Posts Tagged ‘Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention & Consumer Protection Act of 2005’

The Peculiar Parallel of Debt Relief Agencies and Madonna

In yesterday’s blog, I suggested that some attorneys – namely on Craigslist – were not complying with the BAPCPA imposed requirement that they disclose that they are a “debt relief agency.”  That might not have been completely fair.

Certainly, when an attorney fits into the definition of a “debt relief agency”, they must disclose that fact and are obligated to comply with additional disclosure requirements.  But, if an attorney does not fit into the definition of a “debt relief agency”, may they still represent individuals in consumer bankruptcy matters?  The answer is yes… and that raises some interesting questions.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

Debt Relief Agencies… Part II

As I mentioned earlier this week, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling upholding the BAPCPA requirement that attorneys be considered “debt relief agencies.”

So we’re clear: I did not go to debt relief agency school.  I went to law school.  I’m not a member of the Boston Bar Association Debt Relief Agency Steering Committee; it’s the Bankruptcy Steering Committee.  I’m not a member and author for the American Debt Relief Institute; it’s the American Bankruptcy Institute.  I’m not a debt relief agent.  I’m an attorney.

Now that I’ve cleared the air on that, let me share with you some of my concerns with this decision and its implications.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

“We Are A Debt Relief Agency…”

Have you see advertisements for bankruptcy attorneys and seen this phrase?

Has a bankruptcy attorney ever said to you “sorry, we cannot advise you to incur debt because you’re seeking bankruptcy protection”?

Ever wonder why?  Well, wonder no more.  This morning, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in the case of Milvatez, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A., et al. v. United States.  The high court has held that (1) attorneys who give bankruptcy assistance (as defined in the Bankruptcy Code) are debt relief agencies; (2) attorneys cannot advise clients to incur debt because they are filing bankruptcy.  The decision is 35 pages, and I’ll be reading through it this week.

Read the decision here.

  • Share/Bookmark

I Was Wrong About BAPCPA

Five years ago Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act – and at that time, I couldn’t understand what “abuse” Congress was trying to prevent.  As a matter of fact, I penned an op-ed in the Boston Globe expressing my hope that Congress would not pass the legislation because, among other things, I thought the “abuse” was really coming from lenders, not consumers.  After representing many honest debtors who deserve the relief that our laws afford, and have gotten the relief they deserve, I met someone yesterday who sought from me the unthinkable: they wanted me to help them lie.  And even though I know that lenders and credit card companies have caused a huge economic mess in our country, this person is precisely why BAPCPA was enacted.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

Furnishing Tax Returns to Creditors

Among the changes to the Bankruptcy Code was the added requirement that debtors provide a copy of their federal income tax return/transcript to trustees, and if requested, creditors. The code provides that the case shall be dismissed if the returns are not disclosed timely manner. But what if a creditor does not receive the return after? In a recent Massachusetts decision, the Bankruptcy Court was called upon to answer that question.

The debtors filed their case in July 2008. Approximately one month prior to the scheduled Meeting of Creditors, the debtors provided the trustee a copy of their federal tax return. Approximately 10 days prior to the Meeting of Creditors, a creditor sent a letter requesting a copy of the return. Debtors’ counsel brought the copy of the return to the Meeting with the intent to give it to the creditor’s attorney. While the two attorneys spoke, debtors’ counsel did not give a copy of the return.

Creditor then filed a motion to dismiss citing Section 521(e)(2)(c). It argued that the Bankruptcy Code mandated that the case be dismissed and that the Bankruptcy Court had no discretion to allow the case to continue. The Bankruptcy Court however, did not agree.

The court examined the legislative history of this new (post 2005) requirement. Section 521(e)(2) requires a debtor to provide a recent tax return to the trustee at least 7 days prior to the first date set for the Meeting of Creditors. It also provides that a debtor must furnish a copy of the return to a creditor who makes a timely request. However, the section provides that the debtor is obligated to provide the return to the creditor at the same time the debtor provides it to the trustee. Thus, the creditor must request a copy of the tax return/transcript either at or before the time the debtor supplies the return to the trustee. This creditor did not make the request until after the trustee had received the return.

For those reasons, the creditor’s motion was denied to dismiss was denied.

In re Fontaine, US Bankruptcy Court, District of Massachusetts at Worcester, 08-42454

  • Share/Bookmark

Late Filing of Documents = Dismissal

One of the goals of BAPCPA (the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) was to prevent abuse by debtors. One of those abuses targeted were “repeat filers” and another was the failure to file documents. If schedules and other documents are not timely filed, the court is obligated to dismiss the bankruptcy case. A debtor out of the Northern District of Alabama recently learned what happens when you do not adhere to the requirements of the code.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

Storm Preparation: Chapter 13 and DSOs

When BAPCPA was enacted, a new concept in bankruptcy law emerged: “domestic support obligations” or “DSOs”. Child support, alimony and other support obligations received specific consideration in bankruptcy, and in particular, chapter 13. If you are looking at the potential of a bankruptcy filing, there’s something you need to know about how domestic support obligations and chapter 13 work together.

When I meet people who are considering chapter 13, it’s not surprising that they have a lot of debt. And at times, that debt might also include child support or other spousal support payments that have not been made or are delinquent. There are many reasons why: income changed, expenses changed and those obligations fell behind. But without a court order, none of these circumstances relieve a debtor’s liability.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

Tuesday’s News…

Shocker: BAPCPA put more profits into the pockets of credit card companies says Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren.

