county – Page 11 – Rochester Bankruptcy and Debt Relief

Student Loans Guaranteed By Parent and Bankruptcy

Recently I have been seeing a lot of debtors who have guaranteed their children’s student loans. When I am asked whether I can do something about those loans in Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy, my usual answer is no. The reason for this is that the government guaranteed student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, except in extreme hardship situations, regardless of whether the borrower is the student or the parent who guaranteed the loan. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for the student to default on the loan. In those situations, the full weight of the loan will have to be carried by the parent who guaranteed the loan. If the parent is already having difficulties paying his/her bills, this may be the final straw to push the debtor into bankruptcy.

When the debtor tells about this situation, I, as a bankruptcy lawyer cannot offer much help. Since the bankruptcy court here in Rochester has taken a position that in Chapter 13 bankruptcy the student loans will be paid, along with other unsecured creditors, pro rata, even a five year repayment plan might not reduce the loan significantly. In Chapter 7, the student loan would not be dischargeable.

As much as it pains me to say it, it is a bad idea for a parent to cosign a government guaranteed student loan. Further, parents guaranteeing the loans of their children face having student loans risk as they approach retirement. If the repayment of the loan is deferred by the student, this will keep the parents exposed to the debt until it is repaid, sometimes decades later. It entwines the two generations financially long after the student is an adult. If the parent is approaching retirement, it is not likely that the parent would have the money to pay off student loans.

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.

Discharging Income Taxes in Bankruptcy

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.

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.

Workers Compensation and Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

If you file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, what happens if you have a pending workers’ compensation claim? Generally, if you file for bankruptcy in New York, any money received as certain public benefits is usually exempt. However, workers’ compensation claims can result in significant lump-sum awards and a bankruptcy trustee may file an objection to the debtor claiming such award as exempt.

Here in Rochester, Judge Ninfo dealt with a similar situation in In re Herald, and his decision resolved these issues in Western New York. In order to resolve this issue in favor of the debtor, Judge Ninfo had to find that worker’s compensation award fell within the scope of §282.2(c) of New York’s Debtor Creditor Law, which exempts benefits received as a result of “disability, illness or unemployment benefit.”

After analyzing the legislative history of §282 of New York’s Debtor Creditor Law, Judge Ninfo concluded that the legislative intent was to exempt workers’ compensation proceeds. He further noted that in some situations this may give a debtor a head start, as opposed to a fresh start, where the debtor will receive a significant award after the bankruptcy filing, but found that any such award to be exempt nonetheless.

Thus, if you have a workers’ compensation case pending or your are receiving worker’s compensation payments, you can file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and keep the award when you receive it. It is important to tell your bankruptcy lawyer about it in advance, so that the workers’ compensation claim is listed as exempt on your bankruptcy petition.

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and Property Tax Arrears

Because most mortgages contain real estate tax escrow provisions, there are not as many Chapter 13 debtors who have unpaid real estate taxes due when they file their Chapter 13 plans as there are debtors who have mortgage arrearages. However, Chapter 13 debtors frequently do have significant unpaid real estate taxes due on their residences, and in many cases, the need to pay these unpaid real estate taxes over time in order to save their homes is one of the primary purposes of the Chapter 13 filing.

If you are filing Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and you have real property tax arrears, a typical plan will provide for a payment of such arrears in full over the life of the plan. Local municipalities, to whom such taxes are owed, will be treated as secured creditors under the plan and will receive full payment of taxes owed. In addition, any such municipality will be entitled to interest on the money owed.

Here in Rochester, local municipalities usually receive 18% interest rate on the real property tax arrears. Once the bankruptcy is filed, any such arrears will be subject to the New York State judgment interest rate of 9%. Judge Ninfo has previously addressed this issue in In re Clark, holding that the statutory rate is an appropriate post-confirmation interest rate under Section 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) to be paid.

In view of the above, a bankruptcy lawyer must make sure that the proposed plan allows for full repayment of property tax arrears, together with appropriate interest, and that the debtor is able to afford payments under the plan.

