I haven’t blogged in a while. And this one will be my last for now.
I’ll tell you where I’m going and I tell you why. (more…)
I haven’t blogged in a while. And this one will be my last for now.
I’ll tell you where I’m going and I tell you why. (more…)
January 17 is Martin Luther King Day, but unlike many, I won’t be “off” from work. I’ll be presenting at and attending the ABI’s Northeast Consumer Winter Conference at Suffolk University Law School in Boston. I can understand how it might seem disrespectful to be attending a conference on a day when we should be celebrating the life of a civil rights leader. But it is also, I think, particularly fitting. Let me explain…
Recently, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reminded us why bankruptcy laws are not always fair… especially to those current and former bankruptcy debtors who are looking for employment. In the December 15, 2010 decision of REA v. Federated Investors, the court affirmed a US District Court ruling that the Bankruptcy Code does not create a cause of action against private employers who refuse to hire employees because of a prior bankruptcy filing.
Chapter 7 debtors who have debt that is secured by property have a number of options, and among them is reaffirmation. A simple way of describing it: when a debtor reaffirms a debt, they are removing the debt from the bankruptcy and are agreeing to pay it. Such agreements – to be enforceable – must be reduced to writing and approved by the Bankruptcy Court. But since 2005, when Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code, attorneys who represent chapter 7 debtors have been struggling with a dual rule: that of attorney and counselor, and that of judge.
Are bankruptcy exemptions funny? Perhaps only when Jake & I are talking about them.
With the midterm elections over, I am left to wonder: how will the new Congress help struggling Americans who face losing their home. Will there be better and more streamlined mortgage modification programs? Will there be a shift in the economic climate that will promote jobs growth? Will Congress again take up the debate of amending the bankruptcy code to allow owners of single family residences to modify their loans in chapter 13?
I am not optimistic.
The mission: to convince Congress that Section 1322(b)(2) must be amended to allow struggling homeowners to modify the loans securing their principal residences.
The challenge: coming up with ideas no one else has.
The result: hilarity. Hopefully.
In this special Halloween episode of Law & Propaganda: Emergency chapter 13s, surgical procedures and other scary things.
This week, we discuss bankruptcy issues – and because the circus is in town, clown cars.