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.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Friday, February 19, 2010
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, February 15, 2010
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:
"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.
- 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;
"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.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Bankruptcy Fraud is a Federal Crime
Bankruptcy fraud is a federal felony that carries a sentence of up to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $250,000. Some examples of bankruptcy fraud include concealing assets, intentionally filing false or incomplete forms, and providing false information while under oath. Often bankruptcy fraud is accompanied by other serious offenses like identity theft, mortgage fraud, tax fraud, or money laundering.
Bankruptcy fraud can become very complex and may involve the IRS or FBI. The penalty may involve many years of incarceration when coupled with other criminal charges. Other cases are relatively simple like a recent case in Pennsylvania:
A husband and wife were each sentenced to fifteen days in prison by U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Andrew Smyser in the Middle District of Pennsylvania after finding contempt of court for untruthful conduct in their joint bankruptcy case.
According to a press release issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office, Tammy Beecher and Wyatt Beecher filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in May 2007. The filing stated that the Tammy Beecher had no income and that neither debtor operated a business within the previous six years. In fact, the Beechers owned a family business, "Fun 4 Kids Entertainment." Only after the Beecher’s were presented with a coupon for $5 off any party, and reminded by the chapter 7 trustee they signed the bankruptcy petition under penalty of perjury, did the Beecher’s admit that they owned and operated the business.
Bankruptcy fraud can be reported by ex-spouses, banks, and even your neighbors. The Executive Office of the United States Trustees (EOUST) recently launched an internet site that will allow the public to report suspected instances of bankruptcy fraud to the EOUST at http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/fraud/index.htm.
The moral here is: tell your bankruptcy attorney everything. Your attorney can work with you to protect your assets and avoid criminal charges, but only if you tell all. The information you share with your attorney is shielded by attorney-client privilege, a powerful and time-honored protection. While your attorney cannot counsel or assist you in an illegal act, there are many legal options available in every case. If you are in over your head, speak with an attorney and understand your legal options.
The Perils of a DIY Bankruptcy
Federal law guarantees open access to the courts and permits self representation in lawsuits, including bankruptcy proceedings. However, the most important question is not “can you,” but “should you” represent yourself in a bankruptcy case.
Proceeding pro se (Latin meaning “for himself”) in a bankruptcy case is like navigating a mine field while blindfolded. Is it possible to be successful? Sure! Will your bankruptcy case blow up? Probably. Books and internet resources simply cannot substitute for competent legal advice. Below are a few reasons why a pro se bankruptcy is a bad idea:
Reason 1: The Federal Bankruptcy Code is complex.
Reason 2: The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure are complex (and changing as of December 1, 2009).
Reason 3: The bankruptcy court’s local rules are complex.
Reason 4: The applicability of state law to federal bankruptcy law is complex, including state exemption laws, state criminal laws, and state collection laws.
Reason 5: The bankruptcy trustee will examine your case more closely since you are not represented by counsel. The trustee will likely put you at the end of the 341 meeting docket to have extra time to review your bankruptcy case and ask questions.
Reason 6: Most skilled bankruptcy attorneys will not step into the middle of a pro se case when things go wrong.
Reason 7: Are you really qualified to answer important questions, like: “When should you file?” “What chapter should you file?”
Reason 8: Most courts will not allow a pro se bankruptcy debtor to file documents electronically through the court’s internet ECF system.
Reason 9: You can be audited by a CPA firm selected by the Department of Justice.
Reason 10: Occasionally the pro se case is such a chaotic mess that the debtor is forced to dismiss the bankruptcy and later re-file with the assistance of an attorney. That’s two bankruptcies on your credit report for the price of one!
Reason 11: If you are reaffirming a debt, you must appear in open court and answer the bankruptcy judge’s questions.
The upside of representing yourself is saving a few dollars. The downside is a considerable risk to your property, your future finances, and, in extreme cases, your liberty. Don’t risk your families’ well-being! Let an experience bankruptcy attorney guide you through your bankruptcy case.
Call the Law Office of Erich M. Niederlehner, PA prior to filing a bankruptcy not after things have gone wrong in your case. We offer free consultations and reasonable fees that can be paid over time so there is no reason not to hire an attorney to represent you in your bankruptcy filing.
If you have gambling debt, tell your attorney and don’t lie!
There is a common myth that gambling debts cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. The truth is that gambling debts usually receive the same treatment as any other unsecured debt, like credit cards or medical bills. However, under some unusual circumstances, a bankruptcy court may find that a gambling debt cannot be discharged.
Gambling debts commonly appear as credit card charges or cash advances. An important factor in the discharge of this debt is whether there was an intent to repay the debt when the charge or advance was incurred. If the debtor had no intent to repay the obligation, the credit card company may object to the discharge of this debt on the basis of fraud. Courts have generally been reluctant to listen to this objection by a creditor unless there is strong evidence of fraud. For instance, a debtor who takes out a $10,000 cash advance at the casino, even though he is recently unemployed and overwhelmed by debt, and who files bankruptcy the next day will likely have the hall-marks of fraud.
