Rochester Bankruptcy and Debt Relief

While most married people think that if they file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, they must do so with their spouse.  That is not true.

Whether one spouse or both file a bankruptcy petition, it’s their choice. It is not uncommon for one spouse to have most of the debt in his or her name only, in which case an individual filing would more appropriate. However, if both spouses are have a significant amount of debt, they should file together.

Sometimes I meet with only one spouse because the other spouse is is not willing to file for bankruptcy.  In these situations, one spouse to file the bankruptcy petition and obtain necessary relief from the bankruptcy court.

There are also some additional issues that need to be considered. Initially, if only one spouse is filing and the couple is residing together, the other spouse’s income may be relevant for the purpose of household income as reflected on Schedule I, resulting disposable income reflected on Schedule J, and that spouse’s income may also be relevant for the means test.

As far as the means test, it is necessary to determine whether there is a presumption that there is enough disposable income available to give unsecured creditors sufficient payment under a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, such that permitting a Chapter 7 could be considered an abuse of discretion. But even if the means test is passed, and no presumption of abuse arises, or, alternatively, if this is a non-consumer bankruptcy and the means test is not even required, abuse can still be found given the totality of the circumstances. The income and assets of the non-filing spouse are important in both those considerations. If the debtor has legal rights to share in the income and assets of a non-filing spouse or even if the practice has been between spouses to share income and assets regardless of legal rights, the bankruptcy law tells us that the debtor’s access to the non-filing spouse’s income and assets has to be considered in deciding whether the bankruptcy court would permitting a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing.

An experienced bankruptcy attorney can analyze each consumer’s financial situation and suggest whether a married couple should file an individual or a joint petition.

If you contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, New York, 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 Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.

I have previously written about interplay between divorce, family court proceedings and bankruptcy, as well as other issues involving interplay between bankruptcy and family law.  One issue that is highly significant in situations where one of the former spouses is about to file a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy is whether the bankruptcy trusee will seek to undo a divorce settlement agreement.

With bankruptcy filings being so common, and divorce being a major reason for seeking bankruptcy relief, divorce lawyers are frequently concerned as to whether a divorce settlement will be upheld in a bankruptcy proceeding.

There are valid reasons to be cautious since if a debtor transfers a valuable asset to a spouse (or soon-to-be ex-spouse) prior to filing for bankruptcy, and the debtor-spouse does not receive reasonable value in return, then the transfer may be deemed to be a “fraudulent transfer.” In such a case, the bankruptcy trustee can sue the person who received the asset to recover it for the bankruptcy estate, so that all creditors can share in its value.  As with any other situations involving fraudulent transfers, the debtor must have been insolvent at the time of transfer.

In order to demonstrate that a transfer was not a fraudulent transfer, the party who received the transfer would have to show that there was “reasonably equivalent value.” It is common for a divorcing spouse to settle the divorce case by giving the other spouse valuable assets such as an interest in real estate, bank accounts, investments, or other personal property. In those situations, both parties do not want a bankruptcy trustee to try to set such transfers aside.

There was a time when some of the bankruptcy courts have held that innocent spouses who received such a transfer were no different from any other party who received a large transfer without sufficient consideration. However, a case decided by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in June of 2009 will give many divorcing spouses a greater degree of certainty that a trustee will not be able to set aside a divorce settlement.

The decision in Bledsoe v. Bledsoe, 569 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2009) this issue by addressing when a bankruptcy court may avoid a transfer made pursuant to a state-court divorce decree. The Circuit Court affirmed that decision and held that a trustee can only set aside a matrimonial settlement if he alleges and proves “extrinsic fraud.”  The Court also held that a divorce decree that follows from a regularly conducted, contested divorce proceeding conclusively establishes “reasonably equivalent value” in the absence of fraud or collusion. Since the Second Circuit has not addressed this issue, Bledsoe is valid law in the bankruptcy courts in New York. At the same time, the bankruptcy court, here in Rochester, New York, and elsewhere, will always review the totality of the facts.

