Sunday, September 19th, 2010
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
Thursday, March 11th, 2010
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
