruptcy credit rebuilding, Reaffirmation and negotiation, a, actions, agreements, and, avoid, clients, contract, create, creates, enters, history, history , liability, liability my, lien, making, mortgage loan reaffirmation, negative, note, payment, payments, personal, positive, promissory, property, reader, reaffirmation, reaffirmation after bankruptcy, reaffirming, refinance and bankruptcy, signing, simply, states, the, type | 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
Friday, July 9th, 2010
Last October, I wrote a post on this blog about bankruptcy fraud, and pointed out that everything included in a bankruptcy filing is subject to scrutiny by the office of the United States Trustee, which is an arm of the United States Department of Justice. In other words, false statements on a bankruptcy petition could land a debtor in hot water – dismissal of the bankruptcy case, fines and even prison.
Because the bankruptcy process can seem informal, it can be easy to forget that a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 filing is made up of documents filed in a federal district court and subject to investigation by the F.B.I.
Attorney Gini Nelson, a New Mexico bankruptcy lawyer, recently published a post about bankruptcy fraud in the Bankruptcy Law Network blog. Gini's post includes a link to the IRS.gov site containing examples of bankruptcy fraud investigations. I found the IRS.gov link especially interesting in that one can get a sense of the type of fraud that bankruptcy debtors have attempted and the level of fraudulent activity that generated prosecution. Given the highly interconnected and electronic public record access that is available to bankruptcy trustees as well as government investigators I can't believe any of these folks believed that they would not be caught.
Posted in Bankruptcy, Blog, Chapter 13 issues, Chapter 7 issues, Debtors, Fraud, Fraudulent Transfers, access, and, bankruptcy and perjury, bankruptcy fraud, department, easy, electronic, examples, examples of prosecution for bankruptcy fraud, f b i attorney, gini, highly, informal, interconnected, investigation, investigations , nelson, public, record, states, the, united | Comments Off
Sunday, July 4th, 2010
On June 7, 2010, the United States Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee v. Lanning. The Supreme Court rarely hears argument in consumer bankruptcy cases so the Lanning decision is big news to consumer bankruptcy lawyers.
The issue in Lanning is one that has troubled bankruptcy lawyers since 2005, when the "means test" was added to the Bankruptcy Code. The means test functions as a test – do you have the "means" or disposable income to fund a Chapter 13 repayment plan? If the means test shows that you do not have sufficient disposable income to make a Chapter 13 work, then you qualify for Chapter 7.
As one of the assistant United States trustees once told me – the purpose of the means test is to disqualify as many people as possible from Chapter 7, and to force them into Chapter 13.
In practice, the means test does not work very well in predicting who can make a Chapter 13 work. One of the biggest complaints has to do with the mechanical nature of means testing. To run a means test, I have to gather pay stubs from the past 6 months. I then create a monthly average, which represents available income. Next I prepare a means test budget, but I do not use actual expense amounts. Instead, the means test tells me how much my clients are allowed to spend for food, medicine, utilities, etc. And where do these budget numbers come from? Means test numbers are based on IRS budgets used in delinquent tax repayment plans. In other words, the means test budget allocations are not especially generous.
This explanation of the means test is somewhat oversimplified, but you get the main idea – every bankruptcy debtor's income and expense numbers have to be run through the means test, and not surprisingly this somewhat mechanical test produces some absurd results.
The classic example of absurd results occurs when a debtor has received a Christmas bonus or a one time payment. That bonus/one time payment has to be included in the monthly income numbers even if it is not guaranteed or likely to happen again. In other situations a debtor may have earned a comfortable income but has now lost his job – under a strict reading of the means test, he earns too much money to file Chapter 7. And he can't afford to file a Chapter 13 because he now has no income.
The Supreme Court has injected some common sense into this situation. In the Lemming case, which was filed in Topeka, Kansas, the debtor's 6 month average was skewed by a one time payment arising from a buyout from her former employer. The debtor filed a Chapter 13 plan that called for a payment that the debtor could afford based on her actual, current income. The trustee objected on the grounds that the means test dictated a higher number (that the debtor clearly could not afford based on his actual income).
The Topeka bankruptcy judge agreed with the debtor and approved a plan that Ms. Lemming could afford. The trustee appealed and lost in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The trustee appealed again and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and held that bankruptcy judges need not apply a "mechanical approach" to means testing in Chapter 13 cases. Instead, judges should "take into account other known or virtually known certain information about the debtor's future income or expenses." Rather than looking backwards, judges can take a forward looking approach and consider the realities of a debtor's income. This forward looking approach should be considered in cases with unusual facts and the Lemming decision should not be construed as an invalidation of the means testing formula.