In order for a divorce settlement to be upheld by the bankruptcy court, it must be ratified by the matrimonial court. That means that any transfer should be accurately described in a stipulation of settlement.  In addition, the stipulation must be specifically referred to and incorporated in the judgment of divorce.  It is not enough that the parties merely stipulate to a settlement; the court must specifically approve the settlement.  In a typical judgment of divorce, this is accomplished by stating that the stipulation survives the judgment of divorce and is not merged into it.

If you contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, New York, 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 Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.

Many people who file for bankruptcy in New York have fears about their relatives, friends, neighbors and employers discovering that they have filed for bankruptcy. They try to hide this fact from everyone. Many people who would greatly benefit from filing for bankruptcy under either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 are reluctant to do so is because the perception among some people is that it is shameful to file for bankruptcy.  I spend a considerable amount of time explaining to my clients that there is nothing shameful about filing for bankruptcy.

A lot of people are scared that their employers would find out that they filed for bankruptcy. They are afraid that their employers might fire them from their jobs if employers find out about their bankruptcy filing. They try as much as possible to hide their filing for bankruptcy because of this sense of insecurity.

The debtors should not be concerned since federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against them or from terminating their employment solely because of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing. Specifically, the bankruptcy code’s non-discrimination provision, 11 U.S.C. section 525(b), states as follows:

No private employer may terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, an individual who is or has been a debtor under this title … solely because such debtor … is or has been a debtor under this title…. 11 U.S.C. sec. 525(b).

One caveat to the above provision is that the Bankruptcy Code prohibits discrimination solely on the basis of the bankruptcy filing. It will not protect an employee who is having other employment-related problems.

The reality now is that a great number of people in Rochester, New York, or elsewhere in Western New York, have filed or are filing for bankruptcy. For a business having employees who file for bankruptcy is simply a fact of life.  In many respects, it is better for the employer to have an employee file for bankruptcy, so that the employee is not spending time answering phone calls from the debt collectors, or that employer does not have to waste time garnishing employer’s wages. In today’s economy, bankruptcy is a reality that everyone is facing, and so companies would rather not do anything that would appear to be a form of discrimination against their employees.

If you contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, New York, 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 Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.

In order to confirm a plan in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, unless creditors are paid in full, the debtor must pay to unsecured creditors his or her “projected disposable income” expected to be received in an “applicable commitment period”, either 36 or 60 months depending on the Chapter 13 plan.  Since the enactment of 2005 BAPCPA, there has been a dispute over what “projected disposable income” meant.  A recent decision of the United States Supreme Court has resolved that issue, at least partially.

In Hamilton v. Lanning, decided on June 7, 2010, the Supreme Court held that “when a bankruptcy court calculates a debtor’s projected disposable income, the court may account for changes in the debtor’s income or expenses that are known or virtually certain at the time of confirmation.”  In other words, rather than simply applying the calculation of “current monthly income,” which looks at the debtor’s income for the 6 calendar months before the filing of the petition, the court may consider changes in income that have occurred, or are expected to occur, or virtually certain to occur at the time of confirmation.

In Lanning, the debtor had received a termination buyout from her former employer which, when included in “current monthly income,” dramatically increased her income over what she was really making, and the mechanical application of current monthly income approach would have resulted in her having to pay more into the plan than she possibly could afford.  Because after the buyout she was making wages well below the state median income, the Supreme Court held that this change in income could be considered in calculating her “projected disposable income.”

While being practical and understandable, this “forward looking” approach should not give the bankruptcy court or the bankruptcy trustee, or the debtor, an opportunity to make unsubstantiated claims. The Supreme Court stated that “a court taking the forward-looking approach should begin by calculating disposable income, and in most cases, nothing more is required. It is only in unusual cases that a court may go further and take into account other known or virtually certain information about the debtor’s future income or expenses.”

