Posts Tagged ‘Bankruptcy’

Monday’s News…

There’s so much going on in the news that it almost seems silly to repost it here. But I did come across a few items that I wanted to share.

In the UK, Debt Collectors are “getting heavy.”

A plan to let homeowners modify their mortgages in bankruptcy may lower foreclosure rates by as much as 20 percent.

Not everyone supports changing the bankruptcy laws to help homeowners modify their loans and plenty of groups are paying lobbyists to kill that bankruptcy legislation. The AP reports who is paying and how much.

  • Share/Bookmark

Before Foreclosure Rescue Scammers Start Knocking…

I came across an interesting story (and video) over at CNBC.com: Fraud at your Front Door which discusses foreclosure rescue scam artists who are knocking at the front door of homeowners facing foreclosure. I have met clients who have told me they have been approached by individuals how have been at their doors offering assistance. But there’s no rescue. They’s only a rip-off.

Not only do the homeowners lose money, they lose time to productively work with their lender. I heard a lender attorney recently say that homeowners have told them that “…we paid this person to help us.” But the person is not helping them, and as this CNBC story points out, in many cases, the “helper” doesn’t even contact the lender. In addition to losing valuable time and money, the homeowner may also lose credibility with the lender.

The story recommends that if your lender is unwilling to relax the payments to help you, seek a qualified real estate attorney or non-profit credit counselor. But there are also local mortgage counselors who will help you with a modification request (click here for ESAC located in Boston). And I also think you should not rule out speaking to a bankruptcy attorney so you can discuss your options. Or, I encourage you to contact us if your lender is unwilling to work with you.

  • Share/Bookmark

So You Think It’s a Good Time to Buy a House?

Contrary to what you may hear in advertisements, 2009 may not be a good time to buy a home unless you are planning on living there for several years. This bit of news is not actually a huge shock for me, but it is not helpful for several of my clients whose success depends – at the very least – on people buying real estate in 2009.

This is again, another reason why we need meaningful reform out of Washington soon. Undoubtedly, the proposed changes to the Bankruptcy Code which would allow judges to reduce mortgages of consumers could help. But some contend that the reform will accelerate “lenders’ losses on home-equity, automobile and credit-card loans.” I’m not so that is a particularly bad thing.

About 10 years ago, I had abdominal surgery. As luck would have it, one of the sutures that was designed to dissolve didn’t. Instead, it got infected. It was very painful.

Admittedly, I’m a big baby when it comes to pain (my staff will back that up). This pain was far too much to handle….so my friend put me into a cab and we went to the emergency room. When the doctor came in, he examined the incision, looked at me square in the eye and offered these words:

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

Mortgage Modification Legislation Update: Citigroup Supports the Bill

Big news out of Washington, from the Washington Post:

Financial giant Citigroup Inc has agreed to support a controversial rewrite of U.S. bankruptcy law aimed at helping troubled mortgage borrowers, three Democratic senators said on Thursday.

Senators Richard Durbin of Illinois, Charles Schumer of New York and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut said the legal reform would help “millions of families save their homes.”

Citigroup has agreed to support, under certain conditions, a rewrite of bankruptcy law. Under the change, known as “cramdown,” bankruptcy courts could alter the terms of mortgages, subject to certain conditions, the senators said.

More here

  • Share/Bookmark

Keep the Bankruptcy Option on the Table

The new Congress will be introducing legislation that will allow homeowners in bankruptcy to “cram down” their mortgages on their principal residences. When a home is worth less than the amount owed on the mortgage (or as I typically see, mortgages), a cram down will enable the homeowner to reduce the amount owed to the value of the property. Currently, debtors can only do this on investment property, and on property that is not solely the primary residence of the debtor (i.e., a multi-family dwelling).

From a Reuters report:

Courts can generally cut through complex mortgage contracts more aggressively than the private sector, said Wade Henderson, head of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, who has testified before Congress on the issue.

“The continued erosion of the housing market has probably made adopting this proposal inevitable,” he said.

I also invite readers to check out Calculated Risk, and Tanta’s discussions on cram downs. You’ll find those links here.

The final version of what the new President will sign remains to be seen. However, any homeowner facing foreclosure should start exploring whether bankruptcy is an option now and plan ahead (and if you’re in bankruptcy, you should consider speaking with your attorney about whatever options you may have). I know that no one wants to file bankruptcy. But if it comes down to whether you can actually keep your home, you would be foolish to not keep all of your options on the table, including the option to file for bankruptcy protection.

  • 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

A Holiday Shopping Tip (or Warning)

With Black Friday soon upon us, and the holiday shopping season, I want to get a message out to those folks who are struggling. Perhaps there are folks who know they are going to lose their jobs after the New Year. Perhaps there are folks who have been using credit to get by and now see a bankruptcy petition on the horizon. Perhaps these folks are figuring that they will have one last holiday with really great gifts courtesy of their credit card companies. If you’re reading this, and you’re thinking “wow, he’s totally speaking to me (or about my friend or relative)!” please keep reading.

