Rochester Bankruptcy and Debt Relief

One question that I am often asked is whether the unsecured second or third mortgage on the property owned by the debtor can be stripped in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.  In Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, the unsecured second mortgage can be stripped by bringing a Ponds motion.

Unfortunately, in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, the unsecured second or third mortgage cannot be stripped.  In a recent decision which also applies to the bankruptcy cases in Rochester, New York,  In re Grano, the Buffalo Bankruptcy Judge Bucki held that in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy cases, the debtors cannot avoid wholly unsecured second or third mortgages.

Joseph and Ann Grano owned a residence in the Town of Amherst, New York.  After filing a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy petition, they commenced the adversary proceeding against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to avoid a second mortgage.  In their complaint, they alleged that their real estate has a current fair market value of $445,000 and that it is encumbered by two mortgages: a first lien with an outstanding principal balance of $511,000, and the second mortgage of Wells Fargo with a balance of $95,837.60.

Granos asserted that they can avoid the second mortgage pursuant to the authority of 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) and (d).  In lieu of an answer, Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.  In relevant part, section 506(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code states that “[a]n allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest . . . is a secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property . . . and is an unsecured claim to the extent that the value of such creditor’s interest . . . is less than the amount of such allowed claim.” Asserting that the first mortgage secures a debt greater than the value of the property, the debtors argue that in its status as a second mortgagee, Wells Fargo retains only an unsecured claim.  Subject to exceptions not here present, 11 U.S.C. § 506(d) states that “[t]o the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void.” In reliance upon this later subdivision, the debtors commenced their  adversary proceeding to avoid the second mortgage of Wells Fargo.

In Dewsnup, the Supreme Court accepted the position of the secured creditor, that “the words ‘allowed secured claim’ in §506(d) need not be read as an indivisible term of art defined by reference to § 506(a).”  Instead, the language of section 506(d) “should be read term-by-term to refer to any claim that is, first, allowed, and, second, secured.  Because there is no question that the claim at issue here has been ‘allowed’ pursuant to §502 of the Code and is secured by a lien with recourse to the underlying collateral, it does not come within the scope of §506(d), which voids only liens  corresponding to claims that have not been allowed and secured.” 502 U.S.at 415.  Effectively, therefore, the Supreme Court refused to recognize section 506(d) as a grant of authority to a debtor in Chapter 7 to “strip-down” or cancel the lien of an undersecured mortgage.

In contrast to Chapter 7, debtors in Chapter 13 may assert rights under special statutory provisions for the treatment of secured claims.  Specifically, 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) provides that a Chapter 13 plan may “modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence, or of holders of unsecured claims, or leave unaffected the rights of holders of any class of claims.” InNobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324 (1993), the Supreme Court held that the language of section 1322(b)(2) precluded the bifurcation of an undersecured homestead mortgage into secured and unsecured claims. Consequently, to the extent that a homestead has value to collateralize any portion of a mortgage, a chapter 13 plan must treat that lien as fully secured.  However, in In re Pond, 252 F.3d 122 (2001), the Second Circuit distinguished those circumstances where the homestead lacks equity to collateralize any portion of an inferior lien. In this special circumstance, because the lien is wholly unsecured, the debtors “are not ‘holders of . . . a claim secured only by a security interest in . . . the debtor’s principal residence,’ 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2), and their rights in the lien are not protected under the antimodification exception of Section 1322(b)(2).” 252 F.3d at 127.

In the present instance, Mr. and Mrs. Grano contended that this court should adopt for Chapter 7 the same exception that the Second Circuit has recognized for cases in Chapter 13, to the effect of permitting the avoidance of secondary liens that are totally undercollateralized. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the unique statutory predicate of Chapter 13.  In allowing a debtor in Chapter 13 to avoid a fully unsecured homestead mortgage, the decision in In re Pond utilized the authority of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2). No parallel provision applies in Chapter 7.  The court concluded that notwithstanding the absence of equity beyond superior liens, the debtors may not avoid the second mortgage of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

This decision forces the debtors and their bankruptcy lawyer to engage in a cost benefit analysis in a situation where there is a wholly unsecured second or mortgage.  Assuming the debtors can file either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, the benefit of filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and discharging all unsecured debt, should be compared to the benefit of a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy plan payments over 5 years, and a likely discharge of the unsecured second or third mortgage.  Assuming the debtors wish to retain their residence, the comparison of two figures should point them in the right direction.

