Posts Tagged ‘Chapter 13’

Rumor Control: TheStreet.com gets it wrong.

With the limited exception of realizing while in court that I have worn two different colored socks and I am convinced that everyone can tell, there’s nothing that drives me more nuts than exaggerated and half-baked claims about bankruptcy. A recent article on TheStreet.com proves my point. Lauren Tara LaCapra writes in “Bankruptcy Can Hurt For Decades”:

Rules enacted in 2005 made it harder and more costly for Americans to file for Chapter 7, in which assets are liquidated and given to creditors, or Chapter 13, which structures a repayment plan for certain debts over a term up to five years. (Debts outside of the plan would not have to be repaid.)

Harder, no. Costlier, yes. It’s hard to really chide the writer for this lack of understanding because I know many people have it. But, there is also this: “Debtors outside of the plan would not have to be repaid.”

Um….No. If debts are not in the plan, they need to be paid. A best example I can give is with a car loan. If the debtor wants to keep the car, the loan needs to be paid. That loan is paid outside the plan. If it doesn’t get paid, the car gets repossessed. I could (and perhaps will at some point) get into some long analysis as to whether a deficiency must be paid through the plan and why. I could (and perhaps will at some point) blog about what happens when debtors attempt to pay only certain creditors through a plan, while paying others on the side. Suffice it to say, the claim that debts not included in the plan need not be repaid is flat out wrong. (I could reasonably infer that the term “Debts” might really mean “Regular monthly expenses” such as the electric bill and the phone bill. Those do get paid outside the plan…but they are not debts. They are expenses.)

Then, the article refers to an Ohio State University study:

…it can take over 20 years for bankruptcy filers to reach the same financial status as those with similar social and economic backgrounds who did not file for bankruptcy. It took more than a decade for a bankruptcy filer to catch up to peers in terms of savings, income and home ownership, according to the study. It took more than a quarter of a century to reach the same level of net worth.

Translated: people who file bankruptcy will not be in the same financial station in life as their peers who do not file bankruptcy. I imagine that most people facing bankruptcy know this…I also imagine that if they are in so much debt that they probably already know this. I also imagine that some of “their peers” are also quietly suffering with a boat-load of debt while all the while trying to put a good face forward to as not to lead anyone to suspect otherwise.

Jay Zagorsky, co-author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State, notes that high prices for gas, food and housing, combined with crushing debt, can make bankruptcy seem like an easy way out with a clean slate.

“But,” he adds, “to experience what people may heard of as a ‘fresh start,’ that may take longer than they expect or would like.”

True. But it’s going to be easier to pay the higher costs for food, gas and home heating oil if the other debt is dealt with in bankruptcy. As far as getting credit again, it can happen. I have had clients who have been in bankruptcy (chapter 13) and gotten credit cards (without my knowledge and without court permission…which is actually not a smart thing to do at all). I have had clients who have received their chapter 7 discharge and within weeks were receiving credit card offers (and in some cases, receiving cards). Of course, in those days, if you had a pulse, an address you could get a credit card.

Today, it’s not so easy. We are in a credit crunch. Underwriting standards are changing, and some merchants are rethinking whether they will accept credit cards. Just this week, I received a letter from Filene’s Basement telling me that they were discontinuing their credit card after September 1. They were also kind enough to send me a coupon for 15% off of one-item. But I digress…

Gas and food costs are going to make it difficult for people. Actually, it is making things difficult for people…which includes people like me. Then, the article offers this not-particularly-sage advice:

Those grappling with high costs and excessive debt should seek out other options first — whether restructuring or consolidating debt, negotiating a payment plan or lower interest rates with creditors, selling off assets or simply cutting back on costs — before putting a 20-year “scarlet letter” on their credit scores.

You cannot restructure your mortgage if your lender will not return your calls. You cannot consolidate your debt if you cannot qualify for a consolidation loan. You shouldn’t consider repaying debt with credit counseling without exploring whether chapter 13 is actually a better and more cost effective route. Selling assets: sure. So long as it’s not a house you need to sell anytime soon, and so long as you’re not selling something to a buddy because you’re concerned about losing it in a later bankruptcy filing. And as for cutting back on costs, some cannot cut back anymore.

Finally, the bankruptcy filing does not stay on the credit report for 20 years. It’s on the credit report for 10. It’s also not a Scarlett Letter…harkening back to that Nathaniel Hawthorne novel about an adulterous Demi Moore who is forced to wear an “A” so as to let the world know how sinful she is.

For the overwhelming number of people who walk through my office door, that bankruptcy filing is exactly what they need to move on. The bankruptcy is exactly what it will take to get things back on track and to help them face the new economic challenges that face us all. While I encourage debate with others with different points of view, I urge anyone who is “knee-deep in debt” to get the facts. It’s a shame that this article is short on them.

  • Share/Bookmark

“I Need to Get Through the Winter”

For weeks I have wondered what impact the high price of home heating oil was going to have on people who need it. Would it push them into bankruptcy (or worse)? Since it is usually an accumulation of things that leads one to file bankruptcy, there is no clear way I can predict that the price of oil is going to push people over the financial edge. But last week, I spoke with a client who found himself standing on the proverbial financial precipice, and it was that realization that lead them to think about filing bankruptcy.

The client recently ended a long term relationship. As many of us know, it is far cheaper for two people to live under the same roof than it is for one. The household income had dropped, and every day expenses increased. There was also some debt that continued to linger such as credit cards and consolidation loans. While he was paying a modest rent (less than $1,000 per month), it did not include the price of home heating oil.

