Archive for the ‘Discharge issues’ Category

Failure to Disclose Assets Lands Chapter 7 Debtor in Prison

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.

Student Loan Discharge Case Heard by U.S. Supreme Court

Friday, December 11th, 2009

student loanEarlier this month the U.S.  Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving the question of discharge of student loans in a Chapter 13 case.   The case arose from a Chapter 13 petition filed in 1992 by Francisco Espinoza, an American Airlines baggage handler.

Mr. Espinoza's story began in 1988.  Sensing that airline baggage handling was not a great long term career, Mr. Espinoza enrolled  in a technical school to learn computer drafting and design, and he financined his education with a student loan.  Unfortunately, he was not able to find a job using his new education and he found himself in a financial bind when American Airlines froze wages and reduced his hours.

By 1992, Mr. Espinoza found himself living paycheck to paycheck and unable to pay down his $13,000 student loan.  At that point, he contacted a lawyer and filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.   The Chapter 13 plan prepared by Mr. Espinoza's lawyer provided for full payment of the balance due on the student loan over the term of the plan but it did not provide for payment of $4,000 in accrued interest or for future interest.

The student loan lender was given notice of this plan provision and did not object.  The bankruptcy judge to whom Mr. Espinoza's case was assigned issued an order of "confirmation" that formally approved the plan.   Mr. Espinoza dutifully sent in his trustee payments and approximately 5 years later, after payments were made per the confirmed plan, the judge issued a "discharge order" declaring debtor Espinoza free and clear of all debt.

In 2003 and 2004, Mr. Espinoza's student loan creditor renewed its efforts to collect the student loan debt interest.  The creditor contends that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit the discharge of any part of student loan debt unless the debtor files a special lawsuit in his bankruptcy case to ask for a finding of "undue hardship."  The creditor contends that a bankruptcy  judge cannot discharge student loan debt or interest on a student loan debt through a confirmation order in the absence of a hardship discharge finding.

The United States government, 24 states and the student loan lending industry are supporting the student loan creditor in this case.   You can read the court documents and more information about the Espinoza case by clicking on the link.  The Supreme Court's decision in this case is expected within the next few months.

I will be very surprised if the Court rules in favor of the Espinoza position.  The Bankruptcy Code seems fairly clear in placing the burden of showing undue hardship on the debtor – to make a non-dischargeable debt dischargeable because the lender did not object to a provision buried in a Chapter 13 plan seems contrary to the plain language of the code.  It will be interesting to see what happens.