Archive for the ‘rarely’ Category
Tuesday, September 14th, 2010
There are dozens of lawyers out there who offer to prepare and file bankruptcy cases. Some work in high volume "bankruptcy mill" firms that compete on price while others compete on experience, knowledge and service. Usually the cost differential is a few hundred dollars, but when you are considering bankruptcy, every dollar counts – so why would you want a lawyer like me as opposed to a firm that would offer to represent you for a lower price?
I could offer a glib answer like "if you needed brain surgery, would you look for the cheapest surgeon on the one with the most experience and industry recognition" but that does not really answer the question. Perhaps it would be helpful if you could look over my shoulder as I analyze a real life situation that came before me recently.
Earlier this month an email arrived from a couple who wanted information about bankruptcy. The wife wrote that she was a stay at home mom raising 2 children and that her husband lost his job about a year ago, and recently started back to work at a lower paying job. Their current household income is just under $50,000. They own a house that is now worth less than what they paid for it – the house is worth about $200,000 – the first mortgage is $210,000 and the second mortgage is $35,000. They own one older car outright and are financing a mini-van. They have also incurred around $25,000 of credit card debt – most of which was used trying to keep the mortgage current.
Earlier this year they fell behind on both the first and second mortgage. The first mortgage lender started foreclosure proceedings, but suspended foreclosure and offered to consider my potential clients for a mortgage modification. They have been making modified payments for several months but when they called the lender to ask if they had been approved for a permanent modification, the account rep told them that their modification paperwork had not been approved but that their application had been sent to another department for a reconsideration. News of this decision had not been provided to my prospective clients – the only reason they found out was from their call. No one from the mysterious reconsideration division was available and their multiple calls have not been returned for over 2 weeks.
They decided to contact me because they are getting the sense that the mortgage company is unlikely to approve their modification and they want to be prepared for a possible foreclosure. What are their options?
Here is what I advised them through my conversation with the wife:
First, I asked what was their desire regarding the house – was keeping the house a priority? The wife responded that they would like to keep their house but they were not sure they could afford it given the husband's reduced salary.
I explained that Chapter 13 is the type of bankruptcy that can stop a foreclosure but that Chapter 13 would not allow us to change the amount of the monthly payments, nor would it change the total balance due on the mortgage. Chapter 13 would allow them to "cure" their arrearage by paying that arrearage (the past due payments) over a five year period of time, along with other debts that would also be included in the Chapter 13 payment plan. However, if they were not able to afford the regular monthly payments Chapter 13 probably did not make much sense.
The only possible justification for a Chapter 13 would arise from the possibility that they could use Chapter 13 to "strip" the second mortgage and make that unsecured. Under Chapter 13 law, a second mortgage that is wholly unsecured, meaning that the balance due the first mortgage exceeds the fair market value of the home. If the second mortgage is wholly unsecured, we can file a motion to strip the lien, thereby making the second mortgage debt an unsecured claim in the Chapter 13. If our Chapter 13 plan called for paying unsecured debt at 5 cents on the dollar, then Chapter 13 might be something to consider.
In this case, the wife advised me that the monthly payment due the first lender was more than what they could afford, plus she did not seem enthusiastic about signing on for a five year payment plan, so we decided to remove Chapter 13 from consideration.
We then proceeded to discuss Chapter 7.
I pointed out that Chapter 7 would allow the couple to discharge their credit card debt as well as any potential liability arising from the surrender of their home. I felt that the real danger came from the second mortgage lender as it has been my experience that first lenders rarely pursue deficiency claims because of the Georgia law that requires them to go to court to certify the deficiency before a judge within 30 days of the foreclosure. Second mortgage holders, by contrast, need only file suit on the promissory note associated with their loans. I see far more deficiency balance claims from second mortgage lenders than from first mortgage lenders.
I also noted that since the foreclosure process could take several months, one strategy here would be to remain in the house and pay nothing – nothing to either mortgage lender and nothing to the credit card lenders. This strategy would allow my prospective clients to reduce their budget outflow dramatically for several months while they built up a small cash reserve, and then file bankruptcy in four to six months when creditors were starting to take action. I noted that this strategy was based on economics, and that they would have to be comfortable with the moral implications of this course of action. I also noted that this "wait until the last minute" strategy would cause significant damage to their credit in addition to the bankruptcy. By contrast, filing a Chapter 7 when there were few or no 120 day late references would make recovery from bankruptcy a little easier. Credit reports document payment histories and while a bankruptcy discharge will put the balances at zero, it does not delete the negative payment histories.
On the other hand, I advised the wife that if she and her husband waited to file and the husband secured a better, higher paying job, their household income might leave them with disposable income in their budget, or it might cause their household income to exceed the median income for a family of four, thereby making Chapter 7 much more difficult or impossible. It has been my experience that when household income exceeds the median (in Georgia the current median income for a family of 4 is $68,258) by $10,000 or more, it can be very difficult to qualify for Chapter 7 under the means test. Thus, if the husband was actively looking for employment and his target income was $80,000 or more, waiting to file Chapter 7 might not be the best idea.
The wife then asked me about the credit report issue – how long would it take for she and her husband to rebuild their credit. I responded by saying that it my experience, a Chapter 7 debtor can expect his credit score to remain depressed for eight months to a year following the Chapter 7 discharge. However, Chapter 7 has the positive effect of eliminating all debt and thereby causing an improvement to the debt to income ratio. Further, individuals can only file Chapter 7 once every eight years – so from a lender's perspective a recently discharged debtor has no debt and cannot file bankruptcy for at least 8 years.