While the debtor’s expenses as included in the “projected disposable income” were not specifically before the Court, the opinion stated that the court may consider changes in income or expenses when calculating projected disposable income.  In Lanning, the Supreme Court stated that what is required is a “change” in income or expenses, not a discrepancy between the expenses allowed on the “means test” and the debtor’s actual expenses.   As I previously discussed, debtors whose “current monthly income” is above the state median, many expenses are determined based on fixed allowances, not on what the debtor’s actual expenses are.   For example, the food and related items allowance (set by the IRS) is $1,000 for the debtor’s household size, but the debtor only spends $500 on these items, he or she can claim the full allowance in calculating “projected disposable income.” Under the statute, the bankruptcy trustee is not be allowed to recapture that difference, and require that it be paid to creditors.  Conversely, if the debtor spends $2,000, he can still only claim the allowance. As a result, for many debtors, the fixed “means test” numbers result in a more favorable result than their real expenses as stated on Schedules I and J. Because the difference between the means test expenses and expenses reported on Schedule J, Lanning does not change the existing differences between them.

At the same time, under Lanning, the debtor may be disadvantages if the debtor is disallowed a deduction for secured debt payments where property is being surrendered or perhaps where liens are being stripped down or off. Under Lanning, such change in the debt payments may be seen as “change” in expenses.  However, unless there is a “change” in those secured debt expenses that are allowed as real figures on the means test, the means test expenses will remain the same.

If you contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, New York, 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 Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.

In a typical Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, the most significant hurdle that the debtor has to overcome is the means test.

The 2005 amendments to the bankruptcy code created a new Means Test. The main purpose of this test is to a) determine if an individual is eligible to file a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and b) to determine the disposable income of a Chapter 13 debtor who is above the median income.

In order to determine eligibility to file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, the means test is calculated by entering the debtor’s income figures for the prior six months into form B22 of the bankruptcy petition. If the debtor is below median income, no further steps need be taken and the debtor is presumed to be able to file Chapter 7.

If the debtor is above median income, further sections of form B22 must be filled out. The debtor’s estimated monthly income (based on the prior 6 months) is calculated and deductions are made using both IRS standards (for most living expenses) and some of the debtor’s actual expenses (including secured debt payments and health expenses).

If, after these deductions, it is determined that the debtor has minimal or no monthly disposable income, the means test is satisfied and the debtor is presumed eligible to file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. If the debtor fails the means test, he or she is presumed ineligible to file Chapter 7, and absent special circumstances warranting an exception, must seek relief under another chapter of the code, typically, Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.

In order to determine disposable income in a Chapter 13 case, the Means Test is conducted much the same way as in a Chapter 7 case. If the debtor is below median income, the remaining sections if form B22 need not be filled out and the debtor’s disposable income will be based on his or her actual income and expenses at the time the petition is filed. If the debtor is above-median income, the remaining steps of the means test are performed and disposable income is the figure reached through the above-described means test calculation. In many instances the figure yielded by the means test will be close to what the debtor pays every month over the life of the Chapter 13 plan.

What is also critical is what income is included within the definition of income.  Initially, the spouse’s income may be included, even if the spouse is not filing bankruptcy.  If you are receiving support in your household from your spouse, then you’re supposed to have that income available for your creditors even if you don’t earn actually that income.

Another issue which comes up fairly often is income received from sources other than work.  Some sources of “other income” could include: interest, dividends, pension income, bonus payments, child support, alimony or maintenance payments, disability payments under workers compensation or private insurance. Some other sources of income to the family which may or may not be income include: withdrawals from IRA and 401k plan, income tax refunds.

Some sources of revenue are not income for purposes of the means test: social security payments received by the filer or his/her spouse, unemployment benefits, certain types of income received by the members of the National Guard or Armed Forces Reserve.

Social Security income: Means testing does not consider social security as income. Accordingly, someone with $2,000.00 per month social security income will pass the means test even if expenses are only $1,000 and $1,000 is left over to pay creditors on the means test. Social Security Income includes both Social Security Disability (“SSD”) as well as Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) payments. Social Security income may be received by children in the household as survivor benefits in a situation where one of the parents has died. Despite the fact that those benefits can be substantial, U.S. Trustee’s Office advises that that survivor benefits income is not to be included in the means test, despite the fact that, in most situations, such income is used to pay household expenses.

