Archive for the ‘case’ Category
Wednesday, May 25th, 2011
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
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
Wednesday, January 12th, 2011
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a creditor friendly decision in the case of Ransom v. Fia Card Services. At issues was the "ownership expense" deduction in the means test.
The means test is a calculation used to determine whether a debtor has enough "disposable income" to afford a Chapter 13 repayment plan.
In the Ransom case, the debtor (Jason Ransom) claimed a means test deduction for both operation of a vehicle ($338 per month) and for ownership ($471 per month). The problem – Mr. Ransom owned his vehicle free and clear.
In an 8-1 decision written by Obama appointee Elena Kagan (the lone dissent issued by conservative Justice Scalia), the Supreme Court held that a debtor who owns his vehicle free and clear can only claim a deduction for vehicle operation but not a deduction for ownership.
In Mr. Ransom's case, this means that for bankruptcy calculation purposes, he has an extra $471 sitting around that he can use to pay credit card companies in a Chapter 13.
At first blush, the Supreme Court's decision would seem to make sense – why should a debtor get to claim an ownership deduction if he does not have a car payment?
Here is the issue: Chapter 13 cases last 5 years. Assuming that Mr. Ransom has a paid off car, it is likely that his car is not new. What happens when Mr. Ransom needs to replace his car? He will have no funds to do so because any funds that he might have left over are being used to fund his Chapter 13.
Further, the means test budget is derived from IRS numbers that are used in tax settlement cases. These means test budgets are a little better than a "rice and beans" budget but there is very little else. Is it reasonable to expect that a debtor will have no emergencies during the next five years – a funeral to attend? a roof to fix? a major car repair?
The Supreme Court's decision ignores the realities of life. In the immediate near term the debtor may have $471 to pay towards his Chapter 13, but is it reasonable to expect that this "disposable" money will be there month after month? The Chapter 13 trustee will expect it, and these funds will come out in a payroll deduction. But I fear that even more Chapter 13 cases will fail when debtors lose their jobs because they do not have transportation or checks for mortgages will bounce because the funds were used for plumbing repairs or other emergencies.
The Ransom decision also sends a very strange message to debtors entering the bankruptcy process. Instead of encouraging people to avoid debt, the Ransom decision encourages filers to incur more debt prior to filing. In this upside down logic, a debtor would benefit from taking out a car title loan prior to bankruptcy since having debt owned on a car will allow that debtor to claim an ownership expense.
Creditors like credit card companies are concerned about getting as much as they can as quickly as they can, and such an position makes sense in a business context. But who loses when court supervised repayment plans (Chapter 13) are doomed to fail because there are no accommodations for emergencies or other likely needs during a looming 5 year time span.
Posted in 13, Bankruptcy budgets, Creditor, Filers, Means Test issues, Obama, Ransom, Ransom v. Fia Card Services, a, afford, appointee, automobile operation expense, automobile ownership expense, card, case, chapter, court, decision, dissent, elena, emergencies the, encourages, fia, friendly, issued, kagan, lone, means test budgets, month, mr, owned, ownership in, plan in, problem, repayment, services , supreme, the, u s, v, yesterday, | 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