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.

In Chapter 13 bankruptcies, it is not uncommon to see situations where the debtor, who owns a home, has both a first and a second mortgage, or even a third mortgage on that home.  In today’s real estate market, it is not uncommon for those mortgages to exceed the value of the home by a significant amount.  Since the secured debt must be paid in full in Chapter 13 bankruptcy, does it make sense for the debtor to greatly overpay the value of that home? The bankruptcy law offers us a solution for those situations.  Debtor’s bankrutcy lawyer can bring a “Pond” motion.  The motion is named after a decision, In re Pond, 252 F.3d 122 (2nd Cir. 2001).

A Pond motion is a motion made in a chapter 13 Bankruptcy case where the debtor owns and lives (as his or her primary residence) in a residence which has a second mortgage and the value of the house is less than the amount owed on the first mortgage, as of the date the debtor files his or her Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.  If the motion is successful, the second mortgage will be treated as unsecured debt, removing its secured status. As a result, the amount owed to the second mortgage company gets treated like any other unsecured debt, and paid, in most Chapter 13 bankruptcies, pro rata. If the debtor is paying 50% of his unsecured debt through the Chapter 13 plan, it means that the amount paid on the second mortgage will be 50% of the amount owed.  Once the debtor obtains his or her discharge the remainder of the second mortgage debt is no longer owed.

Here in Rochester, Judge Ninfo has written a number of decisions addressing Pond motions.  One critical issue associated with Pond motions is valuation of the real estate.  In In re Dzenziel, the central issue presented to the court was whether the valuation of the property would make the second mortgage unsecured.

The debtors brought their Pond motion, alleging that their residence had a value of $99,047, and the balance due on the first mortgage was $99,813.97 as of their most recent mortgage statement.  Since the balance due on the first mortgage exceeded the value of the residence, the debtors asserted that the second mortgage was totally unsecured on the date they filed their Chapter 13 petition.  Because the second mortgagor disputed the debtor’s valuation of the property, the court conducted a trial on the Pond motion.

Testimony at trial indicated that the debtors originally purchased the property for $101,000 when the property had been appraised at $111,000. The debtors reported that when they obtained the second mortgage in 1999, the property had been appraised at $180,000.  The competing real estate appraisers testified respectively that the value of the property was either between $97,808 and $100,285 (adjusted to $99,047), or  $120,000.

Analyzing the Pond decision, Judge Ninfo wrote, “If there is no equity in a debtor’s residence after accounting for other encumbrances that have priority over a mortgage lien, so that the mortgage lien is not even partially secured, the lien can be avoided and the mortgage debt treated as unsecured.”  The court further stated that the burden falls upon the debtor to demonstrate that there is not even $1 of value over prior valid liens to support the mortgage lien that is to be avoided.  The court also held that the debtor’s burden of proof is higher when “it appears that there was equity available for the mortgage … at the time it was executed; the alleged value deficiency may have been created in part because of a debtor’s failure to make payments on superior mortgages… and [if] the alleged value deficiency is not substantial….”
Reviewing the evidence presented, the court determined that the property has a value of at least $100,000, which does exceed the balance due on the first mortgage, and based upon relevant testimony, the property probably has a value between $120,000 to $145,000.  Judge Ninfo concluded that  the debtors have not met their burden to demonstrate that there is no value over prior liens that would enable the court to avoid the second mortgage and denied the motion.

The above demonstrates that valuation of property is critical in those situations where the debtor has an opportunity to convert second mortgage to unsecured debt.  The bankruptcy lawyer would do well to use a reputable real estate appraiser and be prepared to conduct a hearing to substantiate the property’s value.

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 lawyer.

One of the limitations on receiving a discharge in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is that the debtor cannot discharge any debt for willful or malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code precludes the discharge of a debt “for willful and malicious injury.” As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Kawaahua v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61 (1998), the “word ‘willful’ in (a)(6) modifies the word ‘injury,’ indicating that nondischargeability takes a deliberate or intentional injury, not merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury.” For the same reason, nondischargeability under this section will attach only to injuries that are malicious. In the Second Circuit, the Court of Appeals set the standard for “willful and malicious injury” in its decision in Navistar Financial Corp. v. Stelluti (In re Stelluti), 94 F.3d 84 (1996). The Court concluded that “[t]he term ‘willful’ in this context means ‘deliberate or intentional,’” and that “[t]he term ‘malicious’ means wrongful and without just cause or excuse, even in the absence of personal hatred, spite, or ill-will.” Id. at 87 (citations omitted).

