Bankruptcy Questions Answered

Are Social Security Overpayments Dischargeable in Bankruptcy?

Because I handle both personal bankruptcy cases and Social Security disability cases, I frequently get questions about the interrelationship between these two areas of law.   A question I get at least once a month has to do with whether a Social Security disability overpayment is dischargeable in bankruptcy.

The short answer to this is "yes," a Social Security overpayment is treated like any other unsecured debt.    There are exceptions to the dischargeability of a particular debt under Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code and exceptions to the discharge as a whole under Section 727 of the Code.

Specifically, this means, however, that fraudulent behavior can result in a finding that this Social Security debt is not dischargeable.

Overpayment issues typically arise in disability cases when a claimant continues to accept and receive disability payments even after returning to work.  The question then becomes – "did the debtor/claimant knowingly and with intent to deceive the Social Security Administration continue to accept disability payments even when not entitled to do so?"

A 2009 case decided by Judge Joyce Bihary, chief judge of the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia offers helpful insight into how a bankruptcy judge will analyze this issue.

In the Rodriquez vs. United States of America case, debtor Diego Rodriquez collected over $70,000 of disability benefits after returning to work.   Mr.  Rodriquez filed Chapter 7, then asked the Bankruptcy Court to rule on his request for waiver of overpayment.  Judge Bihary found that the Bankruptcy Court did not have jurisdiction over this issue and denied Mr. Rodriquez' motion about the waiver issue, but she took the unusual step of addressing some of the substantive issues arising from the overpayment problem.

In what is known as "dicta," the judge explained that under her understanding of the law, "an overpayment debt of Social Security benefits is dischargeable"  and will be treated like any other unsecured debt.   The judge cited a 1982 7th Circuit case called Neavear v. Schweiker as support for her conclusion.  Since Social Security did not file a timely objection to discharge, the overpayment debt owed by Mr. Rodriquez is dischargeable.

What is interesting to me about this decision are the judge's discussion of the facts.  Apparently, on several occasions, Mr. Rodriquez attempted to advise Social Security about his return to work, but all of these disclosures were ignored by SSA.  Further, the judge noted that Social Security had put Mr. Rodriquez in limbo by failing to respond to his request for administrative review.

The judge devotes almost a page of her decision to suggestions about how SSA might appropriately satisfy its statutory obligations to Mr. Rodriquez.   Reading between the lines, it seems apparent to me that the judge found Mr. Rodriquez' testimony credible about his efforts to report his employment income to Social Security, but she did not believe Social Security's assertions (apparently gleaned from documentation and perhaps testimony) that it had not received notice of employment from Mr. Rodriquez.

The judge references Social Security's ineptitude regarding file management.  Mr. Rodriquez' deliquentcy grew so large because "SSA lost debtor's file for a period of five years."

In my mind, the obvious question in an overpayment case is this – how can a debtor not be guilty of fraudulent behavior if he accepts Social Security payments while at the same time he is working and earning money.  Wearing my Social Security disability lawyer hat I can tell you that Social Security's rules about trial work periods, its Ticket to Work program and its extended period of disability and work that does not reach the level of "substantial activity" is by no means intuitive and even a sophisticated claimant would not necessarily know when he might be allowed to keep his disability check as well as his paycheck.

The judge in the Rodriquez case did not reach this issue (because Social Security did not raise it) but I get the sense that the judge felt that in this case at least, the debtor tried to play by the rules but received little cooperation from Social Security and that Social Security's "unclean hands" might very well be held against the agency in a dischargeability inquiry.

So, what can we learn from the Rodriquez case?  I think that if you are attempting to discharge an overpayment you will need to show that you tried to engage Social Security to resolve the issue prior to filing bankruptcy.   If you were confused by Social Security's rules it would not be a bad idea to explain your areas of confusion in your correspondence with Social Security.   Finally I would make sure that you and your lawyer identify specific addresses where notice of your bankruptcy filing ought to go.  Social Security is such a bloated bureaucracy that they will most likely not file an objection in time – there is no need to give them added life by not offering notice at the correct address.