I assured the wife that I made it my practice to follow up with my clients who had received a discharge to review their credit reports three to five months after discharge. I have found that at least half of the time, there are errors on the credit reports that artificially depress post bankruptcy credit scores and sometimes, the errors are actionable, meaning that we can collect damages from creditors for Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations. In a few cases I have been able to collect enough in damages to cover the attorney's fees and filing fees associated with the original bankruptcy filing!
I ended by conversation with the wife by thanking her for contacting me. I then followed up our conversation with a brief email summarizing what we had spoken about and providing her with the "get started" link to one of my web sites.
I hope you can see that even a "simple" fact pattern can give rise to a variety of options and pratical considerations. Consumer bankruptcy is not a "one size fits all" practice and I am able to raise all of the points that I did because I have seen a lot of different issues over the past 23 years. If you have any questions about what have written here or if you want to discuss your personal situation, I encourage you to contact attorney Susan Blum or me by phone at 770-393-4985 or send us an email.
Posted in Chapter 13, Chapter 7, Credit, Current, Foreclosure, General consumer bankruptcy info, Georgia Bankruptcy, Lenders, Mortgage, a, and, because , choosing a bankruptcy lawyer, claims, deficiency, document, easier , exceeds, georgia, histories, house, household, in, income, keeping, lender, median, payment, priority , proceedings, pursue, rarely, reports, responded, started, the, wife | Comments Off
Wednesday, July 14th, 2010
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
Sunday, July 4th, 2010
On June 7, 2010, the United States Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee v. Lanning. The Supreme Court rarely hears argument in consumer bankruptcy cases so the Lanning decision is big news to consumer bankruptcy lawyers.
The issue in Lanning is one that has troubled bankruptcy lawyers since 2005, when the "means test" was added to the Bankruptcy Code. The means test functions as a test – do you have the "means" or disposable income to fund a Chapter 13 repayment plan? If the means test shows that you do not have sufficient disposable income to make a Chapter 13 work, then you qualify for Chapter 7.
As one of the assistant United States trustees once told me – the purpose of the means test is to disqualify as many people as possible from Chapter 7, and to force them into Chapter 13.
In practice, the means test does not work very well in predicting who can make a Chapter 13 work. One of the biggest complaints has to do with the mechanical nature of means testing. To run a means test, I have to gather pay stubs from the past 6 months. I then create a monthly average, which represents available income. Next I prepare a means test budget, but I do not use actual expense amounts. Instead, the means test tells me how much my clients are allowed to spend for food, medicine, utilities, etc. And where do these budget numbers come from? Means test numbers are based on IRS budgets used in delinquent tax repayment plans. In other words, the means test budget allocations are not especially generous.
This explanation of the means test is somewhat oversimplified, but you get the main idea – every bankruptcy debtor's income and expense numbers have to be run through the means test, and not surprisingly this somewhat mechanical test produces some absurd results.
The classic example of absurd results occurs when a debtor has received a Christmas bonus or a one time payment. That bonus/one time payment has to be included in the monthly income numbers even if it is not guaranteed or likely to happen again. In other situations a debtor may have earned a comfortable income but has now lost his job – under a strict reading of the means test, he earns too much money to file Chapter 7. And he can't afford to file a Chapter 13 because he now has no income.
The Supreme Court has injected some common sense into this situation. In the Lemming case, which was filed in Topeka, Kansas, the debtor's 6 month average was skewed by a one time payment arising from a buyout from her former employer. The debtor filed a Chapter 13 plan that called for a payment that the debtor could afford based on her actual, current income. The trustee objected on the grounds that the means test dictated a higher number (that the debtor clearly could not afford based on his actual income).
The Topeka bankruptcy judge agreed with the debtor and approved a plan that Ms. Lemming could afford. The trustee appealed and lost in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The trustee appealed again and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and held that bankruptcy judges need not apply a "mechanical approach" to means testing in Chapter 13 cases. Instead, judges should "take into account other known or virtually known certain information about the debtor's future income or expenses." Rather than looking backwards, judges can take a forward looking approach and consider the realities of a debtor's income. This forward looking approach should be considered in cases with unusual facts and the Lemming decision should not be construed as an invalidation of the means testing formula.
Despite the Supreme Court's warning that a "forward looking" approach should only be used in limited situations, I suspect that bankruptcy judges will use "Lemming arguments" mitigate some of the harsh results of Chapter 13 in general. Bankruptcy judges recognize that Chapter 13 cases often do not work because means testing and aggressive trustee arguments force debtors to agree to plans that commit debtors to pay every last dime to the trustee. Unfortunately, family emergencies and unexpected things happen over the course of a five year bankruptcy plan and many plans will fail – not because the debtor did anything wrong, but because there is no "give" in the plan.
I predict that judges will use the rationale of Lemming to reduce some of the harsh results of the means test and help debtors improve their chances at success in Chapter 13.
If you want to read the Lemming decision, click on the link. I also found a nice summary of Lemming in attorney Jordan Bublick's fine South Florida bankruptcy blog.
Posted in 13, 2010, Chapter 13 issues, Debtors, Hamilton Chapter 13 trustee v. Lemming, Means Test issues, Trustee, Trustee objections in Chapter 13, affirmed, aggressive, and, argument, arguments, cases, certiorari the, chapter, chapter 13 plans, court, decision, facts, force, formula despite, granted, hamilton, hears, lanning , lemming, means, means testing, rarely, read, released, states, supreme, testing, the, trustee objections to chapter 13, united, unusual, v, work | Comments Off