In a recent case, In re Alessi, Judge Bucki held that the deliberate failure to abide by the terms of the contract, amounted to willful and malicious injury. In Alessi, the debtor, Mrs. Alessi,  not only failed to pay a debt, but a failure to pay from funds that the debtor had agreed specifically to earmark for that purpose. The uncontroverted facts showed that the funds resulting from a real estate transaction were accessible and not otherwise encumbered, that the debtor knew of her obligation to turnover the funds, and that through his counsel, Mr. Alessi made timely demand for payment, even though not obligated to do so. The resulting injury was willful, in that Ms. Alessi deliberately and intentionally refused to turn over the sale proceeds. By violating a contractual provision for use of committed funds, Amy Alessi inflicted a wrongful financial loss without just cause or excuse. Hence, she caused an injury that was malicious within the meaning of section 523(a)(6).

Thus, if you are a debtor, you may have an obligation to follow through on the contracts where the funds are specifically designated for a given purpose.  If you fail to do so, you may be denied a discharge.

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.

There are four general requirements for discharging an income tax in bankruptcy. Initially, the tax must be one for which the return was not last due within three years of the filing of the bankruptcy. Therefore, if a 2006 income tax return was last due on April 15, 2007, the three-year requirement would be met after April 15, 2010.

The “last due” requirement may be complicated by the debtor’s actions. If the debtor requests and receives an extension, the three-year clock starts after the last extension. See In re Wood, 866 F.2d 1367 (11th Cir. 1989). The three-year period is also tolled during the time when the taxing authority is barred from collecting the debt because of a prior bankruptcy.

The second requirement is known as the 240-day rule. For an income tax to be dischargeable, it must not have been assessed with 240 days of the filing of the bankruptcy. When a tax is assessed is sometimes complicated and depends on the practices of the federal or state taxing authority. For federal taxes, the I.R.S. regulations state that “the date of the assessment is the date the summary record is signed by an assessment officer.” This is not the same time as when the return is filed. However, when a return is timely filed, the assessment date is usually around the time a return is filed.

A debtor will know that a tax has been assessed when they are notified by the taxing authority of the tax claim. The exact date of assessment of a federal tax can be obtain by requesting and analyzing a debtor’s tax transcript.

Another related requirement is that, to be discharged in a bankruptcy, an income must not be not yet assessed but be assessable at the time that the bankruptcy is filed. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a), tax liability must be assessed within “three years after the return was filed….” Therefore, even if a tax has not yet been assessed for some reason at the time a bankruptcy case is filed, and the case postdates the applicable return by three years, this requirement for dischargeability will met.

The third requirement relates to the timing of when the return is filed.  If a return is filed late, it cannot not be filed within two years of a bankruptcy for the tax to be discharged. Under this rule, amended returns are treated as original filed returns. Also, if the debtor provides to the IRS with correspondence containing financial statements with all the information needed to complete a return, this can also be deemed to be a return. The two-year period begins once the taxing authority actually receives the return, and not when the return is mailed, as is the case with timely-filed returns.

The final requirement is the following.  The return must be filed. A substitute return filed by a taxing authority on behalf of a taxpayer is not considered a return for these purposes. There is, however, a split of authority on whether a return filed by a debtor after a substitute return is filed can is considered a return for this test. The return must not be fraudulent and the debtor must not have attempted to evade the tax.

Tax evasion is generally rare and courts disagree on what is deemed to constitute tax evasion for purposes of this test. Tax evasion is found usually in situations where a debtor is hiding assets, constructing complicated transactions for tax purposes, or making false and misleading statements to avoid tax. However, evasion has also been found to exist in some cases in which a debtor has simply not paid a tax while having the ability to do so.

If you have pending tax liabilities, and you believe that you can satisfy all or some of the above requirements, you should meet with a bankruptcy lawyer to determine whether a Chapter 7 bankruptcy will result in a discharge of some or all of your tax liabilities.