One thing many consumers do not know is that when you buy “large-ticket” item, it may also come with it a security interest. In other words, that purchase may be a gift, but it may also be collateral. The lender (the store, or the bank that finances the store’s credit cards or credit lines) assumes a security interest. This is something to think about as you’re eyeing that appliance or jewelry. Will it prevent you from filing bankruptcy? Probably not. Will it complicate things? It just might. You may have to pay the debt even if you file bankruptcy or you may have to surrender the collateral. Or you might hear from the creditor months or years after the bankruptcy is over.

Last minute purchases can also get you into hot water. Using a credit card when you have no intention of paying the debt back can be considered fraud. Debts incurred through fraud cannot be discharged. In addition, such actions could be considered bad faith, and might lead to a dismissal or a denial of discharge, depending on the circumstances. What does any of this mean? The short answer is more attorney fees, more anxiety and the possibility that the bankruptcy case will not go as smooth as it otherwise could.

If you’re contemplating bankruptcy, don’t use credit cards for holiday shopping. Speak with an attorney. The last thing any debtor needs is to make a tough situation even worse.

  • Share/Bookmark

Why Bankruptcy Lawyers Require Fees Before Filing

There really is a good reason. And to help prove my point, I turn to an October 2008 decision out of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: In re Mansfield. In that case, the court was called upon to ask what it viewed as a “deceptively simple question:” may an attorney who charges a “flat fee” for services pursue the uncollected balance due?

In this case, the attorney charged a flat fee for preparing the necessary documents and schedules, but also for attending the first meeting of creditors (which occurs after the case is filed). The fee was paid in one large installment, with the remaining balance divided into smaller installments which were paid or due after the case was filed.

The US Trustee sought a review of the fee practice as well as disgorgement of the fees collected after the case was collected. The attorney claimed there was no authority supporting the relief sought by the US Trustee, and he was entitled to collect at least the value of the services he rendered.

The court did not agree. Under Section 727(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, a “debtor’s obligation under a fee agreement to pay a fixed or flat fee to his attorney for legal services rendered pre- and postpetition in a Chapter 7 case, regardless of how the fee is scheduled to be paid, is a prepetition debt that is dischargeable. The attorney avoided having to return the fees paid because there is a difference of opinion among Bankruptcy Courts throughout the country as to whether the practice of collecting fees post-petition is permissible….and if permissible, the circumstances they are permissible.

In flat fee cases (and it is fair to say most, if not all consumer Chapter 7 cases are flat fee), the court found that the “division of a flat fee arrangement into prepetition and postpetition parts to be conceptually inconsistent and therefore untenable. The Court therefore joins those other courts which hold what when a flat or fixed prepetition agreement is at issue, the fee must be paid in full prior to the commencement of the debtor’s case or the fee is discharged under Section 727(b).”

So in reality, when an attorney requires fees and costs prior to the filing of the petition, it’s because they need to get paid…unlike creditors in a Chapter 7 who in many cases do not get paid at all. There’s case law all over the country that supports it, and other case law that suggests that it can be done. While the current code and the case law leave room for creative argument, debtor’s attorneys can be expected to be wise and take the path of least resistance: earn the fee and serve the client. Certainly, there are bigger battles for debtor’s attorneys to engage in for their clients other than fighting for a fee for postpetition services.

In re Mansfield, US Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 08-11648 SR (Ocobter 2, 2008)

  • Share/Bookmark

When Things Go Very Wrong

Last week I received a phone call from someone who wanted to know about the status of a bankruptcy case. It was not their bankruptcy, rather the case of another person. Apparently, the caller was a creditor of the bankruptcy debtor. The caller had a case pending in state court and wanted to know if the claim was discharged in the bankruptcy. While we were chatting, I pulled up the case on PACER. As I started to get more information and I was reviewing the documents, I came to realize that not only was the claim discharged, but the attorney representing the caller in the state court matter committed malpractice. What happened here is a lesson for anyone finding themselves brought into a bankruptcy case.

In May of 2007, the debtor filed bankruptcy which put the automatic stay into effect. In August, the caller’s attorneys filed a Motion for Relief from Stay. By a look at the document, the attorneys did not have experience in bankruptcy matters: the motion was barely two pages long and presented nothing substantive for the court to consider. Their lack of experience was also evident by the fact that they did not file electronically (Bankruptcy Courts – like all federal courts – use electronic case filing). And finally, they also did not pay the requisite filing fee (a fact which is readily available from a number of sources, including the court’s website).

The Clerk issued a Notice of Filing Fee due, and ordered that the payment be made by 8-27-07. The Certificate of Service from the Clerk stated the Notice was mailed on August 19, 2007 to the local attorney. However, payment was not made until 9-5-07. As a result, the motion was denied.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

What’s Your House Worth?

When I confer with a client who is facing the prospect of bankruptcy to protect their home, I have many important questions. One of them is “what is the value of your home?” The answers are usually varied, and in most recent situations, clients have only old or not useful information. Regardless of the source however, determining the value of the home is a necessary step in any pre-bankruptcy analysis I need to do. And unfortunately, getting that accurate information is not always easy, and it is not always grounded in reality.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark