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

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

Reaffirming Mortgages

When a debtor “reaffirms” the debt, they are removing that debt from the bankruptcy process. They are agreeing to pay the debt, even though it would be otherwise discharged. For the reaffirmation to be enforceable there must be an agreement which must comply with the bankruptcy code and it must be filed and in some cases approved by the bankruptcy court. The most common reaffirmation agreement consumer attorneys deal with concerns automobile loans. Debtors usually want to keep their cars, and a reaffirmation is necessary to ensure that debtors can keep it after the case is filed. In a recent case out of Connecticut, the Bankruptcy Court denied approval of two reaffirmation agreements for debts secured by mortgages the debtor’s residence.

The debtor sought to approve the two reaffirmation agreements. The court held a hearing and found that the reaffirmation agreement did not impose an undue hardship on the debtor and was in the debtor’s best interest. After the hearing, the court vacated its order and raised this issue: does the debtor have the “ride through” option available as it pertains to real estate. In other words, could the debtor just keep the house and pay the mortgage without having to enter into a reaffirmation agreement?

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

High Income Debtor Gets Chapter 7 Relief

There are these nasty rumors being spread around that bankruptcy is no longer available to people. I hear – time and time again – that people think bankruptcy is not available because of the “means test” or because it’s “harder to wipe away debts.” A recent decision out of Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska involving a debtor with a high household income confirms otherwise.

In this case, the married debtor was not joined in the bankruptcy by her husband. The combined annualized “current monthly income” was a bit over $150,000. She believed her home to be worth about $500,000 which was secured by mortgages totaling $410,000. Monthly mortgage payments totaled just under $4,500 per month.

The US Trustee filed a motion to dismiss the case on the basis that the petition was filed in bad faith or “the totality of circumstances …of the debtor’s financial situation demonstrates abuse.” See Bankruptcy Code Section 707(b)(3). The UST argued that the mortgage payment was excessive and unreasonable.

The court noted that there is “no ‘bright line’ rules as to whether a debtor’s income, housing or other expenses are so high that it would be an abuse of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code to grant Chapter 7 relief.” Even though at first glance, the high income and high mortgage payments (and remember, this is Nebraska), there were other factors that weighed in the debtor’s favor.

Debtor lost her job when the company she worked for was sold. Her current employment was obtained only 6 months prior to filing her petition, and she took a drastic cut in pay (more than 1/3 less). The “bottom line is that this bankruptcy was precipitated by a job loss.” With that said, the court denied the US Trustee’s motion.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

Did Congress Pop the Balloon?

A chapter 13 debtor proposes a plan to pay creditors over a period of time. Their creditors may include credit cards and utilities, and as in most cases I deal with, prepetition mortgage arrears. In some cases, debtors simply make a monthly payment to the chapter 13 trustee over the life of the plan. In others, debtors propose plans that provide for gradual increases in monthly payments (what might be referred to as a “step plan”). Other proposals might include monthly payments, with the last payment being a large balloon. That final balloon payment might be paid by the sale of an asset or a refinancing of property. However, a recent Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court decision says that this practice is no longer permissible since BAPCPA. The decision is on its way to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and debtors and practitioners should follow it closely.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

Audits Have Returned

In January, the Executive Office of the US Trustee announced that audits of consumer debtor cases were suspended due to budgetary constraints. On May 9, the US Trustee program announced that it was resuming random audits. Originally, 1 out of every 250 cases filed in a judicial district could expect to be selected. Apparently, the budgetary issues have not been completely resolved because now, it is 1 out of every 1,000.

Read more here

Previous posts:
Audits of Bankruptcy Petitions

  • Share/Bookmark

Poster Children for Bankruptcy Reform

There has been so much written about BAPCPA and the creditors who practically wrote the law and got it passed. While I cannot doubt that creditors – such as the good folks at MBNA (which was bought out by Bank of America), paid their lobbyists millions of dollars for years to get the Bankruptcy Code changed, a recent case perhaps rightly suggested that lenders had good reason to seek a change in the law. The case, decided in February, came out of the Northern District of Alabama.

The husband and wife debtors filed their case in October 2006. It was the wife’s seventh bankruptcy case (no that’s not a typo….that’s 7) and the husband’s fifth (and again, not a typo….that’s 5). As the October filing was their second case within a year, they filed a motion to seek an extension of the automatic stay. Since 2005, if a debtor has had a case pending within the year prior to the case being filed, the stay expires 30 days unless the court orders otherwise. The hearing of the motion must be held within the 30 day period. The debtors needed the stay to prevent a foreclosure on their home.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

Thoughts on When to “Walk Away”

There are many reports of struggling homeowners “walking away” from their properties. If you own a condominium, shares in a cooperative or a lot or home in a housing association (which I’ll refer to here as “real estate”) and you’re contemplating walking away and bankruptcy, an amendment to the Bankruptcy Code may influence many of your decisions.