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.

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.

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.

If a creditor obtains a judgment against a debtor, that judgment, if filed, becomes a lien against any real property owned by the debtor.  Any such judgment lien against real property can be removed from the property, if the lien impairs an exemption you claim in your bankruptcy.  In New York State, you can only remove a judgment lien against your personal residence.  Debtor’s bankruptcy attorney usually files a motion pursuant to section 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Code.  A typical motion includes a number of attachments such as a copy of the deed, mortgage, current mortgage statement, a recent appraisal of the property, and copies of the judgment filed in the local County Clerk’s office.

Typically,  the debtor is faced with the following situation.  The debtor owns a home with the total equity of less that New York’s homestead exemption, which is currently $50,000 for a single debtor and $100,000 for a married couple filing jointly.   What a $50,000 homestead exemption means is that the debtor can have up to $50,000 of equity in the residence ($100,000 for a married couple) and your home will not be taken or threatened by the bankruptcy trustee or other creditors.   If there are judgments against the debtor, they are viewed as impairing debtor’s exemption in the property and gives the debtor the right to remove them.

If you do not own a residence when you file your bankruptcy, you cannot set aside the judgment in the County Clerk’s office, but the underlying debts are discharged.  This may become a a problem if you purchase (or inherit) real property after your bankruptcy.  In that situation, even though there is no actual lien against the newly acquired property, it may appear that there is to someone searching the Clerk’s office.  This is because they will see a judgment against you, and they will see that you own the property.  Without knowing about the intervening bankruptcy and the discharge of the debt that underlies the judgment, they could draw the conclusion that the judgment was in fact a lien against the property.

The problem often surfaces if there comes a time that you want to borrow against, or refinance the property.  Most lenders are sophisticated enough to recognize that any pre-bankruptcy judgments are usually discharged and a typical judgment search, or a title search, in Monroe County will include a check of the Bankruptcy Court’s records.  It is also the reason to keep a copy of your discharge after the bankruptcy so that the lender can have easy verification that the bankruptcy resulted in a discharge.

If you are dealing with debt problems in 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 bankruptcy attorney.

You have filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  You and your lawyer went to the meeting of the creditors.  Everything seemed to be in order.  Then your lawyer calls you, and tells you that one of your creditors has filed an adversary proceeding in your Chapter 7 case, objecting to discharge of its debt.  So what exactly is taking place?

If a creditor determines that an objection with respect to discharge of its debt is warranted, the creditor will file an Objection to Discharge of its particular debt.  This filing begins what is known as an adversarial proceeding in the bankruptcy court.  An adversarial proceeding is simply a law suit within the bankruptcy, seeking to declare a particular debt as non-dischargeable.  The debtor responds to the complaint, evidence is gathered and supplied to both sides, and a hearing is held in front of the bankruptcy judge who decides the case.  Here in Rochester, Hon. John C. Ninfo, II, would hear the case.  Typically, neither the bankruptcy trustee nor the U.S. Trustee are involved in the adversarial proceeding.

A creditor may object to the discharge of its debt in a number of different situations.  An unsecured creditor may object using Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, which contains several different types of non-dischargeable debt.  The debt under that section may not be dischargeable because it is: (1) $500 owing to a single creditor for the purchase of “luxury” goods within 90 days prior to filing of the bankruptcy; (2) $750 owing to a single creditor for a cash advance (i.e. balance transfers are cash advances) obtained within 70 days prior to filing of the bankruptcy; or (3) for money obtained under false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud.  There are also additional reasons to declare a debt non-dischargeable.

With respect to situations (1) and (2), the applicable rules are known as  as the per-se rules.  That means that the creditor need not prove debtor’s intent (i.e. fraud), and needs to show only that the transactions meet the criteria stated.  Situation (3) means that the debtor made the charges/cash advances knowing that he/she was going to file bankruptcy, or made the charges/cash advances while insolvent and/or could not have had a reasonable expectation to pay back the debt, or made false representations in obtaining credit resulting in the debt he/she is trying to discharge at this time.

If the creditor is successful in having a debt declared non-dischargeable, the debtor will owe that debt until it is paid, with all accumulating interest,  and the debtor can never discharge that debt.

