While working on the electric light bulb Thomas Edison was asked by a reporter, “How does it feel to have failed seven hundred times?”
Edison replied, “I have not failed seven hundred times. I have not failed once. I have succeeded in proving those seven hundred ways will not work. When I have eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will work.”
As businessman Harvey Mackay says, “Failure is an attitude, not an outcome.”
When a person makes a decision to file bankruptcy, the decision is largely based on a recognition that something hasn’t worked and changes need to be made. Fortunately, the bankruptcy laws provide the tools to make those financial changes. Through bankruptcy you can have a fresh start at a new financial life without the burdens of overwhelming debt. The Supreme Court has stated many times that “[t]he principal purpose of the Bankruptcy Code is to grant a ‘fresh start’ to the honest but unfortunate debtor.” Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts.
Does the fresh start work? Yes! A study by the Executive Office of the United States Trustee found that “[m]ost chapter 7 debtors have a substantial negative net worth at filing, but have a small positive net worth after discharge.” Bankruptcy works to put you on the right financial track with the hope for a better tomorrow.
A Chapter 7 bankruptcy releases the debtor from personal liability for certain types of debts. Unsecured debts (usually the most burdensome type like high interest credit card debt and medical bills) are discharged by the bankruptcy case without payment. The discharge is a court-ordered injunction that prohibits your creditors from collecting from you in the future. The creditor can no longer call, write, or take any collection action against you.
If you are ready for a fresh start, speak with an experienced bankruptcy attorney and discover how the federal bankruptcy laws can help. An experienced bankruptcy attorney can explain your legal options and help you find a way that works for a bright financial future.
Showing posts with label United States Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States Supreme Court. Show all posts
Friday, March 26, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Loading Up on Debt Prior to Bankruptcy
For most, the decision to file a bankruptcy is a tough choice. It is the final step in a long journey that has included great compromise and sacrifice. A person usually experiences a sense relief when deciding to file bankruptcy, and there may be a tendency to "let go" of your debt problem. Unfortunately, in some cases people will “let go” by recklessly spending money and running up credit card balances.
It is generally not a good idea to incur any new debt before a bankruptcy filing. The Bankruptcy Code has several provisions prohibiting the debtor from loading up on debt prior to filing bankruptcy. One of the most commonly cited is a spending spree prohibition against purchasing “luxury goods or services” totaling more than $550.00 within 90 days prior to filing a bankruptcy case. Another provision makes credit card cash advances presumptively non-dischargeable if taken within 70 days prior to the bankruptcy filing.
Recently the United States Supreme Court in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. A. v. United States reiterated that incurring new debt before bankruptcy with the intent to discharge the debt is not only prohibited, but may also amount to civil fraud or a criminal act. The high court said that bankruptcy attorneys cannot instruct or encourage debtors to take on more dischargeable debt before bankruptcy, but attorneys “remain free to talk fully and candidly about the incurrence of debt in contemplation of filing a bankruptcy case.”
There are many situations where taking on additional debt is beneficial and permissible. The Supreme Court cited three of those situations in the Milavetz opinion: (1) refinancing a mortgage; (2) purchasing a reliable car; and (3) incurring “additional debt to buy groceries, pay medical bills, or make other purchases ‘reasonably necessary for the support or maintenance of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor[.]’”
The bankruptcy process can relieve you of many financial worries. However, your path to financial recovery can be complicated without the sound advice from an experienced bankruptcy attorney. Don’t make any significant financial decisions prior to filing bankruptcy without consulting your attorney.
It is generally not a good idea to incur any new debt before a bankruptcy filing. The Bankruptcy Code has several provisions prohibiting the debtor from loading up on debt prior to filing bankruptcy. One of the most commonly cited is a spending spree prohibition against purchasing “luxury goods or services” totaling more than $550.00 within 90 days prior to filing a bankruptcy case. Another provision makes credit card cash advances presumptively non-dischargeable if taken within 70 days prior to the bankruptcy filing.
