Posts Tagged ‘Chapter 7’
Tuesday, January 15th, 2008
Thinking about filing bankruptcy? Do you have a paper shredder or know a friend with a dumpster? You should know that a US Bankruptcy Court judge in Boston recently ruled that a Chapter 7 debtor was not entitled to a discharge because documents had been destroyed.
The case involved a carpenter and homebuilding contractor who operated under a corporate entity. The corporation had employees and handled large projects involving hundreds of thousands of dollars. While perhaps a good contractor, the debtor was not a savvy business person but that did not stop him from being the record keeper for the company.
The business records were kept in a large plastic bin which included canceled checks, copies of contracts and even some personal records. He did not maintain a cash flow ledger for the company.
In 2004, the company started to face cash flow problems which eventually snowballed. He and his company were forced to abandon projects they had been paid on and he expected to be sued. The debtor consulted a bankruptcy attorney. By 2005, the debtor became seriously depressed about the company’s financial problems so much so that the mere site of the plastic bin made him sick. The Court noted that “sometime between December 2004 and February 2005, he relieved himself of this immediate problem by driving the bin to, and depositing it in, a dumpster belonging to a roofing contractor friend.”
(more…)
Tags: Adversary Proceedings, Bankruptcy, Chapter 7, Discharge of Debts
Posted in Bankruptcy, Chapter 7 | 1 Comment »
Tuesday, November 13th, 2007
There’s been a lot of debate over how unfair BAPCPA (the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) is on consumer debtors. Some of that debate can actually be found on this site. There have been aspects of BAPCPA that I have called silly, and some that we have to question the logic on. Recently, the US Bankruptcy Court in New Hampshire issued a ruling that appears to correctly interpret the post-BAPCPA Bankruptcy Code, but also shows how absurd the amendments to the code may be.
Prior to BAPCPA, a Chapter 7 filing was not presumed to be an abuse of the bankruptcy code. Abuse needed to be proved by the party claiming it, and a finding of substantial abuse could lead to dismissal or conversion
Under BAPCPA, the word “substantial” disappeared, leaving only “abuse.” Also, the means test was implemented, creating an objective means to determine whether there is a presumption of abuse. If there is a presumption of abuse, the United States Trustee must file a report indicating whether the case is presumptively abusive under 11 U.S.C. Section 707(b) within 10 days of the creditor’s meeting. Within 30 days after that, the US Trustee must either file a motion to dismiss or convert the case, or a statement explaining the reasons why the US Trustee does not consider such a motion to be appropriate.
In the New Hampshire case, the US Trustee wanted to compel the debtor to produce documents as well as submit to a Rule 2004 examination (which is something like a deposition, but isn’t really the same thing – which is another subject I should write about sometime). The US Trustee argued that it did not have enough information to evaluate whether the debtor’s case was presumptively abusive. The US Trustee also argued that under Rule 9011, she had an obligation to conduct a reasonable investigation before filing a motion. Under this rule, a party can be sanctioned for filing a baseless pleading in court. In response, the debtor argued that the US Trustee’s request was overbroad and unduly burdensome.
“Both parties are right,” the court wrote “and both parties are wrong.”
(more…)
Tags: Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention & Consumer Protection Act of 2005, Chapter 7, Means Test
Posted in Bankruptcy, Chapter 7 | No Comments »
Tuesday, November 13th, 2007
Last week, the US Bankruptcy Court in the Western District of Kentucky ruled that a Chapter 7 debtor’s credit card debt was not dischargeable because the debtor used a card that should have been closed. The debtor and the plaintiff divorced in 2003 and as a part of the divorce, the parties agreed to pay their own credit card debt as well as hold each other harmless in the event of default.
The husband and wife had a joint Fleet Visa which was to be paid by the husband. He paid it in April of 2003. The debtor/wife remarried in December of that year and she changed her name. That marriage only lasted a year, but the wife again married and again changed her name.
In 2004, Fleet was bought by Bank of America and issued a new credit card on what was formerly the Fleet Visa account. The debtor used the card, and when the bills arrived, the bills were addressed to her former ex-husband and the debtor using the name she had while married to him. She never notified the bank she was divorced or that her ex-husband’s name should not be on the card.