The following is a brief description of procedural issues applicable to the objections.  The complaint must be filed on or before 60 days from the first date set for the creditors meeting (also know as 341 meeting).  Typically, a creditor has less than 90 days after receiving notice of the bankruptcy case to file a complaint.  A creditor must act promptly to determine there are grounds to object to discharge.

Even if a creditor files an objection to discharge of its debt, the rest of the bankruptcy will proceed normally.  The debtor will recieve the discharge on time, and most of the time, the discharge will be received before the hearing in the adversarial proceeding.

Once the adversarial proceeding is filed, the debtor has a number of options with respect to the creditor’s claim.  The debtor can agree to repay all or a portion of the debt by signing a reaffirmation agreement.  A typical reaffirmation agreement results in the debtor paying 50% of the debt over 12-18 months.  The next option is fighting the objection.  The debtor will have to be able to either fight the objection on his/her own or pay an additional retainer to the attorney to fight the claim.

The way that a creditor proves its case, is by showing to the court that the debtor was in financial distress at the time the objectionable transactions were made.  Therefore, the debtor’s financial history will be disclosed through the discovery process, usually for a period of 12 months prior to the challenged transaction, and from the date of the transaction to the date of filing.  Since an adversarial proceeding is a civil matter, both parties may call witnesses, and the debtor may be called to testify by either side.  A creditor’s theory of the case in an adversarial proceeding is usually that no reasonable person could have expected to be able to pay off the debt, at the time that debt was taken out.

If the creditor wins, a judgment is entered, declaring the debt non-dischargable.  This judgment can ultimately be used in New York State court, or elsewhere, to obtain a  money judgment that can then be used to garnish wages, restrain bank accounts or conduct other collection activities.  That judgment will not be dischargeable in any subsequent bankrupcies and can only be extinguished by payment or by New York’s statute of limitations, presently 20 years.  Even if the creditor prevails, the debtor is not responsible for the creditor’s attorney’s fees and costs.

If the debtor wins, the debt is discharged, and, under appropriate circumstances, the creditor will have to pay debtor’s attorney’s fees and costs.

Thus, if an adversarial proceeding is brought, the debtor must choose between either settling or fighting.  The cost to defend an adversarial proceding is usually substantial.  Therefore, it should be compared to the cost of settling the case.  If the proposed settlement reduces the debt and the payments are affordable, especially if the settlement amount is less than the cost to defend, the debtor should consider settlement.

If you are dealing with debt problems in 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.

On occasion, a divorce may result in one or both of the parties filing for bankruptcy, often without an adequate understanding of the limited relief available in the bankruptcy court. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (”BAPCPA”) directly addressed issues related to the dischargeability of marital debt and support obligations, as well as to the effect of the automatic stay on collection and enforcement proceedings out of divorce and family law litigation.  Under BAPCPA, domestic support obligations (usually alimony, child support and property distribution) are given priority over almost every other creditor.

Under bankruptcy law, a “domestic support obligation” is any debt incurred before or after a bankruptcy filing that is owed to or recoverable by a spouse, former spouse, child or governmental unit; in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support; and established pursuant to the terms of a divorce decree, separation agreement, property settlement agreement, court order or administrative determination.

In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, essentially all marital and domestic relations obligations are not dischargeable, regardless of whether they are support in nature, property divisions or “hold harmless” agreements, provided they were incurred by the debtor in the course of a matrimonial proceeding or a divorce action which resulted in a separation agreement, divorce decree, court order or administrative determination.

A debtor’s obligation to pay marital debts directly to a third party ( ie., pay the mortgage on former marital residence) and to hold the former spouse harmless on said debts is also deemed to be non-dischargeable if the obligation has the effect of providing support to the former spouse. A debtor’s duty to pay the following expenses are usually deemed to be in the nature of support and not dischargeable: educational expenses of a minor child; medical insurance coverage for a minor child; and life insurance, with the minor children as beneficiaries.

Attorney’s fees owed by debtor to his own lawyer are clearly dischargeable in bankruptcy, but as a general rule, attorney’s fees owed by debtor to a former spouse’s attorney are not dischargeable, if the underlying legal proceeding resulted in the entry of an order or judgment directing payment of maintenance or spousal support to the former spouse.