The National Guard and Reservists Relief Debt Act of 2008 applies to certain members of the National Guard and reserve components of the Armed Forces. If you are a  member of the  National Guard Member or Armed Forces Reserve, then you will be temporarily excluded from the means test for entire time you are on active duty and 540 days thereafter, provided you serve at least 90 days. If your duty is less than 90 days, you do not qualify. If you are active member of the active duty military, you do not qualify.

Another important exception applies to the situations where the debtor has primarily non-consumer debt.  If the debtor’s debt is primarily non-consumer debt, then means test does not apply. Accordingly, someone making $10,000 per month with primarily business debts, still qualifies for Chapter 7 relief and discharge.

If you contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or 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 Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.

Periodically I meet with debtors who either have a personal injury law suit pending, or may have a potential personal injury case.  Personal injury lawsuit issues can complicate a bankruptcy since there are limitations on the debtor’s ability to receive a personal injury award, as well as different procedural hurdles imposed by the bankruptcy code.

Initially, personal injury lawsuits and causes of action are assets of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy estate.  Under New York’s bankruptcy exemptions, the debtor can exempt the first $7,500 in net proceeds, but anything over and above that belongs to the bankruptcy estate and would be administered by the bankruptcy trustee.  Since personal injury lawsuit or causes of action are assets, it is critical that the bankruptcy lawyer includes the debtor’s personal injury lawsuit or cause of action in the bankruptcy petition.  If the debtor fails to include a potential cause of action in the bankruptcy petition, that may cause a dismissal of the personal injury action.  According to New York cases, if a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy petition but failed to list a potential cause of action for personal injuries, then the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the personal injury action.

If the personal injury case or cause of action is included in the petition, the bankruptcy trustee will decide whether the case is valuable enough to administer.  The bankruptcy lawyer is expected to provide the trustee with copies of the pleadings.  Most trustees will consider the right to sue for a relatively small injury as being of “inconsequential value to the bankruptcy estate” and may decide to abandon the trustee’s interest in the cause of action.  Generally, if a personal injury case will not result in any significant non-exempt recovery, then the trustee will not care about administering it.  If the trustee determines that the case has value in excess of the exemption, he may want to administer the personal injury claim as an asset of the bankruptcy estate.

The Bankruptcy Code requires that all attorneys who render services to a debtor must be approved by the court.  A trustee may employ as special counsel under a contingency fee arrangement, any attorney who has represented the debtor in pre-petition litigation, when it is in the best interests of the bankruptcy estate and the attorney has no interest adverse to that of the debtor or the estate. Theoretically, the trustee can hire any attorney of the trustee’s choosing to represent the debtor in the personal injury lawsuit, and can even take the case away from the existing personal injury attorney.

The automatic bankruptcy stay imposed by Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code does not stay any actions brought by the debtor.  The automatic stay only acts to stay actions brought against the debtor including cross-claims, counter-claims and third-party claims.

The greatest unknown in a personal injury case filed by the bankruptcy debtor, is what interest the bankruptcy trustee will take in the case.  Debtor’s bankruptcy attorney would do well to contact the trustee at the earliest opportunity to get an idea of the trustee’s intentions with respect to the personal injury lawsuit.

If you contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or 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 Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.

I am often asked if the debt discharged in bankruptcy is treated as debtor’s income and is subject to taxes.  The answer to that question under the Bankruptcy Code, for both Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy is unequivocally no.  Debt discharged in bankruptcy does not result in taxable income to the debtor.

While I have written previously about the problems with debt settlement, this is one more advantage that bankruptcy has over various debt settlement arrangements.  If the debtor has his debt reduced or cancelled, the creditor may issue an IRS Form 1009-C form and the debtor would have to report it on his taxes.  As a result, the amount of cancelled debt will be added to the debtor’s income as miscellaneous income, and while not subject to self-employment or social security tax, it will be subject to income taxes.  If the amount of the cancelled debt is significant, the debtor may face an unexpected tax liability amounting to thousands of dollars.