Recently the United States Supreme Court in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. A. v. United States reiterated that incurring new debt before bankruptcy with the intent to discharge the debt is not only prohibited, but may also amount to civil fraud or a criminal act. The high court said that bankruptcy attorneys cannot instruct or encourage debtors to take on more dischargeable debt before bankruptcy, but attorneys “remain free to talk fully and candidly about the incurrence of debt in contemplation of filing a bankruptcy case.”
There are many situations where taking on additional debt is beneficial and permissible. The Supreme Court cited three of those situations in the Milavetz opinion: (1) refinancing a mortgage; (2) purchasing a reliable car; and (3) incurring “additional debt to buy groceries, pay medical bills, or make other purchases ‘reasonably necessary for the support or maintenance of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor[.]’”
The bankruptcy process can relieve you of many financial worries. However, your path to financial recovery can be complicated without the sound advice from an experienced bankruptcy attorney. Don’t make any significant financial decisions prior to filing bankruptcy without consulting your attorney.
Loading Up on Debt Prior to Bankruptcy
For most, the decision to file a bankruptcy is a tough choice. It is the final step in a long journey that has included great compromise and sacrifice. A person usually experiences a sense relief when deciding to file bankruptcy, and there may be a tendency to "let go" of your debt problem. Unfortunately, in some cases people will “let go” by recklessly spending money and running up credit card balances.
It is generally not a good idea to incur any new debt before a bankruptcy filing. The Bankruptcy Code has several provisions prohibiting the debtor from loading up on debt prior to filing bankruptcy. One of the most commonly cited is a spending spree prohibition against purchasing “luxury goods or services” totaling more than $550.00 within 90 days prior to filing a bankruptcy case. Another provision makes credit card cash advances presumptively non-dischargeable if taken within 70 days prior to the bankruptcy filing.
Recently the United States Supreme Court in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. A. v. United States reiterated that incurring new debt before bankruptcy with the intent to discharge the debt is not only prohibited, but may also amount to civil fraud or a criminal act. The high court said that bankruptcy attorneys cannot instruct or encourage debtors to take on more dischargeable debt before bankruptcy, but attorneys “remain free to talk fully and candidly about the incurrence of debt in contemplation of filing a bankruptcy case.”
There are many situations where taking on additional debt is beneficial and permissible. The Supreme Court cited three of those situations in the Milavetz opinion: (1) refinancing a mortgage; (2) purchasing a reliable car; and (3) incurring “additional debt to buy groceries, pay medical bills, or make other purchases ‘reasonably necessary for the support or maintenance of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor[.]’”
The bankruptcy process can relieve you of many financial worries. However, your path to financial recovery can be complicated without the sound advice from an experienced bankruptcy attorney. Don’t make any significant financial decisions prior to filing bankruptcy without consulting your attorney.
It is generally not a good idea to incur any new debt before a bankruptcy filing. The Bankruptcy Code has several provisions prohibiting the debtor from loading up on debt prior to filing bankruptcy. One of the most commonly cited is a spending spree prohibition against purchasing “luxury goods or services” totaling more than $550.00 within 90 days prior to filing a bankruptcy case. Another provision makes credit card cash advances presumptively non-dischargeable if taken within 70 days prior to the bankruptcy filing.
Recently the United States Supreme Court in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. A. v. United States reiterated that incurring new debt before bankruptcy with the intent to discharge the debt is not only prohibited, but may also amount to civil fraud or a criminal act. The high court said that bankruptcy attorneys cannot instruct or encourage debtors to take on more dischargeable debt before bankruptcy, but attorneys “remain free to talk fully and candidly about the incurrence of debt in contemplation of filing a bankruptcy case.”
There are many situations where taking on additional debt is beneficial and permissible. The Supreme Court cited three of those situations in the Milavetz opinion: (1) refinancing a mortgage; (2) purchasing a reliable car; and (3) incurring “additional debt to buy groceries, pay medical bills, or make other purchases ‘reasonably necessary for the support or maintenance of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor[.]’”