In 2006, after some business problems and an illness, the debtor filed bankruptcy. The husband sued claiming that the debt was not dischargeable on the basis of fraud. He argued that the debtor knew that she was using a card that was in both their names.
Debtor claimed that she did not know that the husband’s name was still on the account – and that because she had so many other bills at the time, she had no idea it was a joint account. However, this explanation did not make sense since the husband’s name was on the card, and on the bill, and the bills were in a name she used two marriages ago. She also had to reactivate the account, and thus had to have known at that time it was a joint account – as well as in her former name. Even “[i]t was not done knowingly,” the court wrote, “it certainly was done with gross recklessness.”
Because debtor did not take some very simple steps to change the holder of the account, the debt is non-dischargeable, and because of the hold-harmless language of the settlement agreement, she must pay it. Based on these facts, shouldn’t the debtor have known better?
Tags: Adversary Proceedings, Bankruptcy, Chapter 7, Discharge of Debts
Posted in Bankruptcy, Chapter 7 | No Comments »
Thursday, November 8th, 2007
I received a call today from someone with questions about Chapter 7. I receive many calls a day, but what made this call interesting was that the caller told me that they conferred with another attorney and was told that with the passage of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, only 50% of debt was now dischargeable in a Chapter 7. My response was “nope, not true.”
The caller also told me that according this other attorney there was no law that required a bankruptcy filing to appear on the credit report for 10 years. According to what the attorney purportedly stated: “Credit card companies want you to believe there is a federal law out there that requires it, but there is not.” My reponse was “that’s not my understanding.” Since this issue is not a primary one in my practice, it’s not something I can rattle off the tip of my tounge, like I might be able to with regard to discharge exceptions. So I decided to take a quick detour from my petition preparations and research the issue a bit further.
Let me start with the easy one: nothing in BAPCPA declared that only 50% of debt would be discharged in Chapter 7. If anyone is telling you that, they do not bankruptcy law.
The claim that there is no federal law that requires a credit card company to report a bankruptcy filing is also hogwash (I could think of another term, but this is a professional site). Title 15, Section 1681c(a)(1) of the United States Code states that credit reports may not contain information concerning “[c]ases under Title 11 or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be, antedate the report by more than 10 years.” And there is an exception. Under 1681(b)(2) a credit report may contain information about a bankruptcy that is more than 10 years old if the report is to be used in connection with a “(1) a credit transaction involving, or which may reasonably be expected to involve, a principal amount of $150,000 or more; (2) the underwriting of life insurance involving, or which may reasonably be expected to involve, a face amount of $150,000 or more; or (3) the employment of any individual at an annual salary which equals, or which may reasonably be expected to equal $75,000, or more.”
So the bankruptcy can stay on the credit report for up to 10 years, an din come cases, even longer. If any attorney tells you otherwise, invite them to call me.
Tags: attorney, Bankruptcy, Chapter 7, credit, Credit and Debt, Credit Report, debt
Posted in Bankruptcy, Chapter 7 | No Comments »
Tuesday, October 16th, 2007
When a bankruptcy petition is filed under Chapter 7, an estate is created. Unless the property is otherwise exempt, all of the debtor’s property belongs to the estate. The Chapter 7 Trustee is then required to sell the property to pay creditors. In a recent case, a debtor was a sole trustee of a real estate trust and the real estate was owned in the name of the realty trust. But in this case, Massachusetts Bankruptcy Judge Robert Somma held that the property belonged to the debtor’s Chapter 7 estate.
The case involved property in Malden. The trust was created by the debtor and the declaration of trust provided that: “This instrument [the declaration of trust] may be amended at any time by a written instrument signed by the trustees and acknowledged by one or more of them.” It also provided that the trustee could terminate the trust at any time. If he elected to terminate the trust, he was obligated to disburse the trust property to the beneficiaries (included other family members, but not the debtor).
