Bankruptcy Questions Answered

Bankruptcy Fraud: Don’t Cross that Line!

The Associated Press reports that former baseball star Lenny "Nails" Dykstra has been charged with bankruptcy fraud by a California based United States Attorney.  Dykstra filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2009, scheduling $31 million in debts and only $50,000 in assets.

In the complaint, prosecutors allege that Dykstra sold or destroyed over $400,000 worth of property.  Among the property that Dykstra allegedly sold – presumably to raise case – were sports memorabilia and furnishings from the home he lost in the bankruptcy.

Obviously most of the Chapter 7 cases filed in the Northern District of Georgia, or in most bankruptcy courts do not involve millions of dollars of debts incurred by a high profile debtor.  However, there is an important lesson that all bankruptcy filers can learn from the charges levied against Mr. Dykstra.

When you list assets on your bankruptcy petition, you are swearing that this list is accurate under penalty of perjury.  If your trustee discovers that items have been omitted, or worse, that they have been secretly sold, the trustee will refer the case to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution.

Sometimes, I overhear conversations in bankruptcy court in which a debtor expresses frustration with the bankruptcy process or anger at an ex-wife, a former business partner or even a former employer.  I also hear conversations expressing frustration with the rather stingy dollar limits set out in the Georgia exemption statute.   I sense that some bankruptcy filers believe that the circumstances that led to their having to file were unfair and out of their control and as such leaving out inherited jewelry that "no one will ever know about" or selling a few items for cash can be rationalized.

While it is probably true that Chapter 7 trustees generally do not have the resources to thoroughly investigate every Chapter 7 debtor, I caution any bankruptcy filer not to take the risk.

First and foremost, an intentional failure to disclose assets is illegal and constitutes a crime under federal law.  No asset is worth your freedom or personal integrity.

Second, you have no way of knowing if the United States trustee will select your case for a random review which can also mean much more intrusive scrutiny.

Third, it is possible that a third party – often an ex-wife or ex-business partner – might anonymously write the U.S. Trustee to report intentional errors on your petition.

Fourth, you might fall victim to "Murphy's law" – your trustee or someone from his office might see you walk into a pawn shop or might see your auction on eBay.   Believe it or not, these types of coincidences do happen.

Often, issues associated with assets that you cannot protect can be resolved if you do not have to file right away.   While the bankruptcy laws can be unforgiving, they will not punish you if you sell assets to raise money for food, shelter and clothing, as long as those sales are disclosed when applicable.  This is why I advise anyone who is even remotely considering bankruptcy to speak with a bankruptcy lawyer at the earliest possible date.  In my office, I regularly maintain files in "pre-bankruptcy" status for four, six, eight months or longer.  Often the delay arises from my client's need to gain lawful benefit from assets that would be seized if the case was filed early.

Posted in Bankruptcy, Chapter 7 issues, Denial of discharge - Section 727, Fraud, Fraudulent Transfers, General consumer bankruptcy info, Lenny Dykstra, a, allegedly, and, attorney  , bankruptcy fraud, baseball, based, california, charged, conversations, dykstra, examples of prosecution for bankruptcy fraud, expressing, filed, frustration, furnishings, hear, lenny, memorabilia, nails, sold, sports, star, states, united | Comments Off

What is a Redemption of Property in Chapter 7

If you are purchasing a vehicle and you file Chapter 7, your options are (1) surrender the vehicle, (2) reaffirm the existing loan, or (3) redeem the vehicle by paying the lender fair market value.  Redemption, which is described at Section 722 of the Bankruptcy Code used to be an uncommon choice.  More recently, however, several lenders have entered the market to finance Section 722 redemptions.  In this video, I discuss how redemptions work and how to know if a Motion for Redemption under Section 722 is a good idea.

Posted in 722, Chapter 7 issues, Finance, Lenders, Purchasing, Reaffirmation and negotiation, Redemption, a, and, chapter 7 and personal property, entered, fair, lender, market, paying, reaffirmation vs. redemption, redemptions, redemptions  , section, section 722 redemption, the, type, value  , vehicle, work, www youtube com watch v 3ebx9zlcsku, youtube | 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

Real Housewife Star Teresa Guidice Faces Allegations of Bankruptcy Fraud

United Press and about two dozen tabloid web sites and blogs are reporting that reality TV star Teresa Guidice, and her husband Joe have been sued by their Chapter 7 trustee for failing to report assets in their bankruptcy petition.  Guidice, one of the "Real Housewives of New Jersey," apparently signed a book contract for a cookbook that will pay her $250,000 but failed to reveal that asset on her petition.  The trustee also alleges that the tax returns submitted by Teresa and her husband were fraudulent as well.