The bankruptcy process can relieve you of many financial worries. However, your path to financial recovery can be complicated without the sound advice from an experienced bankruptcy attorney. Don’t make any significant financial decisions prior to filing bankruptcy without consulting your attorney.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Oh, Those Misbehaving Debt Collectors
When Congress passed the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”) it stated that its purpose is “to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors[.]” Congress cited the need for consumer protection because of the “abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.”
Abusive debt collection practices are just bad news.
On February 22, 2010, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on a FDCPA case: Kay v. Gonzales, U.S., No. 09-542. In that case the Plaintiff, Jose Gonzalez, received a letter from the Kay Law Firm. The letter, written on law firm letterhead and unsigned, told Gonzalez, “Please be advised that your account, as referenced above, is being handled by this office.” On the back of the letter was this statement: “At this point in time, no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account.” Gonzalez sued the Kay Law Firm for violating the FDCPA which prohibits debt collectors from falsely representing or implying that the debt collector is an attorney or that the communication is from an attorney.
The federal district court found that the disclaimer was sufficient to notify Gonzalez that the collection matter was not being handled by an attorney and the Gonzalez’s case was dismissed. On appeal the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the letter’s disclaimer on the back was mixed in with “legalese” which may not be sufficient to notify the consumer of the attorney’s non-involvement in the case. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court dismissal and remanded the case for trial. Gonzalez v. Kay, No. 08-20544 (5th Cir., 2009). Now that the Supreme Court has denied the Kay Law Firm’s appeal, Mr. Gonzalez will have his day in court.
The Fifth Circuit in its opinion cites the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for why it is important to protect against this type of deceptive collection practice:
“An unsophisticated consumer, getting a letter from an ‘attorney,’ knows the price of poker has just gone up. And that clearly is the reason why the dunning campaign escalates from the collection agency, which might not strike fear in the heart of the consumer, to the attorney, who is better positioned to get the debtor’s knees knocking.”
Avila v. Rubin, 84 F.3d 222, 229 (7th Cir. 1996).
If you receive a collection letter from a law firm, speak to an experienced bankruptcy attorney and learn your rights. Bankruptcy attorneys are trained in matters of debt defense and can help explain your rights under the FDCPA and the federal bankruptcy laws. Don’t let an unscrupulous debt collector get your “knees knocking.”
Abusive debt collection practices are just bad news.
On February 22, 2010, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on a FDCPA case: Kay v. Gonzales, U.S., No. 09-542. In that case the Plaintiff, Jose Gonzalez, received a letter from the Kay Law Firm. The letter, written on law firm letterhead and unsigned, told Gonzalez, “Please be advised that your account, as referenced above, is being handled by this office.” On the back of the letter was this statement: “At this point in time, no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account.” Gonzalez sued the Kay Law Firm for violating the FDCPA which prohibits debt collectors from falsely representing or implying that the debt collector is an attorney or that the communication is from an attorney.
The federal district court found that the disclaimer was sufficient to notify Gonzalez that the collection matter was not being handled by an attorney and the Gonzalez’s case was dismissed. On appeal the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the letter’s disclaimer on the back was mixed in with “legalese” which may not be sufficient to notify the consumer of the attorney’s non-involvement in the case. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court dismissal and remanded the case for trial. Gonzalez v. Kay, No. 08-20544 (5th Cir., 2009). Now that the Supreme Court has denied the Kay Law Firm’s appeal, Mr. Gonzalez will have his day in court.
The Fifth Circuit in its opinion cites the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for why it is important to protect against this type of deceptive collection practice:
“An unsophisticated consumer, getting a letter from an ‘attorney,’ knows the price of poker has just gone up. And that clearly is the reason why the dunning campaign escalates from the collection agency, which might not strike fear in the heart of the consumer, to the attorney, who is better positioned to get the debtor’s knees knocking.”
Avila v. Rubin, 84 F.3d 222, 229 (7th Cir. 1996).
If you receive a collection letter from a law firm, speak to an experienced bankruptcy attorney and learn your rights. Bankruptcy attorneys are trained in matters of debt defense and can help explain your rights under the FDCPA and the federal bankruptcy laws. Don’t let an unscrupulous debt collector get your “knees knocking.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