One exception to the above is cancellation of mortgage debt. The Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007 generally allows debtors to exclude income from the discharge of debt on their principal residence. Debt reduced through mortgage restructuring, as well as mortgage debt forgiven in connection with a foreclosure, qualifies for the relief as well.

This provision applies to debt forgiven in calendar years 2007 through 2012. Up to $2 million of forgiven debt is eligible for this exclusion ($1 million if married filing separately). The exclusion does not apply if the discharge is due to services performed for the lender or any other reason not directly related to a decline in the home’s value or the taxpayer’s financial condition.  For a detailed discussion of IRS’ position on these issue, please follow this link.

Occasionally, even the debtor who filed fro bankruptcy may receive 1099-C from one of his creditors. Nonetheless, if the debtor received a discharge as a result of either Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, the debtor is able to file IRS Form 982, which will inform the IRS that the debtor went through the bankruptcy and any discharged debt should not be included in his gross income.  If you are considering your options between a bankruptcy or debt settlement, one of the issues that you should discuss during a consultation with a bankruptcy lawyer is what impact either approach would have on your tax liability.

If you contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or 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 Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.

The U.S. Supreme Court has resolved an issue earlier this week that was of great concern to the bankruptcy lawyers ever since enactment of BAPCPA in 2005.  This issue had to do with a provision of BAPCPA, which barred attorneys from advising their clients to take on more debt before filing for bankruptcy protection.  The Supreme Court held in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz v. United States, 559 U.S. ___ (2010), that giving such advice is permissible in appropriate situations.

The high court, in an opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the provision prohibiting such advice was valid, but should be read narrowly.  This provision should be read to prohibit bankruptcy lawyers from advising clients to abuse the bankruptcy system.  Justice Sotomayer indicated that it would be permissible for lawyers to advise clients contemplating bankruptcy to take on additional debt in certain situations.   She wrote that bankruptcy lawyers could advise clients to refinance a mortgage or purchase a reliable car prior to bankruptcy on the grounds that doing so would reduce the debtor’s interest rates or improve the debtor’s ability to repay.  According to the opinion, “[i]t would make scant sense to prevent attorneys and other debt relief agencies form advising individuals thinking of filing for bankruptcy about options that would be beneficial to both those individuals and their creditors.”  Professionals specializing in bankruptcy “remain free to talk fully and candidly about the incurrence of debt in contemplation of filing a bankruptcy case,” Sotomayor wrote.

This provision has been problematic in the past in situations where my client would have a vehicle that was likely to need repairs in the near future due to its age or mileage.  Under BAPCPA, I could not advise the debtor in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy to obtain a new car lease or car loan, as getting a new car is easier to do before filing for bankruptcy than after.  Since BAPCPA contained a provision which prevented attorneys from advising clients to incur debt in contemplation of bankruptcy, I was unable to give debtors such advise since BAPCPA’s enactment.  Similarly, this provision prohibited me from advising a debtor to refinance his mortgage immediately prior to filing for bankruptcy in order to benefit from a lower interest rate in the future.

The Supreme Court decision now clarifies the scope of BAPCPA provisions and holds that as long as bankruptcy lawyer’s advice is not meant to abuse the system, it is considered appropriate.  Of course, a bankruptcy attorney cannot advise a client to go out and run up debt when the client has no reasonable expectation to repay it.  The decision also upheld the BAPCPA’s requirement that attorneys make certain disclosures in their advertisements and ruled that attorneys who provide bankruptcy assistance are debt relief agencies within the meaning of the law.  This requirement is the reason that whenever bankruptcy attorneys advertise their service, that sentence is included in the advertisement.

Overall, Milavetz was a positive result for bankruptcy lawyers here in Rochester, New York, and elsewhere across the country.  The Congress should not have limited bankruptcy attorneys’ ability to engage in frank and open communications with their clients and give debtors the best possible advice.

If you contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or 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 Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.