Setting aside the question of why a book publisher thinks it can make back a quarter of a million dollars on sales of  Teresa Guidice's "Skinny Italian" cookbook, what Teresa and her husband are facing is a complaint under Section 727(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which bars a Chapter 7 discharge to a debtor who knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case—

Posted in 727, Chapter 7 issues, Debtors, Denial of discharge - Section 727, Sales, a, acted, and, apparently, arising, bankruptcy fraud, book, case criminal, complaints, contemplate, contract, cookbook, denial of discharge, discharge, fraudulently, guidice, jersey, of , penalty  , prosecution, real housewives of new jersey, section 727, severe, signed, star, teresa, teresa guidice, terminate, the, them section | Comments Off

Can You be Sued for Non-payment of your Mortgage if You Do Not Reaffirm?

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

Ruling by Supreme Court Impacts Bankruptcy Exemptions in Georgia

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

Examples of Bankruptcy Fraud

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

Failure to Disclose Assets Lands Chapter 7 Debtor in Prison

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

Forgotten Lawsuit Creates Big Problems for Prior Chapter 7 Client

Earlier this month I received a call from a Chapter 7 client that I had represented several years ago.  He is attempting to refinance his house and has discovered that a judgment creditor has a lien for several thousand dollars.  The creditor was listed on the case, but neither he no I knew that there was any judgment.

I directed him to visit the county courthouse and pull the file for this case.  He did and he reports that the return of service shows that his wife was served by a sheriff's deputy.  His wife has no recollection of being served.  We did list the creditor on the bankruptcy petition but because we did not know that there was a judgment, we did not file a motion to avoid the judgment lien.  What can he do?

There are a number of lessons you can learn from this man's experience.  First, you should always obtain copies of credit reports from all 3 credit bureaus prior to filing bankruptcy.   In Georgia, you can get a free credit report from each of the 3 main credit bureaus twice a year.  Online, you can go to annualcreditreport.com and download your reports.  Because credit reports obviously contain sensitive information the annualcreditreport.com system will ask several questions to identify yourself.  These are usually multiple choice questions – for example, the system may say "your credit report shows that you previously lived on one of the following streets: (a) Oak Street (b) Thompson Street (c) Ivers Road (d) none of the above.

If you are unable to answer these questions, the system will instruct you to mail away for your credit reports – here is a link to a page on my website with the credit report request letters.

Credit reports are helpful because they will usually show pending lawsuits as well as the names, address, account numbers and debt amounts for most of your creditors.  Obviously I can't require all bankruptcy clients to bring me credit reports but it sure helps avoid "forgotten" creditors or judgments.

As far as what we can do, there are a couple of options.  First I want to make sure that service of process was correct.  If you are served with a lawsuit in Georgia, the sheriff's deputy (or private process server) has to complete a document called a "return of service" that states when a party was served and by whom.  Section 9-11-4 of the Official Code of Georgia provides that service on an individual must be made on the defendant himself, or "by leaving copies thereof at the defendant´s dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein."

In this case, if the sheriff's deputy served my client's wife, then service is most likely valid.

However, I sometimes see situations where the return of service is unclear as to who was served or even situations where the return of service is blank.  In these cases, a defendant can "collaterally attack" the judgment on the grounds that service was not made and he did not know about the lawsuit.

If it turns out that service is valid, my client will have little choice but to negotiate a settlement of the real estate debt.  Interestingly the Chapter 7 discharge would eliminate any personal liability he might have for this debt, but the liability remains as to his real estate.

My experience has also been that judgment creditors will become more amenable to negotiation the longer a real estate lien remains unpaid.  Here, my client could forego a refinance (or threaten to to forego a refi) and use the argument that the judgment creditor might have to wait for years to get paid as leverage to negotiate a reduced payoff.

Posted in Chapter 7, Chapter 7 issues, Credit, Negotiation, Post bankruptcy credit rebuilding, a, amenable, avoid, bankruptcy and judgments, client, deputy, estate, forego, judgment, lawsuit, letters credit, lien, lien  , longer, my, or, post-bankruptcy, private, process, real, refinance, remains, report, reports, request, served, server, the, threaten, unlisted judgment creditors, unpaid  , wife | Comments Off

Debts Arising from Impaired Driving are Not Dischargeable

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