Chapter 13 – Rochester Bankruptcy and Debt Relief – Rochester, NY Bankruptcy Attorney

Is Your Car Too Expensive? Bankruptcy Can Help

Next to home mortgages, motor vehicle loans are often your largest debt. The average cost of a new car or truck sold in the U.S. during 2019 exceeded $36,000.00. Borrowers are taking vehicle purchase loans for 6 years or longer, and when interest rates are factored in, the loan can cost you thousands of dollars above the purchase price.

Unlike real estate purchases, motor vehicles depreciate, that is, they lose value every year. If you took out a loan to buy your car or truck payable over 4 to 6 years, there is a good chance that you will owe more on your vehicle that it is worth until year 3 or 4 of your contract, commonly known as “being under water”. This means that in the event of a financial crisis such as an illness or job layoff, you won’t be able to eliminate your financial obligations by selling your vehicle, and may wind up owing a substantial amount of money to the lender.

If you “roll over” your loan into a new loan for a less expensive car, you’ll just delay dealing with this issue because you will end up owing far more on the less expensive car than it will ever be worth. Further, your monthly car loan payment is not your only vehicle expense. Insurance costs can increase quickly and unexpectedly in the event of an accident or traffic tickets or DWI conviction. Routine maintenance and repairs also increase your cost of ownership. In sum, an unexpected job loss or change, illness, insurance claims or any number of other factors could turn that your new car into a major financial problem.

Bankruptcy And Car Loans

Personal bankruptcy offers a number of options to address the “too expensive car” problem. The easiest choice would be to use the power of bankruptcy to terminate the loan and surrender your vehicle back to the lender. In a Chapter 7, any deficiency balance will be discharged as an unsecured debt, and in a Chapter 13, any deficiency balance will be paid as an unsecured debt, often at pennies on the dollar – if the lender files a proof of claim.

However, if the debtor wants to retain the vehicle, another option would be to use the cram down provision in the Bankruptcy Code to restructure the car loan as part of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. If your loan was taken out more than 910 days (about 2 ½ years) prior to filing, a Chapter 13 cram down allows you to modify the interest rate (usually) and to reduce your outstanding principal balance to equal the fair market value of your vehicle. If you owe substantially more than the value of your vehicle, the cram down can save you thousands of dollars.

Even if you cannot cram down your loan, you can still reduce your monthly payment by including the unpaid balance in your Chapter 13 plan and setting a payment to the vehicle lender that fits your budget. You are not obligated to pay the contract rate of interest to the vehicle lender in a Chapter 13, which is very helpful in situations where someone has bad credit and interest rate is high.

Obviously the decision to file a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 should be made in consultation with an experienced bankruptcy lawyer like Alexander Korotkin, Esq., and with full knowledge about how bankruptcy will impact your situation.

However, if you are having or foresee problems with payments due on your vehicle loan, you should certainly learn about and consider your bankruptcy options.

If you contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, Canandaigua, Brighton, Pittsford, Penfield, Perinton, Fairport, Webster, Victor, Farmington, Greece, Gates, Hilton, Parma, Brockport, Spencerport, LeRoy, Chili, Churchville, Monroe County, Ontario County, Wayne County, Orleans County, Livingston County, and being harassed by bill collectors, and would like to know more about how bankruptcy may be able to help you, contact me today by phone or email to schedule a FREE initial consultation with a Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.

What Happens to My Bankruptcy Case During the Coronavirus Pandemic?

As a result of the COVID-19 (“Coronavirus”) pandemic, bankruptcy court implemented significant changes to its procedures in order to protect the health and safety of individuals.

Federal courts, including bankruptcy courts, have continued to operate subject to significant limitations. Here in Western New York, most of the proceedings, primarily motions and conferences, are being handled via telephone and/or video conferencing. Since bankruptcy relies on electronic filing, new Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases can still be filed.

All in-person Chapter 7, 12, and 13 section 341 meetings (meetings of the creditors) scheduled through October 31, 2020, have been continued until a later date to be determined. Section 341 meetings may not proceed during this period except through telephonic or other alternative means not requiring personal appearance by debtors. Appropriate notice will be provided to attorneys and parties in accordance with bankruptcy law and rules for any telephonic meetings scheduled during this period. Confirmation hearings for Chapter 13 cases are also being held telephonically.

I will continue to update this post with new information as it becomes available.

Are Pension or 401k Loans Dischargeable?