Chapter 7 and Right of Redemption

A “redemption” is provided for under Section 722 of the Bankruptcy Code and is available for Chapter 7 debtors. That provision allows an individual debtor to retain personal property when that property has been used to secure a debt. The debtor must pay the fair market value of the item to the creditor. That fair market value determines to what extent the creditor is secured. The second choice is to pay the amount of the secured creditor’s debt. The third choice is to sign a reaffirmation agreement and continue to be legally obligated on the debt again. The last choice is to surrender the item to the secured creditor. Under Section 722, a debtor may be able to get the lien released for far less than what he owes. So, for example, if you owe a creditor $10,000 on a car and the fair market value of the car is $5,000, the Bankruptcy Code allows you to pay you $5,000 to redeem the car. That amount must be paid in one lump sum to that creditor. If the creditor agrees with the value, then either the debtor or the creditor has to submit a stipulated order of redemption. If the creditor does not agree with the value, then the debtor has to file a motion for redemption, and a hearing will be set with the judge deciding what the value of the item is. There are deadlines involved in the redemption process. The debtor has to have the money to redeem the item and be able to pay the creditor, with many debtors turning to family members and friends. There are also financial institutions that offer financing in such situations.

Redemption should be considered as an option in Chapter 7, if you own a vehicle that is worth thousands of dollars less than the debt on the vehicle – in other words, you are upside down on the vehicle. It should also be considered if the debtor is behind on payments or has a spotty payment history. In Western New York, Judge Ninfo has ruled that the standard for determining the value of a motor vehicle to be redeemed under Section 722 is its wholesale value. See In re Barse. You and your lawyer should carefully examine redemption as option if there is a significant disparity between the amount owed and the property’s fair market value.

Chapter 13 and Payment of Student Loans Under the Plan

Unless the bankruptcy debtor can satisfy the daunting legal standard of “undue hardship,” student loans are not dischargeable in a bankruptcy case. However, the mere fact that student loans will not be discharged does not mean you should give up on the bankruptcy process. For a chapter 13 debtor, the question might be, how should the chapter 13 payment plan propose to treat the student loan debt?

Some attorneys try to distribute more of the debtor’s income to student loan debts than to other debts by simply inserting a provision into the chapter 13 plan which says that the debtor will continue to pay the student loan out of his or her own pocket, rather than have the chapter 13 trustee pay toward the student loan. This would have the important advantage of paying more (usually) toward the student loan than would be paid if the trustee made the payments from the plan.

The presumptive authority for paying a student loan “outside the plan” is contained in the bankruptcy law’s section 1322(b)(5). This section permits the maintaining of payments on any debt where the last regularly scheduled payment is due after the final chapter 13 plan payment is due. Section 1322(b) reads as follows:

(b) Subject to subsections (a) and (c) of this section, the plan may–

designate a class or classes of unsecured claims, as provided in section 1121 of this title, but may not discriminate unfairly against any class so designated; however, such plan may treat claims for a consumer debt of the debtor if an individual is liable on such consumer debt with the debtor differently than other unsecured claims;
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;
provide for the curing or waiving of any default;
provide for payments on any unsecured claim to be made concurrently with payments on any secured claim or any other unsecured claim;
notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, provide for the curing of any default within a reasonable time and maintenance of payments while the case is pending on any unsecured claim or secured claim on which the last payment is due after the date on which the final payment under the plan is due;

Section 1322(b) allows the chapter 13 debtor to continue making student loan payments directly to the creditor, much the same as the debtor would continue paying his mortgage payments, assuming that the bankruptcy trustee agrees with this interpretation and the bankruptcy court confirms it. However, here in Rochester, the Chapter 13 trustee disagrees with this interpretation of the statute and, instead, takes a position that the student loans should be paid pro-rata as other unsecured creditors. The trustee’s position is based on the argument that making full student loan payments, while in Chapter 13, treats student loan lenders better than other unsecured creditors and, in fact, does so at their expense. While Judge Ninfo has not written on this issue, I think that he would agree with the trustee’s position. Thus, it is critical to discuss these issues with a bankruptcy lawyer prior to the filing.

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.