The division of a debtor’s pension benefits during the divorce action is usually accomplished by entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (”QDRO”). Since division of a pension is considered to be a transfer by debtor of a present interest in his pension, and as such, it is not a debt that can be discharged in bankruptcy.

If there are assets in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and you owe any domestic support obligations (alimony, child support, that sort of thing) to your spouse, former spouse or child, the trustee will pay that first.  Next, the trustee will pay any domestic support obligation owed to a governmental unit.

In Chapter 13 bankruptcy, past due domestic support obligations owed by a debtor are not dischargeable, unless they are paid in full over the life of the Chapter 13 plan. However, if a debt created by a separation agreement or judgment of divorce is not in the nature of support, it sometimes can be discharged in Chapter 13 without being paid in full.

For a Chapter 13 Plan to be confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court, it must: pay in full to the former spouse all domestic support obligations owed by debtor at the time of the bankruptcy filing, and the debtor must be current on all domestic support obligations incurred after the bankruptcy filing.  Past due support obligations are generally required to be paid in full through the debtor’s plan but an exception can be made if the creditor agrees.  Support debts have a first priority, meaning they are paid before other kinds of priority debts, like taxes.

A Chapter 13 Plan, even if confirmed by the bankruptcy court, is subject to dismissal if the debtor fails to pay any post-petition or post-confirmation domestic support obligations, and a Chapter 13 discharge will not be entered by the bankruptcy court unless and until a debtor certifies that all domestic support obligations have been paid and that the debtor is current on such obligations.

The automatic stay created by a bankruptcy filing bars the commencement or continuation of most legal proceedings, but it has no effect on a proceeding to establish paternity; to establish or modify a child support order, determine child custody or visitation issues, or dissolve a marriage, except to the extent that such proceeding may seek to determine a division of marital property in which the bankruptcy estate also has an interest. In those situations, the divorce can be granted without first obtaining relief from the automatic stay, but the marital property cannot be divided without obtaining such relief.

The automatic stay also does not prevent the post-petition collection of domestic support obligations such as alimony or child support from any property belonging to the debtor, providing that the bankruptcy estate does not also have an interest in the same property; from automatic wage deduction orders created by a statute or judicial or administrative order; from the interception of debtor’s federal or state income tax refunds, or
from the withholding, suspension or restriction of a debtor’s driver’s license or professional or occupational license. Therefore, Bankruptcy Court does not offer much protection for someone seeking to avoid the domestic support obligations.

The above rules will apply to the proceedings in New York State courts. In Ross v. Sperow, 57 A.D.3d 1255 (3rd Dept. 2008), the Appellate Division had to address a situation where one of the parties was seeking to enforce a counsel fee award after the other party filed for bankruptcy. In Ross, multiple violation petitions had been filed by the parties over the course of several years. In August 2006, Family Court upheld mother’s motion for attorneys fees and directed father to pay $5,000 of the mother’s attorneys fees. Father filed for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy thereafter, and listed the award of attorneys fees as an unsecured debt. Father’s bankruptcy was discharged in January 2007. Mother brought a violation petition which alleged that father failed to pay the attorneys fees.  Father moved to dismiss petition on ground that he discharged counsel fee award in bankruptcy. The Appellate Division stated that state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over issue of dischargabilityof a particular debt and held that domestic support obligations in the nature of support are exempt from discharge in bankruptcy. While father contended that counsel fees incurred were for custody and visitation proceeding, the record reveals that mother’s initial petition commencing the proceeding raised issues of financial need and hardship.  According to the Appellate Division, term “in the nature of support” is broadly interpreted in the context of discharge of debt obligations in bankruptcy and held that the award of counsel fees was in part in the nature of support, and as such, exempt from discharge in bankruptcy.

It is very important for your bankruptcy lawyer to be aware of any outstanding domestic support obligations if you are filing for bankruptcy.  Here in Rochester, bankruptcy trustees routinely ask during the meeting of creditors (also known as 341 meeting), if the debtor has a domestic support obligation.  If there is a domestic support obligation, the bankruptcy trustee will want to know to whom such obligation is payable, will ask the debtor to provide the claimant’s address and telephone number, and will inquire if the debtor is current on his or her post-petition domestic support obligations.

If you are dealing with debt problems in 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.