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
Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010
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