Posted in 1982, 7th, Bankruptcy, Creditor discharge actions, Lawyer, a, administration, and, bihary, called, case, cases, circuit, cited, continue, debt   , deceive, disability, discharge of social security disability overpayments, earning, employment, handle, hat, intent, judge, money  , mr, my, neavear, overpayment, overpayment  , personal, references, rodriquez the, schweiker, security, social, social security overpayment and bankruptcy, the, treated, unsecured, v, waiver, wearing, working | Comments Off

What is “Lien Stripping” and Can I Use it to Reduce my Mortgage Payments

With the decline in Atlanta area housing values, a seldom used bankruptcy technique has taken on new life.  The technique is called "lien stripping" and it arises from Bankruptcy Code Section 506(a) and (d).  A lien strip allows a Chapter 13 debtor to use the power of the Bankruptcy Court to transform a secured second mortgage or home equity line of credit into an unsecured debt, thereby eliminating a monthly payment and reducing total debt by tens of thousands of dollars.

Here's how it works: Let's say that you own a home worth $250,000.   Perhaps that home was worth $350,000 three or four years ago but its market value has dropped because of the recession.  The balance on the first mortgage is $270,000 and the balance on the second mortgage is $45,000.

In this case, a Chapter 13 debtor can ask his bankruptcy judge to "strip away" the second mortgage debt since all of the value in your home is encumbered by your first mortgage.  In other words, if you were to sell your house, the first mortgage lender would not be paid in full and the second mortgage lender would get nothing.  The second mortgage lender is, therefore, unsecured.

Lien stripping only works when:

• you are a debtor in a Chapter 13 case
• the fair market value of your house is less than the balance due on your first mortgage

The Clerk's Office of the Northern District of Georgia has provided us with sample lien stripping motions, which you can review by clicking on the link.

I suspect that mortgage companies will mount challenges to lien stripping.  There has already been a Minnesota case where a local judge there refused to allow lien stripping.   One day this issue may be considered by the United States Supreme Court.  For now, however, most bankruptcy judges will allow lien stripping and if your second mortgage or HELOC is fully unsecured, you may want to consider it as well.

My friend and colleague, Charleston bankruptcy lawyer Russ DeMott has published a clear explanation of how he approaches the mortgage lien stripping process (in his district, they refer to lien stripping as "mortgage stripping" but the concept is identical.  You can read Russ' post by clicking on the link.  Russ correctly points out that out of banks and mortgage companies have not cooperated in out of court mortgage modifications and that lien stripping remains perhaps the most reliable tool to modify a mortgage.

I have successfully "stripped" several junior mortgages.  Not surprisingly, the main issue that arises has to do with the fair market value of the home.  You may need to pay for an appraisal to convince the judge that the second mortgage is, in fact, fully unsecured.

Posted in Chapter 13, Chapter 13 issues, Lien stripping, Mortgage, and, approaches, bankruptcy mortgage modification, called, in, lien, modifying mortgages bankruptcy, motions, process, refused, remains, sample, stripping, stripping   , the, unsecured lien | Comments Off

Will Bankruptcy Issues Affect Georgia Governor’s Race?

If you have been reading your local newspapers, you may be aware that Nathan Deal, the Republican candidate for Governor of Georgia, is facing scrutiny about his personal finances and about the bankruptcy filings of his daughter and son-in-law.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Mr. Deal personally guaranteed bank loans totaling over $2 million that was used to build and finance a sporting goods store owned by his daughter and son-in-law called Wilder Outdoors, located on Highway 365 near Gainesville.   Unfortunately for the Wilders, the sporting goods business failed, leaving about $2.5 million due.  Mr. and Mrs. Wilder filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2009, discharging their obligations on the outstanding bank loans, leaving Mr. Deal exposed as the guarantor.

Mr. Deal and the Wilders were able to refinance the business loan several years ago prior to the closing of the business but now, a $2.5 million debt will come due in February, which would be about a month after he takes office if he wins.

Mr. Deal asserts that his financial quandary is no different from that faced by many parents who offered financial support to the entrepreneurial dreams of their children.   He has put his primary residence and other property on the market and no doubt hopes to generate enough cash to satisfy the bank's demands.  You can read more about the Wilder bankruptcy issues on my Bankruptcy Law Network post about this situation.

Democrats are pointing to Mr. Deal's financial troubles as proof of his questionable judgment, especially since it turns out that Mr. Deal's son-in-law, Clint Wilder, appears to have been ineligible to file Chapter 7 in July, 2009.  Mr. Wilder had filed an individual Chapter 7 case in Atlanta back in December, 2001.  Section 727(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a debtor must wait at least eight (8) years from the time a Chapter 7 case is filed before filing a second Chapter 7 – here the time period between the two filings was about 7 1/2 years.

