June 2009 – Rochester Bankruptcy and Debt Relief – Rochester, NY Bankruptcy Attorney

Creditor Can’t Contact Debtor After the Bankruptcy Is Filed

When you file your bankruptcy case,the creditors must stop calling you. They can’t continue garnishing your wages. They must stop all collection activities because every bankruptcy case protects the debtor with the “automatic stay.” The automatic stay prohibits creditors from taking actions against you, unless they obtain a permission from the bankruptcy court.

While there are some exceptions, primarily for matters involving marital obligations, otherwise known as “domestic support obligations”, for most people and most debts, bankruptcy provides real relief.

If creditors keep calling you, mailing you, garnishing your wages or taking other actions against you, call your lawyer immediately. Regardless of whether the creditors acted with or without the knowledge of your filing, a bankruptcy lawyer make them stop. Also, regardless of whether the creditors acted with or without the knowledge of your filing, the creditors may be liable for actual and even punitive damages as well as attorneys fees.

Section 362 of the US Bankruptcy Code states that § 362. Automatic stay states that the filing of a petition in bankruptcy operates as a stay “applicable to all entities, of the commencement or continuation, of any action against the debtor.” Section 362(k) states that an individual injured by any willful violation of a stay shall recover actual damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, and, in appropriate circumstances, may recover punitive damages.

So what’s a willful violation of a stay? The creditor needs to know that you have filed for bankruptcy. It must take an action to collect against the debtor after that stay is in effect. The creditor doesn’t need to willfully violate the stay, it needs to willfully take the action. That means the creditor needs to send out the collection letter after that creditor knows of the stay.

Here in Rochester, Judge Ninfo addressed the issue of willful violation of automatic stay in In re Engel, holding that mailing of a billing statement after the bankruptcy was filed was a willful violation of automatic stay. In Engel, the creditor was listed in bankruptcy schedules and was also contacted by the debtor’s attorney who demanded that the creditor stop any and all contact with the debtor. Even after the debtor’s attorney notified the creditor, the creditor mailed two additional billing statements. While the creditor claimed that the contact with the debtor was an unintentional mistake, the court found that the creditor’s actions were intentional and ordered a hearing on damages.

If you are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, Canandaigua, Brighton, Pittsford, Penfield, Perinton, Fairport, Webster, Victor, Farmington, Greece, Gates, Hilton, Parma, Brockport, Spencerport, LeRoy, Chili, Churchville, Monroe County, Ontario County, Wayne County, Orleans County, Livingston County, and being harassed by bill collectors, and would like to know more about how bankruptcy may be able to help you, contact me today by phone or email to schedule a FREE initial consultation with a bankruptcy attorney.

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Student Loans and Hardship Discharge

Almost everyone who has student loans knows that student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. So why would a debtor meet with a bankruptcy lawyer regarding student loans? There are several good reasons to discuss your particular situation with a bankruptcy lawyer.

Sometimes a bankruptcy, either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, can eliminate or reduce other debt, freeing up income to make the student loan payments more affordable. A Chapter 13 bankruptcy can pay some, if not all, of the student loan debt. If a Chapter 13 payment plan does not pay the student loans in full, it may be possible to propose a plan that will pay enough to reduce principal and make the debt more manageable. If you have a loan that will be forgiven, a Chapter 13 may help you deal with the payments until you have the opportunity to take advantage of debt forgiveness programs.

There are also provisions which allow a bankruptcy court to determine that the student loan debt creates an undue hardship. Section 523(a)(8) of the bankruptcy code says that student loans cannot be discharged in either chapter 7 or chapter 13, unless repaying the student loans would be an undue hardship on you or your dependents. Unlike some other exceptions to dischargeability, this section contains no deadline for either you or the student loan creditor to bring the matter before the bankruptcy court. Although the courts have interpreted that provisions very narrowly, and it is very difficult to litigate these issues for various reasons, you and your bankruptcy lawyer may be in a position to take advantage of those provisions.

