Can I Have Money in a Bank Account When I File Bankruptcy?

The two most common types of consumer bankruptcies are Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. In a Chapter 7 all of the debtor’s property is placed into an estate which is controlled by the bankruptcy trustee. While no property physically changes hands (at least not at the beginning of the case), the trustee and bankruptcy court have broad legal power over your property. If you have money in a bank account on the day you file, your bank account and money are assets of the bankruptcy estate. You are no longer free to transfer funds or assets as they now belong to the bankruptcy estate.

Take for example that you have $5,000 sitting in your checking account on the day you file bankruptcy. That money is property of the Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate and is no longer yours to control or use. If you take the $5,000 out of the bank the day after filing to pay your mortgage payment and other bills, the Chapter 7 trustee can seek to recover those funds, either from you or from the payee.

During a Chapter 13 bankruptcy the debtor retains possession and control over his or her property, and is free to use any funds in the debtor’s bank account. An accounting is performed and the debtor’s property is classified as either exempt or non-exempt. Non-exempt property is not taken from the debtor (as is often the case in a Chapter 7), but the Chapter 13 debtor is required to pay unsecured creditors a sum equal to the amount of non-exempt equity. For instance, if there is $5,000 in the debtor’s bank account, the debtor may only be able to exempt a portion of the entire sum. The non-exempt portion must be paid to the creditors through the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan (over three to five years).

Cash in a bank account can be a problematic issue for a debtor. Avoiding these problems is the joint responsibility of the debtor and the debtor’s bankruptcy attorney. Timing is critical to minimizing your financial exposure. An experienced bankruptcy attorney can help you maximize the benefits of the bankruptcy laws and navigate around any pitfalls.

When Your Town Goes Bust

Lately municipal bankruptcy has been the subject of many news features as economic troubles press cities to consider their legal options. San Diego and Los Angeles are two major cities that are reportedly considering federal bankruptcy protection.

While federal bankruptcy protection has been available to U.S. cities since the 1930’s, only a few hundred have actually filed. Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a financially distressed municipality the opportunity to reorganize its debts under federal protection. A “municipality” as defined in the Bankruptcy Code includes cities, counties, and special districts. This definition does not include states.

A Chapter 9 bankruptcy can only be commenced after the governing body specifically authorizes the filing. Twenty-six U.S. states have prohibited their municipalities from filing bankruptcy: Alaska, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Once filed the federal bankruptcy law’s automatic stay provision enjoins creditors from taking any collection action against the municipality. The automatic stay provides an opportunity for the municipality to raise new revenues, renegotiate contracts, or restructure its debt without pressure from creditors. Chapter 9 is tricky business for the bankruptcy court because the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and section 904 of the Bankruptcy Code prevents a federal bankruptcy court from interfering with the city’s political or governmental powers. The bankruptcy judge is largely a facilitator of the restructuring process.

The essence of a Chapter 9 bankruptcy is that it gives the municipality an opportunity to reorganize and restructure its debts through an agreement with its creditors called a “Plan of Adjustment.” If a creditor cannot agree with the municipality, Chapter 9 allows the bankruptcy court to force the municipality’s Plan of Adjustment on the non-consenting creditor. The bankrupt municipality is also empowered to accept or reject contracts and leases through the Plan of Adjustment.

Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy is a very rare and special bankruptcy case. The stigma and complexity of Chapter 9 makes it a last option for U.S. municipalities. However, if the debt problem is serious and substantial enough, the federal bankruptcy laws can protect a city of millions and give it a chance for a fresh start, just like it can protect an individual or family in financial distress.

Bankruptcy and Court Ordered Marital Obligations

Bankruptcy can have a serious impact on an ex-spouse. That is because a family court will often assign payment of a joint debt to one party only. In many cases the obligated party lacks the resources to pay the debt in full or to refinance it. Therefore the ex-spouse remains legally obligated to the creditor. This is often the case with automobile debt and credit cards with large balances.

A court-ordered debt to a former spouse is given special consideration by the bankruptcy laws. In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case these debts are generally non-dischargeable. An order directing payment to a third party (e.g. a mortgage payment) is also generally non-dischargeable if the payment is effectively a form of spousal support. Even an obligation to pay your ex-spouse’s attorney fees in connection with the divorce proceeding is generally non-dischargeable.

While past due support obligations are also non-dischargeable debts in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, debts not in the nature of support (e.g. a division of marital property) can be discharged. The ex-spouse must contest the debtor’s characterization of the obligation and convince the bankruptcy court that the debt is a support obligation in order to save it from discharge. If the court determines the debt is a support obligation, it must be paid by the debtor through the Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Whether the family court-ordered obligation arises from a property division or from a support obligation, the ex-spouse will likely suffer harm from the debtor’s bankruptcy filing. The sad truth is that any non-payment of a joint monthly obligation will harm the ex-spouse’s credit report and there is little that can be done to remedy it. If the debt is discharged through the debtor’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the creditor may elect to pursue the ex-spouse and there will be no recourse against the debtor.