Most gambling debts in bankruptcy are not as cut and dry as the above example. If the credit card company objects, the bankruptcy court will hold a hearing. The court may look to the debtor’s past credit card transactions, any attempt to repay the obligation, and the records and testimony of the debtor to determine the existence of a fraudulent intent.
All gambling losses must be disclosed by the debtor on the Statement of Financial Affairs. This disclosure is a mandatory requirement and the intentional failure to disclose this information may result in a finding that the gambling debt cannot be discharged, or worse, the court may deny any discharge in the case as a result of the debtor’s misrepresentation. It is particularly important to disclose recent gambling losses to your attorney prior to the filing of your bankruptcy case. Recent credit card charges or cash advances can be problematic to any bankruptcy case; and especially troublesome if related to gambling debt.
Bankruptcy courts can be very forgiving to the honest, although perhaps foolhardy debtor, and very unsympathetic to the dishonest. Honesty and full disclosure is especially important in a case involving gambling debts. Discuss these debts with your bankruptcy attorney and provide all the requested documentation. The success of your bankruptcy case depends on it!
How to Value Household Property in Bankruptcy
During bankruptcy a debtor is required to reveal all assets and give an estimated value of the property. When the asset is cash money or an investment, figuring its value is easy. In other cases nailing down a value can be very elusive. This is especially true when dealing with a unique or expensive household item. So how does the bankruptcy trustee expect the debtor to come up with a value for household property?
To understand how to value household property for bankruptcy purposes, it is important to understand the bankruptcy process. One of the chief functions of the bankruptcy trustee is to uncover assets for the benefit of creditors. Federal and state laws allow the debtor to keep certain modest items of household property that are considered “necessary,” like clothing and household items, but only up to a certain dollar amount. That amount is called an “exemption,” and that property is considered “exempt” and protected from a creditor’s collection remedies. Any property that is worth more than the allowed exemption amount is subject to be liquidated, usually at auction.
So the easy answer to how household property should be valued is, “At auction prices.” Since auction prices can vary, that doesn’t really answer the question at all. Instead, what most bankruptcy trustees suggest is to set a price like you would at a yard sale. Additionally, internet resources like eBay can be helpful to determine the quick-sale market value of a unique item. Using one of these on-line resources can provide good evidence that your new-in-box Barack Obama Chia Pet is only worth $20.00.
Many used household items, like common dinner dishes or bedding, have little or no value. On the other hand, a grandfather clock, piano, or gun safe usually has some value. A bankruptcy trustee is not in the used furniture business, and will usually incur significant costs in selling a debtor’s property. Consequently, the trustee will not be interested in your household property unless you own a non-exempt item that can be sold for a substantial profit to the bankruptcy estate.
As owner of your property, you are entitled to give an opinion regarding its value. It is important not to under-value or over-value your household property, but instead give a fair and reasonable estimate. If you own an expensive household, do some research and speak to your bankruptcy attorney. There are many ways to protect property in bankruptcy and your bankruptcy attorney can help you decide on the best course of action.
To understand how to value household property for bankruptcy purposes, it is important to understand the bankruptcy process. One of the chief functions of the bankruptcy trustee is to uncover assets for the benefit of creditors. Federal and state laws allow the debtor to keep certain modest items of household property that are considered “necessary,” like clothing and household items, but only up to a certain dollar amount. That amount is called an “exemption,” and that property is considered “exempt” and protected from a creditor’s collection remedies. Any property that is worth more than the allowed exemption amount is subject to be liquidated, usually at auction.
So the easy answer to how household property should be valued is, “At auction prices.” Since auction prices can vary, that doesn’t really answer the question at all. Instead, what most bankruptcy trustees suggest is to set a price like you would at a yard sale. Additionally, internet resources like eBay can be helpful to determine the quick-sale market value of a unique item. Using one of these on-line resources can provide good evidence that your new-in-box Barack Obama Chia Pet is only worth $20.00.
Many used household items, like common dinner dishes or bedding, have little or no value. On the other hand, a grandfather clock, piano, or gun safe usually has some value. A bankruptcy trustee is not in the used furniture business, and will usually incur significant costs in selling a debtor’s property. Consequently, the trustee will not be interested in your household property unless you own a non-exempt item that can be sold for a substantial profit to the bankruptcy estate.
As owner of your property, you are entitled to give an opinion regarding its value. It is important not to under-value or over-value your household property, but instead give a fair and reasonable estimate. If you own an expensive household, do some research and speak to your bankruptcy attorney. There are many ways to protect property in bankruptcy and your bankruptcy attorney can help you decide on the best course of action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