Here in Rochester, Judge Ninfo addressed dischargeability of student loans and the so-called “hardship discharge” in In re Martin, holding that in order to obtain a discharge, the debtor must meet the three-part test established in Brunner v. New York State Higher Education, 831 F.2d 395 (2nd Cir. 1987). This test has been summarized in In re Kraft, 161 B.R. 82 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 1993) as:

[A] Debtor seeking to discharge an education loan must show:

1. That the Debtor cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a “minimal” standard of living for herself (and any dependents) if forced to repay the loans;

2. That additional, exceptional circumstances exist, strongly suggestive of continuing inability to repay over an extended period of time, or indicating a likelihood that her current inability will extend for a significant portion of the loan repayment period; and

3. That the Debtor has made good faith efforts to repay the loans.

In Martin, the debtor received a hardship discharge based on the following set of facts: “(1) the Debtor did receive an Associate’s Degree in Liberal Arts from Monroe Community College in May, 1988; (2) since her graduation, the Debtor has been unemployed and for a number of years has been receiving Social Security Disability, Medicaid, food stamps and Section 8 housing assistance; (3) the Debtor is a counseling client of the University of the State of New York/Office of Vocational and Educat ion Services for Individuals with Disabilities (“VESID”) where she has been counseled to set a vocational goal of “homemaker;” (4) the Debtor is in individual therapy at the Steuben County Community Health Center; (5) the Debtor suffers from several ongoing medical problems, including degenerative arthritis in her knees, morbid obesity, chronic asthma, hypoactive thyroidism and fibromyalgia; (6) VESID reports that its evaluation revealed the Debtor suffers from chronic depressive feelings and has suicidal thoughts; (7) the Debtor has no present employment prospects because of her physical and psychological conditions; and (8) there exists no indication of any likely change in the Debtor’s state of affairs.” Thus, a rather extreme set of circumstances must be present in order to receive a bankruptcy discharge. At the same time, each case should be judged on its own merits and carefully evaluated by a bankruptcy lawyer to determine how the debtor could benefit by filing bankruptcy.

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Reaffirmation Agreement

When you file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, as a part of your petition, you also file a statement of intention with respect to property that is secured by consensual liens. That means that you have to inform the bankruptcy court here in Rochester what you intend to do with such property, such as your home that has a mortgage, your car, if it has a loan associated with it that is secured by a lien, or any other property in which your creditor has a valid security interest. You are given a choice of whether to continue to pay on such obligations or to, if you do not wish to sign a reaffirmation agreement, to allow the creditor to take the property back. A reaffirmation agreement in bankruptcy is a new contract signed between you and a lender that reaffirms your debt and personal liability for the obligation. The law requires you to “perform” your intentions regarding financed personal property within 45 days of the Meeting of Creditors (341 Meeting) or the automatic stay terminates. Before signing a reaffirmation agreement, it is a good idea to discuss it with your bankruptcy lawyer as it is a binding legal document. You can revoke it within 60 days after signing. It is not difficult to revoke the reaffirmation agreement since all that is needed, is a letter saying “I don’t want this agreement”, with the letter being sent to the court and to the creditor.

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”) states that any reaffirmation agreement(s) must be entered into prior to the filing of a discharge in bankruptcy. The reaffirmation agreement must also be approved by the court and not rescinded by the debtor prior to the discharge being filed. The court can also refuse to sign the reaffirmation agreement, if it is of the opinion that the debtor cannot afford the payments called for under its terms. Some lenders state they will repossess vehicles unless the debt is timely reaffirmed. Other lenders feel that it is better to receive monthly payments rather than lose money by selling repossessed vehicles at auction prices.

As a debtor, there is little risk in signing a reaffirmation agreement provided that you feel you really need the property (such as a car or a home) and you know you can afford the payment.

Failure to Disclose Assets in Bankruptcy, Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan and Revocation of Confirmation Order

What happens if the debtors fail to disclose certain assets in their Chapter 13 bankruptcy and those assets come to light after the confirmation of their Chapter 13 plan? This situation was recently addressed by Judge Ninfo of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York in In re Cram.

On March 24, 2004, Richard and Pamela S. Cram filed a petition in Rochester, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York, initiating a Chapter 13 case. A Chapter 13 trustee was appointed. On their Schedule B of Personal Property, the debtors stated that they had no “[o]ther contingent and unliquidated claims of [any] nature….”. On April 30, 2004, the court orally confirmed their Chapter 13 Plan, and on October 5, 2004 an order confirming the plan was entered.

At the time the bankruptcy was filed, the debtors had a pending medical malpractice claim which resulted a subsequent lawsuit. On June 14, 2005, the debtors’ lawyer filed an amendment to their Schedule B of Personal Property, which amended the answer to question No. 20 regarding contingent and unliquidated claims, but did not amend their Schedule C to claim any proceeds that might be received from the malpractice claim as exempt.