Yesterday I blogged about honesty in the bankruptcy. Today, there’s a report out of Wichita of a former debtor who was not so honest. He’ll be taking an involuntary vacation for 33 months for bankruptcy fraud.

Living on the edge: rising gas and food prices may push struggling families into foreclosure.

MSNBC explores the high price of commuting.

Does anyone have a spare $25 billion that they aren’t using?

Despite a new Massachusetts regulation forcing lenders to wait 90 days to foreclosure on homes (it went into effect on May 1), the Boston Business Journal reports that foreclosures continue to climb.

Sign of the times: Commercial bankruptcy filing rates are going up.

Sign of the apocalypse: Batman was arrested. No joke.

  • Share/Bookmark

The 401(k) in Chapter 13

In a recent decision, a Massachusetts Bankruptcy Judge ruled that a Chapter 13 debtor may deduct contributions to a 401(k) retirement plan while in bankruptcy. It’s a ruling anyone contemplating chapter 13 should pay attention to.

The debtor’s schedules listed his gross income as $9,666.67 per month. After taxes, insurance and 401(k) contribution of $966.66, that left $5,604.67. The debtor’s plan proposed to pay unsecured creditors a total of approximately 49% over the 60 month span of the plan. The trustee raised a number of issues (many of which are not germane to the topic here), including the propriety of the debtor’s 401(k) deductions.

The trustee argued that such large deductions into the 401(k) demonstrated a lack of the debtor’s good faith. The deductions amounted to 10% of the debtor’s gross income. If debtor stopped the high 401(k) deductions, the debtors would receive a 100% distribution over the life of the plan.

Under Section 541(b)(7), a debtor’s 401(k) contributions are not considered property of the bankruptcy estate. In addition, those amounts withheld are not considered “disposable income” as is defined by Section 1325(b)(2). In overruling the trustee’s objections, the Court noted that the debtor was only “taking advantage of what the law allows.”

Some might argue that this makes no sense: the debtor can pay off only half of what he owes his creditors, while at the same time, setting aside more than $50,000 over the life of the chapter 13 plan. It’s hard to imagine that the folks at MBNA had that in mind when they were lobbying Congress to change the bankruptcy laws. Yet the Court noted, this is exactly what Congress intended: “by excluding 401(k) contributions from property of the estate and expressly removing them from the definition of disposable income under Section 1325(b)…Congress has implemented a policy of protecting and encouraging retirement savings.”

Good faith is still the rule to play by. Future chapter 13 debtors who contribute to a retirement plan may not enjoy the same result if their contributions exceed the limits permitted by their 401(k) plans. But for those folks I meet with who tell me “all of my income goes to my bills, and I have nothing in my retirement account”, this should be welcome news.

In re Mati, Bankr.D.Mass, Chapter 13 case no. 07-13323

  • Share/Bookmark

Storm Preparation: Bankruptcy & Tax Returns II

When I was in college, Hurricane Gloria was bearing down on Southern New England. I went to stay with my grandparent at their house in Tiverton. As the winds were blowing (and at the insistence of my grandmother), we nailed plywood to the windows that faced the water. All that preparation eventually paid off. Back in April, I blogged about the importance of having tax returns filed. I came across a case decided on May 15 out of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio that amplifies the requirement that taxed be filed in chapter 13 cases before the first meeting of creditors has concluded. It is an important reminder of how the Bankruptcy Code is now working since BAPCPA.

The debtor filed a chapter 13 petition in October 2007 and the creditors meeting (or § 341 meeting) was scheduled for December 12, 2007. At that meeting, the IRS appeared and reported that there was no record that the Debtor having filed a 2000 or 2004 tax return. There was a separate confirmation hearing, and the Chapter 13 trustee recommended that the plan be confirmed. No one objected and the plan was confirmed. After that, the IRS moved to dismiss the case pursuant to § 1308 based on the debtors failure to file tax returns for the 4-year period preceding the petition date.

Debtor objected and claimed, among other things, that he did file the return. He argued that he paid a service to file the returns and was unaware they were not filed until he appeared at the § 341 meeting. Even though he learned of it, neither he, nor his attorney asked that the meeting be held open.

The case was dismissed. In re Perry, Bankr.N.D.Ohio, 07-18293

So how could this have been avoided? The first and most simple answer is that the debtors attorney should have required the debtor to produce 4 years of tax returns before the case was even filed. I require it of my clients. Why? To ensure that they have complied with § 1308 of the Bankruptcy Code and to make sure that their cases do not get dismissed for failing to comply with it. The second, and perhaps not so simple but nevertheless important way the dismissal could have been avoided (or at least delayed) is by either the debtor or debtor’s counsel requesting that the § 341 meeting be held open. Under § 1308, the Chapter 13 Trustee may hold a § 341 meeting open for “120 days after the date of that meeting” “for any return that is past due as of the date of the filing of the petition.” In other words, debtor’s counsel should have asked to have the meeting held open.

If you’re thinking about chapter 13, get those tax returns filed. And that means all of them. If you fail to do so, or if your attorney fails to ensure that the § 341 meeting is helped open, speak up and ask that it be held open. Failing that, your chapter 13 case will be dismissed.

During that hurricane, I stood with my grandfather on his lawn and watched debris fly hundreds of feet above us. As a retired merchant marine, he had a fearless view of ocean weather that many found disconcerting. Nothing ever hit the plywood, but my grandmother was happy the windows were protected. It was better to prepare before the storm, and than to pay later.

  • Share/Bookmark