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

Afraid that You Could Lose Your Job if You File Bankrutpcy? The Law Says “No,” but….

Last month, my friend and colleague, Charleston bankruptcy attorney Russ Demott published an interesting article on his web site entitled "Fired for Filing Bankrutcy? No way!" This article was written by Elyria, Ohio bankruptcy lawyer Bill Balena, who notes that the Bankruptcy Code specifically forbids "employee discrimination" based on a bankruptcy filing if:

• You are, or have gone through a bankruptcy proceeding
• You are insolvent either before filing a bankruptcy or while your petition is pending;
• You have not paid a dischargeable debt

Let's take a closer look at what the Code actually says.  Pay particular attention to the different language that applies to government employers vs. private employers.

Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code contains the following language:

As to governmental units:

[with limited exceptions] a governmental unit may not deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a license, permit, charter, franchise, or other similar grant to, condition such a grant to, discriminate with respect to such a grant against, deny employment to, terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, a person that is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or a debtor under the Bankruptcy Act, or another person with whom such bankrupt or debtor has been associated, solely because such bankrupt or debtor is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or debtor under the Bankruptcy Act, has been insolvent before the commencement of the case under this title, or during the case but before the debtor is granted or denied a discharge, or has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in the case under this title or that was discharged under the Bankruptcy Act.

As to private employers:

No private employer may terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, an individual who is or has been a debtor under this title, a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act, or an individual associated with such debtor or bankrupt, solely because such debtor or bankrupt—

(3) has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in a case under this title or that was discharged under the Bankruptcy Act.

As you can see, the restrictions on discrimination are not identical.

Specifically the limitation on governmental action against insolvent or bankrupt employees or job applicants includes the following prohibitions:

• deny employment to
• terminate the employment of
• discriminate with respect to employment against

By contrast the limitations on private employers against insolvent or bankruptcy employees includes the following prohibitions:

• terminate the employment of
• discriminate with respect to employment against

Now I have not litigated this issue – but I think that a private employer could make a strong argument that the Bankruptcy Code does not forbid denying employment to an insolvent or bankruptcy individual who is applying for a job.

Further, as Mr. Balena points out, if you are applying for a job as an "at will" employee, a prospective employer does not have to explain why he is not hiring you – it can be for any reason.  I can't imagine that too many employers would specifically put into writing that you are not being hired because of your credit issues.

In my view, within the context of private employment, Section 525 protections have much more relevance to an employee who already has a job as opposed to a job applicant.  Further, I think that Section 525 is somewhat of a toothless tiger in that few employers would specifically identify a bankruptcy as the sole reason for termination (note the language "solely because").

As a practical matter, I cannot recall the last time I observed or even heard of a bankruptcy debtor facing termination or a refusal to hire because of a bankruptcy filing.  The sheer numbers of bankruptcy filings in the Northern District of Georgia, for example, are such that almost every company of any size has had one or more employees go through the bankruptcy process.  Still, I counsel my clients that Section 525 offers very little in the way of real protection and that there is some risk, even if it is small, that their bankruptcy filing could have a negative impact on employment.

Posted in 525, Attorney, Bankruptcy, Consumer Protection, General consumer bankruptcy info, an, article, bankrupt, charleston, demott, deny, discriminate, discrimination, employees, employers, employers section, employers and bankruptcy filings, employment, government, identical specifically, includes, insolvent, interesting, job termination and bankruptcy filing, limitation, private, prohibitions, published, respect, russ, section 525 of bankruptcy code, terminate, the, vs | Comments Off

December Unemployment Unchanged at 10 Percent

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has released its most recent unemployment numbers (for December 2009), and they paint a gloomy picture of the U.S. job landscape.

While the actual unemployment rate and number of unemployed people in the country remain unchanged from the last recorded period (10.0 percent and 15.3 million, respectively), certain figures point to a dismal immediate future.

Unemployment by the Numbers

Here's a look at a breakdown of the current unemployment figures for the United States:

• Adult men: 10.2 percent
• Adult women: 8.2 percent
• Teenagers: 27.1 percent
• Whites: 9.0 percent
• Blacks: 16.2 percent
• Hispanics: 12.9 percent
• Asians: 8.4 percent

While these numbers represent little movement in either direction from the BLS's last report, they also don’t paint the whole picture. For example:

• Long-term unemployment continued its upward movement, reaching 6.1 million people who have been without work for 27 weeks or more, composing approximately 40 percent of the total number of unemployed people.
• The number of underemployed people remains at 9.2 million – though these people are working, they have fewer hours than they’d like because of economic restraints.
• A whopping 929,000 workers are considered "discouraged," meaning they’re out of work and they would like to work but have stopped looking for jobs because they believe none are available. A year ago, the number of discouraged workers was only 642,000.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, job losses continued in certain sectors (including construction, manufacturing and wholesale trade) and increased in temporary help services (likely from holiday hires).

Looking Ahead

So what do these numbers mean for the future of the U.S. economy and job market? Some analysts suggest the unemployment rate will actually get higher as the economy begins to pick up.

This may sound counter-intuitive, but makes sense upon closer examination: as the economic situation improves nationally, more people will likely enter the work force, believing more opportunities for work are available. And, even if more jobs do crop up, they may not keep pace with the number of new workers seeking employment.

For now, the problem of long-term unemployment continues to plague Americans: the average length of time without a job was 29.1 weeks as of December, which is apparently the highest average since 1948, when records were first kept.

Additional Resources

Employment Situation (BLS News Release, January 2010)

Posted in employment, recession, unemployment | Comments Off