Whenever there are judgments against real property, owned by the debtor who files Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, those judgments, under appropriate circumstances, can be removed by filing 522(f) motion.  The judgment can be removed provided that the debtor’s equity in the property does not exceed $50,000.00 per single filer, or $100,000 per married couple.  The $50,000.00, otherwise known as a homestead exemption, comes from the present version of New York’s Debtor and Creditor Law.  Prior to August 30, 2005, New York’s homestead exemption was $10,000.00 per single filer, or $20,000.00 per married couple.

One issue that was not conclusively resolved in Western New York bankruptcy court was what happened in a situation where the creditor’s judgment was perfected prior to August 30, 2005.  If the judgment was perfected prior to the effective date of the increase in the homestead exemption, would the new homestead exemption or old homestead exemption would apply if the debtor filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy?

According to the United States Bankruptcy Court Judge Bucki in Buffalo, the applicable homestead exemption amount is the new $50,000.00.  In Re Calloway, Judge Bucki held that once the New York statute was amended, the homestead exemption amount became $50,000.00, and it would apply regardless of the date it was perfected.  Judge Bucki wrote that to hold otherwise, would disregard the meaning of the statute and its interpretation under New York law.  Specifically, he wrote that “C.P.L.R. § 5206 was immediately changed to provide that a homestead “not exceeding fifty thousand dollars in value above liens and encumbrances, owned and occupied as a principal residence, is exempt from application to the satisfaction of a money judgment, unless the judgment was recovered wholly for the purchase price thereof.””

Pursuant to the Debtor and Creditor Law § 282, the debtor has exercised her right to exempt her property from the bankruptcy estate.  Therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §522(f), the debtor may now avoid judgment liens that impair a homestead not exceeding $50,000 in value.

Therefore, debtor’s bankruptcy attorney does not need to be concerned with the date when the judgment was perfected.  As with most §522(f) motions, the biggest concern that a lawyer would have is the value of the property and whether debtor’s equity in it does not exceed the homestead exemption.

If you contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or 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 Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.

What happens if prior to filing for bankruptcy, the debtor gives a bad check to someone?  A bad check, Not Sufficient Funds check, or a bounced check, is usually a check which the bank will not pay because there is either no such checking account or there are insufficient funds in the account to pay the check.  In New York, writing a bad check is a misdemeanor, punishable up to 90 days in jail for the first offense.  To be charged criminally for issuing a bad check usually means that the check was issued with knowledge that it would not be paid by the bank.  If you file for bankruptcy and have bad checks outstanding it might make your bankruptcy case more complicated.  For the most part, bad check debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy, but each case is unique.

Sometimes, while the debt may be listed in the bankruptcy petition, the debtor may be charged criminally.  The bankruptcy filing, and the automatic stay associated with it, will not stop a criminal prosecution.  The automatic stay prevents any attempts to collect a debt from you which extends to creditors holding or collecting on that check. Although the automatic stay blocks all collection actions by the creditors, it  does not extend to proceedings by the State or any Federal governmental agency pursuant to its police powers.  More specifically, any criminal prosecutions which enforce criminal laws are not subject to the automatic stay of bankruptcy.  The Bankruptcy Court treats prosecutions of bad checks as criminal proceedings and not attempts to collect debt as long as the actual purpose of a bad check prosecution is to enforce criminal bad check laws.  Since a bad check prosecution isn’t meant to pressure the debtor into paying a debt that could otherwise be discharged in a bankruptcy the automatic stay of bankruptcy will have no effect on bad check prosecutions which enforce criminal law.  If the debtor is found guilty of a crime of passing a bad check, the debtor may be liable for civil restitution, which is not likely to be found dischargeable by the bankruptcy court.

If no criminal charges are filed, the situation becomes clearer.  The debt associated with a bad check is likely to be dischargeable, but its dischargeability will depend on whether there was any fraud, false pretenses, or material misrepresentations made in the actual writing of the check.  If there was no fraud or misrepresentations involved, then the debt from the bad check is usually dischargeable.

If you contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or 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 Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.