(more…)
Tags: Bankruptcy, Chapter 7, Homes, homesteads and real estate
Posted in Bankruptcy, Chapter 7 | No Comments »
Thursday, September 27th, 2007
Here’s one for the “believe it or not” list: ostriches do not hide their heads in the sand. I know – you’re thinking “get OUT!” I was as shocked as the next person. Apparently, while they do not bury their head, they will sometimes lie on the ground trying to make themselves look inconspicuous. According to The Phrase Finder:
The story also relies on the supposed stupidity of ostriches, and of birds in general. In fact, there’s little to support that either as birds have a significantly larger brain to weight ratio than many other species of animal. The notion is that the supposedly dumb ostrich believes that if it can’t see its attacker then the attacker can’t see it. This was nicely reformed as a joke on Douglas Adams’ ‘Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’, in which the ‘Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal’ was described as ’so mind-bogglingly stupid that it assumes that if you can’t see it, then it can’t see you.’
Birds are not stupid (at least not all of them), and I find it difficult to believe that a bird that merely lies about hoping not to be avoided (such as one might do at a high school or college reunion) is intellectually deficient. So if ostriches don’t hide their heads in the sand, why do people struggling with high house payments often do just the opposite?
(more…)
Tags: Bankruptcy, Chapter 11, Chapter 13, Chapter 7, Commentary - Legal, Credit and Debt, debt, Mortgages and Foreclosures
Posted in Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Chapter 7 | No Comments »
Wednesday, September 12th, 2007
While my practice is limited to Massachusetts, I understand that people all over the country read this blog. (Of course, they do so with the understanding that it’s not legal advice and that they should confer with a local attorney who can help them.) With that said, my observations this morning in Bankruptcy Court might be helpful to just about anyone facing bankruptcy.
Last week, a Chapter 13 case was filed by a debtor who had a pending Chapter 7 case which had been filed earlier this summer. The judge asked “why do I have two pending bankruptcy cases at the same time?” A good question.
(more…)
Tags: attorney, Bankruptcy, bankruptcy attorney, bankruptcy lawyer, Boston, Boston bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Chapter 7, lawyer, Massachusetts
Posted in Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Chapter 7 | 1 Comment »
Friday, August 3rd, 2007
The Boston Herald reports this morning:
The number of Massachusetts people filing for Chapter 13 personal bankruptcy jumped to 2,187 during the first half of 2007, up 85 percent over the previous year and up 78 percent during the same period in 2004, prior to when the U.S. bankruptcy system was overhauled in 2005.
The number of Chapter 7 liquidation filings also more than doubled to 4,251 during the first half of the year, compared to the year-ago period, according to preliminary data from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court’s Massachusetts District.
Read more here
Tags: Bankruptcy, Chapter 11, Chapter 13, Chapter 7, Homes, homesteads and real estate, In the News, Mortgages and Foreclosures
Posted in Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Chapter 7 | No Comments »
Friday, July 20th, 2007
A commenter posed an interesting scenario. She received a Chapter 7 discharge in 2002. Since then, she rebuilt her credit and was able to get into her home. Unfortunately, she ended up with a subprime mortgage with payments that are high. Those payments were manageable when she was making $80,000 a year. But she recently lost her job. Now those payments seem daunting. So, the question is, can she seek bankruptcy protection again?
(more…)
Tags: Bankruptcy, Chapter 11, Chapter 13, Chapter 7, Discharge of Debts
Posted in Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Chapter 7 | No Comments »
A Message For Those With Their Head in the Sand
Here’s one for the “believe it or not” list: ostriches do not hide their heads in the sand. I know – you’re thinking “get OUT!” I was as shocked as the next person. Apparently, while they do not bury their head, they will sometimes lie on the ground trying to make themselves look inconspicuous. According to The Phrase Finder:
Birds are not stupid (at least not all of them), and I find it difficult to believe that a bird that merely lies about hoping not to be avoided (such as one might do at a high school or college reunion) is intellectually deficient. So if ostriches don’t hide their heads in the sand, why do people struggling with high house payments often do just the opposite?
(more…)
Tags: Bankruptcy, Chapter 11, Chapter 13, Chapter 7, Commentary - Legal, Credit and Debt, debt, Mortgages and Foreclosures
Posted in Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Chapter 7 | No Comments »