Despite the Supreme Court's warning that a "forward looking" approach should only be used in limited situations, I suspect that bankruptcy judges will use "Lemming arguments" mitigate some of the harsh results of Chapter 13 in general. Bankruptcy judges recognize that Chapter 13 cases often do not work because means testing and aggressive trustee arguments force debtors to agree to plans that commit debtors to pay every last dime to the trustee. Unfortunately, family emergencies and unexpected things happen over the course of a five year bankruptcy plan and many plans will fail – not because the debtor did anything wrong, but because there is no "give" in the plan.
I predict that judges will use the rationale of Lemming to reduce some of the harsh results of the means test and help debtors improve their chances at success in Chapter 13.
If you want to read the Lemming decision, click on the link. I also found a nice summary of Lemming in attorney Jordan Bublick's fine South Florida bankruptcy blog.
Posted in 13, 2010, Chapter 13 issues, Debtors, Hamilton Chapter 13 trustee v. Lemming, Means Test issues, Trustee, Trustee objections in Chapter 13, affirmed, aggressive, and, argument, arguments, cases, certiorari the, chapter, chapter 13 plans, court, decision, facts, force, formula despite, granted, hamilton, hears, lanning , lemming, means, means testing, rarely, read, released, states, supreme, testing, the, trustee objections to chapter 13, united, unusual, v, work | Comments Off
Wednesday, June 30th, 2010
Not surprisingly, I get calls from small business owners who are contemplating personal bankruptcy when their businesses fail. There are many issues that arise in these types of cases but I would like to focus on one problem that, more than any other, can force the business owner into bankruptcy.
Generally when the owner of a small business leases retail space, the landlord will demand a personal guarantee. This means, of course, that in the event of a default, the business (which may be a corporation or LLC) faces liability and the business owner personally faces liability.
Given this reality, every small business owner should seek counsel to discussion asset protection options before starting his business, but that is a topic for another day.
If the business fails you might be surprised to learn that the landlord does not necessarily have to take any steps to "mitigate damages" by releasing the retail space. Instead, the landlord can demand payment for the full value of the lease from the business owner personally. If the business owner has a house with $100,000 of equity, that equity is therefore at risk, and given that Georgia's bankruptcy exemption statute is stingy ($10,000 for an individual or $20,000 for a married couple filing jointly), bankruptcy may not offer much protection.
I ran across two helpful resources that go into more detail about the landlord's obligations or lack thereof. The first is a blog post from Atlanta lawyer David Pardue in his Georgia Real Estate Litigation blog. In his post, David discusses a recent Georgia Court of Appeals case called Sirdah v. North Springs Assocs., LLLP, which was decided by the Court of Appeals in June, 2010. In the Sirdah case, the Court restated its previous holding that a landlord is under no duty to mitigate damages unless (1) the landlord accepts the tenant's surrender, or (2) the tenant successfully terminates the lease. In the Sirdah case, the tenant returned his keys to the landlord and argued that by accepting the keys, the landlord accepted the tenant's surrender. The Court said that accepting the keys did not constitute an acceptance of the surrender.
Another helpful resource is a more extensive article written by attorney Stephanie Everett of the Bloom Law Firm in Atlanta. In this paper, Stephanie examines the various scenarios that could arise when a tenant breaches a lease and the resulting consequences. Although Stephanie's article is written for the benefit of landlords, tenants will find the information very helpful as well.
As the law in this area could change, you should not rely on these resources in the absence of counsel. If you are a small business owner and you are coming to the realization that your business may not survive, you would be wise to consult with a lawyer to discuss your options both in business and in terms of bankruptcy. I have seen far too many business owners who simply left and discovered after the fact that their bankruptcy options were limited, or too painful.
Posted in 1, Business, David Pardue, General consumer bankruptcy info, Georgia Bankruptcy, Protected property issues, Sirdah v. North Springs Associates, a, accepted, accepts, and, appeals, assocs, breach of lease, breaches, called, case, consequences , damages, duty, faces, landlord, lease, lease , leases, liability, liability given, llc, mitigate, mitigation of damages, north, owner, personally, resulting, retail, retail lease and personal liability, sirdah, small, space, springs, successfully, tenant, terminates, the, v | 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, 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
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
Friday, February 5th, 2010
There are many reasons that bankruptcy filing rates are so high. Clearly an unexpected job loss or reduction in earnings can lead many honest, hardworking people into a bankruptcy lawyer's office. When a job loss is coupled with a divorce, I think that the likelihood of bankruptcy by husband or wife goes up exponentially.
I recently read a column written by attorney John Mayoue, a divorce lawyer here in Atlanta who is known for his representation of celebrities and other high profile clients. John notes that in the domestic relations legal community, Atlanta is known as the "divorce belt." In the bankruptcy lawyer community, Atlanta is known for having one of the highest bankruptcy filing rates per capita. I do not think that this is a coincidence.