Prior to the passage of the 2005 Act, if a bankruptcy debtor wanted to surrender their real estate, they could simply “walk away.” Real estate owners who owed dues or assessments to condo association, homeowners associations or cooperative corporations could simply include those claims in a Chapter 7 discharge or exclude them in a Chapter 13 plan. In addition, owners who did not reside or who had rent paying tenants in the property they intended to surrender were not responsible for post-petition condo fees and assessments. But that has changed.

By the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, Section 523(a)(16) (“Exceptions to Discharge”) was amended. Instead of limiting the discharge of fees and assessments only to those debtors who had tenants or who were not residing in the dwellings, Congress limited it to debtors who have a “legal, equitable or possessory ownership interest” in the real estate.

Simply because a homeowner expresses an intention to surrender the home in their bankruptcy case does not mean that they will still not be the “legal, equitable or possessory” owner of the property. Condo owners who move out into a rental and file bankruptcy prior to any foreclosure are going to be responsible for post-petition condo fees and assessments. Whether the debtor lives in the property is no longer a consideration thanks to the 2005 amendments.

Prepetition condo fees and assessments still fall under the discharge. What’s changed is the responsibility for post-petition fees and assessments while the home is still in the debtor’s name. People who are considering bankruptcy protection as well as surrendering their property should be sure to carefully plan the date of their filing and/or their moving out with their attorney. The last thing any financially strapped debtor needs is to be paying rent on a new dwelling and trying to rebuild their financial house, all while paying the condo fees and assessments on a home the bank has not yet taken by foreclosure.

  • Share/Bookmark

Truth & Consequences Continued: Georgetown Study contradicts Mortgage Bankers Association Analysis

According to a study released by the Georgetown Law Center, “there would be ‘no or little’ impact on home-mortgage interest rates if Congress moves ahead with pending legislation — H.R. 3609, The Emergency Home Ownership and Mortgage Equity Protection Act of 2007) and Senate (S.2136, The Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2007) – designed to ease the U.S. mortgage foreclosure crisis by allowing modifications in bankruptcy proceedings.”

The study was conducted by Adam J. Levitin, Associate Law Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and Joshua Goodman, Ph.D. in Economics candidate at Columbia University. It is entitled “The Effect of Bankruptcy Strip-Down on Mortgage Interest Rates.” From today’s press release:

There is no empirical evidence that supports a conclusion that permitting either strip-down or other forms of modification of principal home mortgage loans in bankruptcy would have more than a minor impact on mortgage interest rates or on home ownership rates. As there is significant evidence that mortgage interest rate markets are indifferent to bankruptcy modification risk, we conclude that permitting unlimited strip-down would have no or little effect overall on mortgage interest rates

Addressing MBA claims that mortgage interest rates will shoot up if Congress acts to address the mortgage foreclosure crisis, the Levitin/Goodman study concludes: “… statistically there is a zero percent chance that the MBA’s 150 basis point claim is correct. All empirical and market observational data indicates that that MBA’s claim of an effective 150-200 basis point increase from allowing strip-down is groundless. The empirical evidence indicates that there is unlikely to be anything more than a de minimis effect on interest rates as a result of permitting bankruptcy modification.

The Levitin/Goodman study continues: “The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) has claimed that permitting modification of mortgages in bankruptcy will result in an effective 200 basis point increase in interest rates on single-family owner-occupied properties… Our research on current mortgage interest rate spreads among different property types disproves the MBA’s claim. …More recent MBA press releases have claimed only an increase of 150 basis points, without explaining the 50 basis point decline from the 200 basis point figure featured in Congressional testimony.

Commenting on the study findings, Levitin said: “The overwhelming thrust of the historical analysis is that the effect of permitting strip-down on mortgage interest rates would be either nonexistent or quite small — nothing near the range suggested by the Mortgage Bankers Association. We explain the lack of market sensitivity to strip-down risk by reference to two sets of consumer bankruptcy data, one from 2001 and one from 2007, both of which suggests that lenders’ losses in strip-down would be extremely limited both in scope and magnitude and often total less than those they would incur in foreclosure.

The study findings indicate that the nature of the pending U.S. House and Senate bills make it even less likely that there will be interest-rate implications if Congress acts: “First, to the extent our findings are used as a guide for predicting the impact of pending legislation, it is important to note that both our current and historical data analysis is of the impact of an unlimited strip-down regime on certain property types. The proposed legislation in the House (H.R. 3609 with the Conyers-Chabot Compromise Amendment) and the Senate (S. 2136) do not propose such an unlimited regime for single-family principal residence mortgages. Instead, both bills would impose a variety of limitations on modification. Both bills would impose eligibility requirements in the form of a strict means test, limiting relief to those homeowners whose income is insufficient, after deducting modest living expenses allowed by the IRS, to cover their mortgage obligations. Both bills would also limit relief to subprime and nontraditional mortgage products. Moreover, for interest rate modifications, both the House and Senate bills set a floor for modifications of the market rate for 30-year conforming mortgages plus a risk-premium. The House bill would further limit relief to mortgages made between January 1, 2007 and its effective date, and has a seven-year sunset provision. Because of these proposed limitations, the pending legislation would likely have an even smaller impact than the unlimited strip-down regime we tested in our study.

  • Share/Bookmark