A significant percentage of retirement plans, like pensions or 401k plans, allow you to borrow money from individual accounts in case of need. One of the most common situations is debtors borrowing money from their retirement accounts to try to pay back their debts. Unfortunately, if these debtors decide to file bankruptcy, the pension or 401K loans they took out will not be dischargeable in Chapter 7. Further, if a bankruptcy was filed, these retirement accounts could have been protected in their entirety since retirement accounts are fully exempt under either federal or New York exemptions in either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy court views loans from retirement accounts differently than a credit card, a car loan or a mortgage. When you borrow from your retirement account, you are essentially borrowing from yourself, and as result, the loan is not considered dischargeable in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. However, these loans can possibly be included in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy repayment plan, and any amount not repaid at the completion of the 3-5 year plan will typically be discharged. If you have already taken a loan against a pension or 401k account, then Chapter 13 might be the best option, depending on other factors. For many debtors, a pension or 401k account are their biggest assets that should be protected and a bankruptcy filing prior to borrowing money from those accounts would do that.

While borrowing from retirement funds is often seen as a last resort, it should not be. There could be a good reason to borrow against a retirement account in a healthy financial situation, but as a desperate effort to pay bills, borrowing from a pension or 401K will do more harm than good. Realize that if you are considering taking a loan against a retirement account that you have already reached the last straw. Discussing your bankruptcy options should really be the next step.

Determining Chapter 13 Repayment Plan Payment

If debtor does not qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, that debtor is likely to qualify for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The most important issue for anyone filing Chapter 13 is to know is how much their Chapter 13 Plan payment will be. In my opinion, given the typical 5 year duration of Chapter 13, properly set plan payment is the most important factor in whether the case will be a success.

Determining the amount of the payment can be challenging at the very beginning of the case. Early estimates of plan payment can change significantly as more information becomes available.

Generally, there are four tests applicable to determining the amount of the Chapter 13 Plan payment:

The Chapter 13 Means Test (officially, the “Chapter 13 Statement of Your Current Monthly Income and Calculation of Commitment Period and Calculation of Your Disposable Income”);
The Disposable Income Test;
The Chapter 7 Liquidation Analysis Test; and
The Required Payments Test

The Chapter 13 Means Test was imposed when BAPCPA became law in 2005. The Means Test’s purpose is to determine whether debtor’s Plan would be 3 years or 5 years long, and to have an objective way to determine the amount of the payment. This calculation uses one of the established four methods of determining your Chapter 13 Plan payment.

The Disposable Income Test is the only one of the four tests that is strictly based on debtor’s ability to pay. Initially, debtor’s net household income is calculated and from that figure, debtor’s actual reasonable monthly expenses are subtracted. The resulting number–disposable income–is Chapter 13 Plan payment. That calculation does not include a deduction for the debts that will be paid through the Chapter 13 case, such as mortgage arrears, car loan payments, student loan payments, tax payments, and credit card bills.

In the Chapter 7 Liquidation Analysis Test, bankruptcy attorney looks at how much debtor’s general unsecured creditors (typically credit cards, medical bills and personal loans) would receive in a hypothetical Chapter 7 case. In many cases, they would receive zero, because there are no non-exempt assets with equity, and creditors would get nothing in a Chapter 7 case. The total amount of payments under Chapter 13 plan can’t be less than the amount determined under the Liquidation Analysis Test.

The last test is the Required Payments Test. Usually, priority debt, such as recent taxes and domestic support obligations, must be paid in full during the course of the Chapter 13 case. Mortgage and other secured debt arrears must also be paid in full, along with unpaid attorney fees, trustee commissions and (in most cases) at least a nominal amount to the general unsecured creditors. Add these payments up, and you reach the Required Payments.

After all of the numbers under each test have been calculated, debtor is required pick the highest amount, which becomes the plan payment. At the same time, that figure may change during the case as creditors submit their proofs of claim, as debtor’s income, expenses and assets change. This figure may also change depending on trustee’s view of the debtor’s financial circumstances.

If you contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, Canandaigua, Brighton, Pittsford, Penfield, Perinton, Fairport, Henrietta, Webster, Victor, Farmington, Greece, Gates, Hilton, Parma, Brockport, Spencerport, LeRoy, Chili, Churchville, Monroe County, Ontario County, Wayne County, Orleans County, Livingston County, and being harassed by bill collectors, and would like to know more about how bankruptcy may be able to help you, contact me today by phone or email to schedule a FREE initial consultation with a Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.

Health Savings Accounts, Flexible Spending Accounts and Bankruptcy

In the last few years, especially since Affordable Care Act became law, Health Savings Account (“HSA”) or Flexible Spending Account (“FSA”) became a lot more popular as consumers are dealing with ever rising costs of health care. However, a debtor’s funds held in an HSA or FSA do not appear to be exempt under either New York state exemption law or Section 522 of the Bankruptcy Code. This means that a bankruptcy trustee may pursue debtor’s Health Savings Account or Flexible Spending Account, unless those funds are otherwise exempt.