Between June 14, 2005 and April 7, 2008 the debtors or their attorneys did not notify the court of the existence of the pre-petition medical malpractice claim set forth in the amendment, which was a Section 541 asset of the estate at the time the court confirmed their plan, even though in confirming their plan pursuant to Section 1325(a), the court believed that the requirement of Section 1325(a)(4), that the creditors would receive at least as much under the plan that they would in a Chapter 7 liquidation.

Section 1325(a)(4) provides that:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the court shall confirm a plan if—
(4) the value, as of the effective date of the plan, of property to be distributed under the plan on account of each allowed unsecured claim is not less than the amount that would be paid on such claim if the estate of the debtor were liquidated under chapter 7 of this title on such date[.] 11 U.S.C. § 1325 (2009).

This section is known as “the best interests test”.

Once the trustee learned of the settlement, he moved to revoke the discharge, as well as for other relief. He asserted that on April 28, 2008, after the discharge order had been entered on April 7, 2008, the trustee learned that the claim had been settled on or about February 20, 2008 for $125,000 and that neither the debtors, their bankruptcy attorneys nor their personal injury attorney ever notified the trustee of the settlement or any prior settlement offers. The trustee argued, inter alia, that in view of the settlement, the debtors’ confirmed plan did not meet the best interests test.

Unlike in Chapter 7 cases, the court, in confirming a plan in a Chapter 13 case, makes an affirmative determination, as required by Section 1325(a), that, among other things, the plan meets the best interests test. Judge Ninfo held that because of the debtors’ failure to disclose the malpractice claim, which was a Section 541 pre-petition asset of the estate, either at the time of the oral confirmation of their plan or when the confirmation order was entered, the plan did not meet the best interests test, and neither the debtors, nor the trustee, ever corrected that failure by taking the necessary steps to insure that the plan was amended to include the proceeds of any recovery on the malpractice claim, either before or after the settlement. Thus, the confirmation order had to be vacated, and with no confirmed plan completed, the debtors would not be entitled to a Section 1328 discharge and the court vacated the confirmation order pursuant to Section 105(a).

Judge Ninfo further held that when the debtors filed the amendment to include the malpractice claim, they, as debtors, and their bankruptcy attorneys, as officers of the court, had an affirmative obligation to advise the court, not simply the trustee or their creditors, of the undisclosed asset, so that the court would be aware that its confirmation of the plan was improper and its confirmation order incorrectly entered, and could insure that the confirmation order was vacated or a proper modification to the plan filed to include any recovery.

The court further granted trustee’s motion to dismiss the bankruptcy, unless prior to July 6, 2009, the debtors: (a) pay to the trustee the amount necessary for the trustee to make a distribution to their unsecured creditors of 100% plus 9%; or (b) otherwise make arrangements with the trustee for the payment of the necessary amount within a reasonable period of time that is acceptable to the trustee and the trustee files with the court the details of such an acceptable arrangement.

The lesson of this case is that the debtors and their bankruptcy lawyers have an affirmative obligation to disclose any and all assets of the debtors, including any contingent or unliquidated claims. In this case, the consequences to the debtors could have been much more severe.

Pay Stubs Requirement and Bankruptcy

One of the current requirement under BAPCPA is that a debtor must file all of their pay advices (pay stubs) for the 60 days preceding the filing with their bankruptcy petition. What happens if a debtor or his/her attorney omits one or more pay advices (pay stubs)? The answer to that question is that under the statute, it is a serious problem and the bankruptcy judge may dismiss your case.

However, some debtors are either unemployed at the time of the filing, or receiving unemployment, workers’ compensation or social security benefits, and therefore do not have pay stubs that can be filed.

In In re LaPlante, Judge Bucki held that because section 521(a)(1)(B)(iv) requires the filing only of those payment advices that a debtor receives from an employer, section 521(i) cannot effect the dismissal of a case filed by a debtor without income as an employee. Neither the Workers’ Compensation Board nor the Social Security Administration are employers of the debtor, and therefore the 60 day requirement is not applicable.

Thus, if you are receiving workers’ compensation benefits, social security or other non-employer payments, it is important to tell your bankruptcy lawyer about it in advance, so that appropriate documents are filed with your bankruptcy petition.