To meet his obligations, the client did what many people do: he decreased expenses. However, he did so to the detriment of his health. A few years ago, he underwent a gastric by-pass. Instead of buying the protein and vegetables that his doctor expected him to eat (and that frankly, we all need to eat), he was instead eating the less expensive pasta and starch that he should not be eating.

Since it’s July, his oil use in the summer is limited to heating the hot water, and just ½ tank (100 gallons) can get him through most of the summer. But from December through April, it is not uncommon for his tank to be filled at least once per month. What prompted him to call me was that when he got his summer oil delivery last month, that 100 gallons cost him $429.

Making things more difficult: many (if not all) oil companies are refusing to lock in prices or offer budget plans.

The client realizes that unless the other debt is somehow compromised, he either will not be able to heat his apartment, or his other creditors will not get paid. In other words, he sees that at some point, a choice will need to be made. Without the debt, the client could get through the winter assuming that that there are no dramatic increases in the prices. And it is this scenario that causes me to ponder this: “how many other people are wondering how they are going to do it?”

It’s not an easy question I can answer. However, for this client, who is struggling with the increasing prices on consumer goods and debt, and facing a cold and expensive winter, he has answered that question by considering bankruptcy. For him, it might be the only way to get through the winter.

  • 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

Walking Away from the Mortgage and the Home? Consider this…

Some homeowners are giving up on the thought of keeping their home. There are a number of reasons for this. And if you are among the many homeowners contemplating walking away from their home, and the mortgage debt, you should consider a few things.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

Game Over: Chapter 13 Debtor Sent Packing to State Court

A chapter 13 can be dismissed for lots of reasons: there is no money to fund a plan, the plan cannot be confirmed, or (as I discussed yesterday) tax returns have not been filed. A chapter 13 may also be dismissed for another important reason: the case was not filed in good faith. A North Carolina debtor learned just that.

Debtor filed a chapter 13 after she was sued in state court for race, religious and sex discrimination by a former employee. She listed the employee’s claim for $1.00. She also listed no other creditors. The employee sought dismissal for a variety of reasons, all grounded in what she argued was the debtor’s bad faith.

Underestimating the employee’s claim was not the only problem with the debtor’s schedules. The debtor also neglected to include the thousands of dollars she later admitted to owing the attorney who represented her in state court. So her schedules were not accurate and complete. Strike one.

The debtor filed the case two weeks before the state court case was to go to trial. While that fact alone is not determinative, it is an appropriate consideration in determining good faith. Foul ball/Ball one.

It appeared from the facts that the debtor’s only purpose in filing the case was to frustrate the state court action. The debtor and her husband owned real estate (that had no mortgages or liens) worth close to $500,000 and further, they had no debt. Since she only listed one creditor, it appeared that the only reason why she filed was to defeat the state court discrimination case. Strike two.

Perhaps the most glaring fact working against the debtor was the fact that she had no income. She was not employed and didn’t yet qualify for Social Security benefits. The only household income is that from her non-debtor husband’s Social Security. There was also a savings account solely in his name. She never bothered to submit evidence demonstrating that there would be a stream of payments from the husband to her to fund a chapter 13 plan. Strike three.

Chapter 13 is for honest debtors, and this debtor is far from honest. The court agreed, and dismissed the chapter 13. Now the debtor will be left to fight her one creditor claim in state court. Her bankruptcy game is over.

In re Tippett, Bankr.E.D.N.C. 08-00542-8 JRL, May 8, 2008.

  • 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

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

Storm Preparation: Payment Advices

Since the 2005 Bankruptcy Act, debtors have had to gather and provide their attorneys more documentation. There are a variety of documents that debtors need to collect, but the class of documents that is often difficult to put one’s hands on at the last minute is pay stubs.

The 2005 Act required all debtors to complete a Means Test. In theory, the form was designed to help determine whether a bankruptcy filing was an abuse of the Bankruptcy Code. To properly complete the form, one of the first calculations needed is that of “current monthly income” or CMI.

(more…)

  • 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

Would-a, Should-a, Could-a.

Everyone has found themselves saying that at one time or another. Perhaps it was the regrettable decision of a particular business venture (or business partner), or perhaps it was ordering the chicken salad special, rather than a turkey club. Or, perhaps, you happened to be joint debtors who recently learned what can happen when you do not do what you should have and could have done.

The debtor’s joint case was filed as a chapter 13 in July of 2007. At a later hearing, the debtors advised the court that they intended to convert the case to chapter 7. At a later 341 meeting, the debtors provided the trustee with a copy of their 2005 income tax return, but did not provide a copy of the 2006 tax return, even though that return had been filed. The Trustee warned the debtors to produce the return, and advised them that he would seek a dismissal of the case if it was not provided. The meeting was continued to the following month to allow the debtors time to give the returns to the trustee.

At the continued meeting, the debtors’ attorney appeared without the debtors and without the tax return despite what she relayed was “harsh admonitions to her clients” to produce the documents. The return was eventually provided 36 days after the deadline set forth in Section 521(e)(2)(A)(i).

This code provision requires the debtors to provide the trustee a copy of the federal income tax return required under applicable law for the most recent tax year ending immediately before the commencement of the case for which a federal income tax return was field. The code requires that the case be dismissed unless the debtor can establish that the failure to abide by the provision was beyond the debtor’s control, however, the court acknowledged that seeking dismissal was within the discretion of the trustee.

The Chapter 7 Trustee exercised that discretion and moved to dismiss the case because the debtor did not provide copies of the 2006 tax returns. In allowing the motion, the court noted that “Congress did not intend that trustees spend inordinate amounts of time chasing down tax returns from debtors who have sought relief in bankruptcy.”

In re Nordstrom, 381 BR 766 (Bankr.C.D.Cal., January 18, 2008).

  • Share/Bookmark