Regardless whether you or your ex-spouse owes a court-ordered joint obligation, if bankruptcy is in the future, you should seek professional help. It is important to evaluate the impact the bankruptcy will have on the debt and determine a course of action that will best protect you. Timing can be very critical, so consult with an experienced bankruptcy attorney early.

Bankruptcy and Court Ordered Marital Obligations

Bankruptcy can have a serious impact on an ex-spouse. That is because a family court will often assign payment of a joint debt to one party only. In many cases the obligated party lacks the resources to pay the debt in full or to refinance it. Therefore the ex-spouse remains legally obligated to the creditor. This is often the case with automobile debt and credit cards with large balances.

A court-ordered debt to a former spouse is given special consideration by the bankruptcy laws. In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case these debts are generally non-dischargeable. An order directing payment to a third party (e.g. a mortgage payment) is also generally non-dischargeable if the payment is effectively a form of spousal support. Even an obligation to pay your ex-spouse’s attorney fees in connection with the divorce proceeding is generally non-dischargeable.

While past due support obligations are also non-dischargeable debts in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, debts not in the nature of support (e.g. a division of marital property) can be discharged. The ex-spouse must contest the debtor’s characterization of the obligation and convince the bankruptcy court that the debt is a support obligation in order to save it from discharge. If the court determines the debt is a support obligation, it must be paid by the debtor through the Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Whether the family court-ordered obligation arises from a property division or from a support obligation, the ex-spouse will likely suffer harm from the debtor’s bankruptcy filing. The sad truth is that any non-payment of a joint monthly obligation will harm the ex-spouse’s credit report and there is little that can be done to remedy it. If the debt is discharged through the debtor’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the creditor may elect to pursue the ex-spouse and there will be no recourse against the debtor.

Regardless whether you or your ex-spouse owes a court-ordered joint obligation, if bankruptcy is in the future, you should seek professional help. It is important to evaluate the impact the bankruptcy will have on the debt and determine a course of action that will best protect you. Timing can be very critical, so consult with an experienced bankruptcy attorney early.

Supreme Court Considers Law Limiting Bankruptcy Advice

Recently the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument concerning whether bankruptcy attorneys should be allowed to advise their clients to incur more debt before filing. Currently the law states that "debt relief agencies" are not allowed to advise clients to incur more debt in contemplation of bankruptcy. The case before the high court also questions whether attorneys are "debt relief agencies" according to the statute.

Justice Antonin Scalia said of the statute, “It’s a stupid law,” but also asked, “Where is the prohibition of stupid laws in the Constitution?”

The popular consensus is that Congress enacted this prohibition to prevent attorneys from advising their bankruptcy clients to incur debt that could be discharged in a bankruptcy. In short, that situation amounts to a fraudulent act, the debt would be determined non-dischargeable, and the attorney could be held civilly or even criminally liability.

However, the statute is not narrowly tailored to prevent this kind of abuse; it also stops bankruptcy attorneys from effectively advising honest debtors in anticipation of a bankruptcy filing. In other words, the law can prevent "bankruptcy planning." For instance, in certain circumstances it may be highly beneficial to refinance a house or car loan at a lower interest rate prior to filing bankruptcy. The current law ostensibly forbids this type of helpful advice.

The Supreme Court is now considering this case and will interpret the intent of Congress. Hopefully, the Supreme Court can make sense of "a stupid law" and bankruptcy attorneys will be able to provide full, legal, and ethical legal advice to their clients.

Supreme Court Considers Law Limiting Bankruptcy Advice

Recently the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument concerning whether bankruptcy attorneys should be allowed to advise their clients to incur more debt before filing. Currently the law states that "debt relief agencies" are not allowed to advise clients to incur more debt in contemplation of bankruptcy. The case before the high court also questions whether attorneys are "debt relief agencies" according to the statute.

Justice Antonin Scalia said of the statute, “It’s a stupid law,” but also asked, “Where is the prohibition of stupid laws in the Constitution?”

The popular consensus is that Congress enacted this prohibition to prevent attorneys from advising their bankruptcy clients to incur debt that could be discharged in a bankruptcy. In short, that situation amounts to a fraudulent act, the debt would be determined non-dischargeable, and the attorney could be held civilly or even criminally liability.

However, the statute is not narrowly tailored to prevent this kind of abuse; it also stops bankruptcy attorneys from effectively advising honest debtors in anticipation of a bankruptcy filing. In other words, the law can prevent "bankruptcy planning." For instance, in certain circumstances it may be highly beneficial to refinance a house or car loan at a lower interest rate prior to filing bankruptcy. The current law ostensibly forbids this type of helpful advice.

The Supreme Court is now considering this case and will interpret the intent of Congress. Hopefully, the Supreme Court can make sense of "a stupid law" and bankruptcy attorneys will be able to provide full, legal, and ethical legal advice to their clients.