A Health Savings Account is a tax-exempt account funded by a debtor, his employer or both, to be used to pay the debtor’s medical expenses that are not covered by health insurance such as co-pays or deductibles. The debtor owns the account, and, if debtor changes jobs, can be moved elsewhere. In addition, the funds can accumulate over time and do not have to be used at any particular time. When funds from a Health Savings Account are used to pay medical expenses, it is not treated as income to the debtor.

New York does not provide a specific exemption statute for a Health Savings Account. The most common argument for exemption is that a Health Savings Account is similar to a retirement fund and therefore is exempt for the same reasons that retirement funds are. However, in New York a “retirement fund” is exempt only if “qualified” for tax-exempt status under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) sections 401, 402, 403, 408, 408A, 414, 457 or 501(a). Since the tax status of a Health Savings Account is governed by IRC § 223(d), this argument fails. Another argument is that a Health Savings Account is similar to a health aid, and should be exempt for that reason. However, the list of health aids exempt in New York is a very narrow one covering essentially prosthetics and guide dogs, and HSA’s do not appear on the statutory list. If a New York debtor does not claim a homestead exemption, the state “wild card” exemption of $1,000.00 can be applied to protect an HSA, but any funds above that $1,000.00 figure would be available for the Chapter 7 Trustee.

Similarly, there is no specific exemption to claim Health Savings Accounts under federal bankruptcy law. Since a Health Savings Account is not created “on account of illness, disability, death, age or length of service”, and its tax-exempt status is not derived from IRC sections 401, 402, 403, 408, 408A, 414, 457 or 501(a), it is not exempt as a retirement fund. Further, only “professionally prescribed health aids” are exempt under the federal scheme. A fund established by the debtor to pay non-insured medical expenses would not be deemed “prescribed” by a medical professional, so an HSA is not exempt under this section either. If the debtor has it available, federal “wild card” exemption can be used to exempt up $12,725.00 in any asset, including an HSA. Any funds above the “wild card” exemption figure would also be available for the Chapter 7 Trustee.

A Flexible Spending Account (“FSA”) is a tax-deferred savings account established by an employer to pay a debtor’s medical expenses not paid by insurance. Money withdrawn from an FSA to pay for a debtor’s qualified medical-related expenses is also tax-free. Unlike an HSA, funds in an FSA are forfeited to the employer if not used in the benefit year. It appears that a Flexible Spending Account would be treated in bankruptcy court similarly to Flexible Spending Accounts.

Can Debtor Keep a Credit Card After Filing Bankruptcy

I am often asked if debtor can keep a credit card after the bankruptcy is filed, especially if the credit card does not have a balance. Generally, debtors are always interested in trying to keep a credit card after the bankruptcy is filed whether as a means of having credit for emergencies or renting a car or hotel room.

My answer to these questions as follows. Initially, the debtor is required to disclose to the bankruptcy court everyone the debtor owes money to. So, if there is money owed to a credit card issuer, this debt would have to be disclosed and listed in the petition, and, ultimately, discharged.

If the card does not have a balance, it does not need to be listed. However, that card is still going to be closed by the issuer after the bankruptcy is filed, both for Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. Essentially all credit card issuers subscribe to an automatic monitoring service such as AACER or one of AACER’s competitor. Those services will notify the bank even if a particular credit card is not listed in the petition.

In my experience, in nearly every case, all credit cards will be cancelled within days of the bankruptcy filing. Thus, it makes no difference if the card with zero balance is listed, but I usually list it anyway.

Once the debtor completes his or her Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the debtor is likely to be able to obtain new credit cards within 1 to 2 years after receiving the discharge. At the same time, my advice to the debtors is not to open new credit cards or if a credit card is necessary, to open one with a low credit limit or a secured credit card. There is always a risk that debtor will become overextended once again, and it is prudent to avoid it.

Stripping Second Mortgages in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

Handing banks a significant victory, in Bank of America v. Caulkett, the Supreme Court ruled that homeowners who file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy may not expect to have their second mortgage loans canceled, even if they owe more on their homes than the properties are worth. In a unanimous decision, the court held that second mortgages may not be “stripped off,” or voided, if the property is underwater, or worth less than the mortgage debt. Caulkett decision protects mortgage lenders, which extended second mortgages during the housing boom on homes that are now worth much less than their values when they were purchased.

The ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, came from Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases filed in 2013 by homeowners who sought to strip off their second mortgages. The named plaintiff, David B. Caulkett, owed a first mortgage totaling $183,264 at the time of his bankruptcy filing, but his home was valued at $98,000.