Although the Wilders' case was closed in December, 2009, the United States trustee has the right to reopen this case and petition the judge to revoke the discharge.  From what I am hearing, this is what is happening now.

Candidate Deal correctly points out that issues relating to his son-in-law's bankruptcy are not his doings and should not be attributed to him.  On the other hand, the Deal campaign has to be concerned about the prospect of a candidate who could very well be insolvent the month after he takes office and who could face the prospect of filing a voluntary petition or having an involuntary bankruptcy file against him shortly after he takes office.  You may recall that former State school superintendent Kathy Cox chose not to run for re-election after she and her husband filed Chapter 7 following her husband's failed business deals.

I think that the main lesson to glean from this situation has to do with the inherent problems associated with co-signing a loan for anybody, especially when the money put at risk is more than you can afford to lose.

What do you think?  Will Mr. Deal's looming financial problems cost him your vote?  Or do his financial problems give him insight into the economic plight of struggling Georgians?

Posted in 2, 2009  , Business, Chapter 7 issues, Finance, Georgia Bankruptcy, Involuntary Bankruptcy, Loans, Nathan Deal, Revocation of Discharge-Section 727, a, and, bank, build, called, chose, correctly, cox, daughter, deal, failed, goods, guaranteed, guarantor mr, happening, hearing, ineligible to file Chapter 7, july, kathy, mr, now candidate, outdoors, owned, personally, points, recall, revocation of Chapter 7 discharge, school, son in law, sporting, state, store, superintendent, the, totaling, wilder, wilders | Comments Off

New Credit Card Protections Trigger Higher Fees by Card Issuers

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

Does Your Landlord have any Obligations to Mitigate Damages if You Breach Your Lease?

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

Giant Debt Collector Law Firm Mann, Bracken Out of Business

A number of stories have recently appeared in bankruptcy and consumer rights blogs suggesting that the Atlanta based collection firm Mann, Bracken, LLC has gone out of business.   On his Caveat Emptor blog, Minnesota bankruptcy attorney Sam Glover has written several posts about the Mann, Bracken firm including one on December 22, 2009 stating that the calls to the firm's phone number instructs callers to communicate directly with their creditors.   I called several numbers listed for Mann, Bracken but the calls were answered by a message that "all circuits are busy, try your call again later."

Although based in Atlanta, Mann, Bracken has a national practice and it has apparently been growing by merging with other law firms.   I found a web site called paymbw.com which purports to be a payment gateway for debtors to make electronic check or credit card payments on debts being handled by Mann, Bracken.  This site notes that Mann, Bracken is the successor by merger to Wolpoff & Abramson L.L.P., and Eskanos & Adler P.C., two collection law firms well known to debtor's lawyers.

The domain mbllc.com has a "coming soon" page and the registration information for that domain is private.   I looked up the contact information for the partners.  Douglas Mann's shows him as an inactive lawyer affiliated with Mann, Bracken.  Chris Bracken's registration shows a gmail.com email address, a business address at Mann, Bracken's location, but the space for the law firm information is blank.  Two other partners – Bill Layng and Steve Knezo – are now affiliated with other law firms.

Atlanta TV station WSB sent a crew to the Mann, Bracken offices and found deserted premises along with handwritten placards stating that the firm has closed down.  According to WSB, Mann, Bracken was associated with a large debt collector called Axiant, which is now in Chapter 7.

Based on all the information I can gather, the law firm of Mann, Bracken is no more.  However the demise of this firm does not mean that debts owed to clients of Mann, Bracken or Axiant are no longer collectible.   Apparently another large debt buyer/collector, NCO, has purchased or is about to purchase Axiant's accounts.

If you had a deal with Mann, Bracken to settle your debt, you may find that the underlying creditor or a subsequent collection agency may not honor your deal – so hold on to any paperwork you may have.  As attorney Glover notes on his blog, you should contact your creditor directly if you have previously been dealing with Mann, Bracken.

Posted in Bill Collectors, General consumer bankruptcy info, Georgia Bankruptcy, a, atlanta, axiant, based, bracken, bracken  , called, chris, collection, collection law firm, collector, debt, douglas, firm, including, large, mann, mann bracken, partners  , the | Comments Off