Supreme Court Considers Law Limiting Bankruptcy Advice

Recently the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument concerning whether bankruptcy attorneys should be allowed to advise their clients to incur more debt before filing. Currently the law states that "debt relief agencies" are not allowed to advise clients to incur more debt in contemplation of bankruptcy. The case before the high court also questions whether attorneys are "debt relief agencies" according to the statute.

Justice Antonin Scalia said of the statute, “It’s a stupid law,” but also asked, “Where is the prohibition of stupid laws in the Constitution?”

The popular consensus is that Congress enacted this prohibition to prevent attorneys from advising their bankruptcy clients to incur debt that could be discharged in a bankruptcy. In short, that situation amounts to a fraudulent act, the debt would be determined non-dischargeable, and the attorney could be held civilly or even criminally liability.

However, the statute is not narrowly tailored to prevent this kind of abuse; it also stops bankruptcy attorneys from effectively advising honest debtors in anticipation of a bankruptcy filing. In other words, the law can prevent "bankruptcy planning." For instance, in certain circumstances it may be highly beneficial to refinance a house or car loan at a lower interest rate prior to filing bankruptcy. The current law ostensibly forbids this type of helpful advice.

The Supreme Court is now considering this case and will interpret the intent of Congress. Hopefully, the Supreme Court can make sense of "a stupid law" and bankruptcy attorneys will be able to provide full, legal, and ethical legal advice to their clients.

Options When You Have More Month Than Money

Many professionals, including bankruptcy attorneys, will advise a debtor who is unable to pay monthly debts to “investigate your options.” So how many “options” does a person have when there is not enough money to pay the bills? The answer is: three.

The first is the “Do Nothing” option. Debtors who engage in this option hope that by avoiding phone calls and collection letters the debt will somehow just disappear. That is the same magic that makes a two year old become invisible when she closes her eyes. Obviously if you won’t see it, the collection companies can’t see it.

The “Do Nothing” option is the worst option of all because the debt does not disappear. In fact, the debt becomes bigger with increased fees and interest. Additionally, the debt collection efforts become more aggressive and may result in harassing telephone calls to family, neighbors, or your employer. Finally, you will likely be sued, your property seized or your income garnished.

The second option is “Negotiation.” Many debtors have had positive experience with this option which may include direct negotiation with the creditor for better terms, or help through a third party like a credit counselor or an attorney. Unfortunately, many people do not realize the consequences of negotiation which may include a resulting tax debt, negative items on a credit report, increased debt through fees and default interest rates, and substantial third party fees. It is well documented by the media and state attorney generals that many debtors that attempt the Negotiation option (e.g. credit counseling, debt settlement, debt negotiation, etc.) end up in worse financial shape because they opted for debt negotiation. If you elect the Negotiation option, hire a qualified and experienced professional.

The final option is “Bankruptcy.” Many professionals describe Bankruptcy as the “final option,” but in truth it may be the best option when you cannot pay your bills. Bankruptcy can give an honest debtor breathing room to reorganize debt without the pressures from collection agencies. Bankruptcy can also legally discharge debt without increased fees or tax consequences. At the end of a bankruptcy case the debtor can go forward with a “fresh start” and new financial beginning.

If your family is struggling with more month than money, it is time to examine your options. In the end, choose the option that is best for your family. Speaking with a qualified bankruptcy attorney can answer many of your debt questions.

What is Your Financial Attitude?

A recent study by Fidelity Investments found that many young working Americans are growing more conservative in their behavior towards financial matters and employment decisions. The Fidelity Generation Y study investigated the attitudes and behaviors of more than 1,000 employed Americans ranging from 22 years to 33 years old. The Fidelity study found:

• Over 70 percent of Gen Y workers are very concerned about their finances with daily money management and budgeting as their biggest focus;
• Most Gen Y individuals are using mobile technology to stay updated on their cash flow situations;
• 41% say the economic crisis has made their generation more conservative; and
• More show a reluctance to “job hop” with one in four indicating the intent to remain with a current employer until retirement, up from 14 percent of those surveyed in early 2008;

Fidelity Investments reports that:

"The change in the mindset of young workers has been remarkable," said Brad Kimler, executive vice president of Fidelity's Consulting Services business. "Their attitudes and views toward their employer and finances are now more conservative and reflective of their parents' generation[.]”

So what is your financial attitude? Most people who go through bankruptcy emerge with a greater understanding of their monthly finances and a resolve to manage their financial life better. Most people are more conservative and careful with their finances after bankruptcy, slowly improving their credit scores and making wise decisions that lead to home ownership, retirement savings, and financial well-being.

Congress wants the bankruptcy debtor to succeed in the future. The bankruptcy laws require a debtor to go through a credit counseling session and a class on personal financial management. Surprisingly, most bankruptcy debtors are eager to take these classes.

If you are eager for a new beginning free of overwhelming debt, consult with an experienced bankruptcy attorney and consider your options for a better financial future.