Just as an ethical bankruptcy lawyer will advise you to search for alternatives to Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, a thoughtful family law attorney will advise you to search for alternatives to divorce. Bankruptcy or divorce may be inevitable, but when you seek legal counsel, look for a lawyer who does not offer "one size fits all" solutions and recommends alternatives – this would be a good sign that you are talking with a lawyer who has your best interests at heart.
John was gracious enough to give me permission to reprint his thoughtful article about why couples struggling in their marriages ought to consider alternatives to divorce. I recommend that you take his message to heart.
Divorce Lawyer John Mayoue Offers Advice to Couples Contemplating Divorce
The divorce rates in the United States are some of the highest in the world. Increased financial pressure brought on by the current economy is fueling the fire for marriages already in jeopardy, and the rapidly increasing number of homeforeclosures further demonstrates the severe consequences these pressures can produce.
According to Atlanta, Georgia based divorce attorney John C. Mayoue, who has been counseling couples through divorce cases for more than thirty years, the approaching holiday season will cause these numbers to spike further and will also be a busy time for lawyers specializing in divorce cases, as the holiday season often proves to be a breaking point for marriages in crisis.
“During the holidays, people’s pent-up thoughts about relationships and careers and where they are with life become intensified,” Mayoue says. “In December, for example, we have the highest number of suicides, divorce filings and bankruptcies of any month. It's just a very difficult time for people.”
Although our society makes divorce seem to be an easy and acceptable way out for couples who aren’t quite happy in their situation, Mayoue cautions couples not to be too hasty to start the divorce process. Divorces that make it to trial are painful and embarrassing, and the results are often not fair for both parties involved. If you are considering divorce, Mayoue suggest taking the following steps first.
1. Try to work out your differences
Ask yourself why you want a divorce. Are you just responding to life’s pressures? Are you looking for a way out of a stressful situation and not just your marriage? Or do you have legitimate concerns that are truly irreconcilable?
Ask yourself if this is your only option. Have you made every effort to communicate with your spouse and work things out together? Have you tried counseling or outside help?
More importantly, consider all of the consequences of divorce. Are there children involved? How will this affect them? Would the divorce be the best solution for everyone in the family or only the adults involved? Will the family be financially ruined by the process in the forms of home foreclosure, credit crises or worse?
Before you drag your family through a process that can make existing rifts even deeper and harder to overcome, make sure that you really want to go through with this life changing and emotionally taxing process.
2. If you can’t find a resolution, try to settle out of court
If at all possible, try to settle your case outside of court with the help of your attorneys. When you do take your case to trial, you lose control over important aspects of your case to the decision of the judge or jury, depending on your state. This can lead to painful custody rulings, alimony or settlement decisions and more.
Even if you feel like you are right in your claims, in a courtroom, your case is only as solid as the evidence you can produce. Judges tend to have biases and not all states will send divorce cases to a jury trial. Truth may not always win out, and oftentimes these proceedings become incredibly painful and embarrassing.
“I am always going to make every reasonable effort to get a case settled first,” Mayoue says, “because settlement is something that the parties can control. They can basically control things such as custody, visitation and the allocation of assets and debts. And the courtroom is a risky environment for anyone.”
3. Educate yourself before going to trial
Before you do anything, make sure to get educated. Use your attorney’s knowledge to understand the proceedings, possible outcomes and unexpected or painful events that you need to be prepared for.
“Divorce is hell for the vast majority of people,” Mayoue says. “People get angry, people get lost in the process of the courts and they lose everything. This can be avoided if they are calm and are educated about the process.”
Mayoue’s law practice is based in Atlanta, in the heart of the new “divorce belt,” a name which the South has recently earned by having the highest divorce rates in the country. Given the environment in which he operates, he says that his goals as a divorce attorney are to educate people about their options and the process and to help people who have thoroughly thought through their options and have decided divorce is the only answer for them.
“I really do think that we lawyers have an obligation to educate the public,” Mayoue says, “and it seems to me to be not very good consumerism to walk into a lawyer's office knowing absolutely nothing, before paying someone several hundred dollars. I've always found it peculiar that people do not get educated in a legal matter that affects 50-plus percent of all people who get married. Yet if you had an illness, you would certainly read up about it, if you had a business you were interested in getting involved in, you would certainly read about it.”
Posted in Advice, Alternatives To Bankruptcy, Attorney, Avoiding Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy budgets, Divorce, Divorce and bankruptcy issues, John Mayoue, Lawyer, alternatives to divorce, and, atlanta, avoiding divorce, bankruptcy and divorce, based, c, cautions, contemplating, couples, divorce the, earned, embarrassing “i, georgia, heart divorce, highest, incredibly, john, mayoue, message, offers, painful, proceedings, rates, suggest, the | Comments Off
