Archive for the ‘states’ Category
Friday, April 15th, 2011
The Associated Press reports that former baseball star Lenny "Nails" Dykstra has been charged with bankruptcy fraud by a California based United States Attorney. Dykstra filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2009, scheduling $31 million in debts and only $50,000 in assets.
In the complaint, prosecutors allege that Dykstra sold or destroyed over $400,000 worth of property. Among the property that Dykstra allegedly sold – presumably to raise case – were sports memorabilia and furnishings from the home he lost in the bankruptcy.
Obviously most of the Chapter 7 cases filed in the Northern District of Georgia, or in most bankruptcy courts do not involve millions of dollars of debts incurred by a high profile debtor. However, there is an important lesson that all bankruptcy filers can learn from the charges levied against Mr. Dykstra.
When you list assets on your bankruptcy petition, you are swearing that this list is accurate under penalty of perjury. If your trustee discovers that items have been omitted, or worse, that they have been secretly sold, the trustee will refer the case to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution.
Sometimes, I overhear conversations in bankruptcy court in which a debtor expresses frustration with the bankruptcy process or anger at an ex-wife, a former business partner or even a former employer. I also hear conversations expressing frustration with the rather stingy dollar limits set out in the Georgia exemption statute. I sense that some bankruptcy filers believe that the circumstances that led to their having to file were unfair and out of their control and as such leaving out inherited jewelry that "no one will ever know about" or selling a few items for cash can be rationalized.
While it is probably true that Chapter 7 trustees generally do not have the resources to thoroughly investigate every Chapter 7 debtor, I caution any bankruptcy filer not to take the risk.
First and foremost, an intentional failure to disclose assets is illegal and constitutes a crime under federal law. No asset is worth your freedom or personal integrity.
Second, you have no way of knowing if the United States trustee will select your case for a random review which can also mean much more intrusive scrutiny.
Third, it is possible that a third party – often an ex-wife or ex-business partner – might anonymously write the U.S. Trustee to report intentional errors on your petition.
Fourth, you might fall victim to "Murphy's law" – your trustee or someone from his office might see you walk into a pawn shop or might see your auction on eBay. Believe it or not, these types of coincidences do happen.
Often, issues associated with assets that you cannot protect can be resolved if you do not have to file right away. While the bankruptcy laws can be unforgiving, they will not punish you if you sell assets to raise money for food, shelter and clothing, as long as those sales are disclosed when applicable. This is why I advise anyone who is even remotely considering bankruptcy to speak with a bankruptcy lawyer at the earliest possible date. In my office, I regularly maintain files in "pre-bankruptcy" status for four, six, eight months or longer. Often the delay arises from my client's need to gain lawful benefit from assets that would be seized if the case was filed early.
Posted in Bankruptcy, Chapter 7 issues, Denial of discharge - Section 727, Fraud, Fraudulent Transfers, General consumer bankruptcy info, Lenny Dykstra, a, allegedly, and, attorney , bankruptcy fraud, baseball, based, california, charged, conversations, dykstra, examples of prosecution for bankruptcy fraud, expressing, filed, frustration, furnishings, hear, lenny, memorabilia, nails, sold, sports, star, states, united | 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
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
Friday, July 9th, 2010
Last October, I wrote a post on this blog about bankruptcy fraud, and pointed out that everything included in a bankruptcy filing is subject to scrutiny by the office of the United States Trustee, which is an arm of the United States Department of Justice. In other words, false statements on a bankruptcy petition could land a debtor in hot water – dismissal of the bankruptcy case, fines and even prison.
Because the bankruptcy process can seem informal, it can be easy to forget that a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 filing is made up of documents filed in a federal district court and subject to investigation by the F.B.I.
Attorney Gini Nelson, a New Mexico bankruptcy lawyer, recently published a post about bankruptcy fraud in the Bankruptcy Law Network blog. Gini's post includes a link to the IRS.gov site containing examples of bankruptcy fraud investigations. I found the IRS.gov link especially interesting in that one can get a sense of the type of fraud that bankruptcy debtors have attempted and the level of fraudulent activity that generated prosecution. Given the highly interconnected and electronic public record access that is available to bankruptcy trustees as well as government investigators I can't believe any of these folks believed that they would not be caught.
Posted in Bankruptcy, Blog, Chapter 13 issues, Chapter 7 issues, Debtors, Fraud, Fraudulent Transfers, access, and, bankruptcy and perjury, bankruptcy fraud, department, easy, electronic, examples, examples of prosecution for bankruptcy fraud, f b i attorney, gini, highly, informal, interconnected, investigation, investigations , nelson, public, record, states, the, united | 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