The lender for Mr. Caulkett’s first mortgage could have expected to recover part of the loan by selling the home, since the house was considered collateral for the loan. But his lawyer argued that his home was so far underwater that the $47,855 second mortgage he took out from Bank or America was essentially unsecured, and thus should be stripped off as part of his bankruptcy filing.

In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, debtors are typically permitted to cancel unsecured debts like credit cards and personal loans. The question before the Supreme Court was whether a second mortgage could be considered such an unsecured debt because the “security” backing the loan had been wiped out by falling home values. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit sided with Mr. Caulkett, and Bank of America appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that the second mortgage could not be stripped off simply because the home, the security underlying the debt, was worth less than the mortgage. The Supreme Court ruling will now prevent underwater homeowners from easily discharging home equity loans and other types of second mortgages in Chapter 7 bankruptcies.

The Supreme Court ruling does not completely prevent homeowners from voiding their second mortgages. Homeowner may still seek to strip off second mortgages after filing Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. In order to do so, the debtor must file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case and what is known as a “Pond” motion. The motion is named after a decision, In re Pond, 252 F.3d 122 (2nd Cir. 2001). Here is a detailed discussion of Pond motion and the process of stripping a second mortgage.

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

Changes to the Bankruptcy Means Test as of May 15, 2015

Once again, the means test figures for median income are being changed as of May 15, 2015. In New York, it means that the amount of income that the debtor can have before being forced into a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy is going to increase.

Through May 14, 2015, a single debtor in New York could have $48,840 in income in income and still be able to file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Starting May 15, 2015, that figure has been increased to $49,632. Similar increases will take place for all family sizes. The comparison of the existing and new income limits is below.

Old Income Limits

FAMILY SIZE

1 EARNER 2 PEOPLE 3 PEOPLE 4 PEOPLE *

$48,840 $60,743 $71,706 $88,156

New Income Limits

FAMILY SIZE

1 EARNER 2 PEOPLE 3 PEOPLE 4 PEOPLE *

$49,632 $61,728 $72,869 $89,586

* Add $8,100 for each individual in excess of 4.

While the increases are not large, they are an improvement on the last set of income limits. The reason for a slight growth in the median income is the slight growth in the earnings of an average American family. Since the economy is struggling to recover,employees wages having been increasing slowly. As a result, the American median family income has grown only slightly, and means test figures increased only moderately.

It should be noted that even if the debtor’s income exceeds the means test figures, debtor may still qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy after all allowable expenses are taken into account.

If you are contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including 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 Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.

Reinstatement of Dismissed Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

In a recent decision, In re Trine, Bk. 13-21520 (W.D.N.Y. 2015), the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York held that once dismissed, a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy case cannot be reopened absent “extraordinary circumstances”. The failure of the debtor and her attorney to respond to the letters from the court and motions does not meet “extraordinary circumstances” standard.

In Trine, the debtor made a motion to reopen a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case that had been dismissed two months earlier. The reason for the motion was debtor’s failure to make payments pursuant to the terms of the plan.

In most Rochester Chapter 13 Bankruptcy cases, plan payments are deducted from the debtor’s wages pursuant to the order of the bankruptcy court. A Chapter 13 Bankruptcy debtor is obligated to start plan payments within 30 days of filing the plan whether or not the employer has started to deduct payments from wages. In Rochester, the debtors are typically informed by their attorneys as well as Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Trustee when plan payments must start, and are given specific instructions as to how to make these payment, in what amounts, and where to send them.

For reasons that are unclear, the debtor in Trine did not make any plan payments during the first three months of the case. Subsequently, the Chapter 13 Trustee sent the debtor and her attorney a letter stating that the plan payments were in default, and requesting that the debtor or attorney respond withing 10 days, that if they failed to respond a motion to dismiss the case would follow, and that if the case was dismissed the creditors would be immediately notified of the dismissal. The trustee stated he would be willing to accept an arrangement where the default could be cured over a period of time.

Neither debtor nor her attorney responded to the letter. Subsequently, the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Trustee brought a motion to dismiss. After several court appearances, the court gave to the debtor an additional three months to bring the plan current. When that time expired and the plan was still in arrears, the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Trustee filed a report that the payments had not been brought current and the court entered an order dismissing the case.

Once the case was dismissed, one of the creditor’s repossessed the debtor’s car. Only after the car was repossessed, the debtor’s attorney made a motion, asking for the dismissal to be vacated and the case reinstated so that the car could be returned to the debtor. The Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Trustee opposed the motion, and the court denied it.

The debtor in this case relied on the ‘catch-all’ grounds of Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows relief from a judgment or order for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Case law interpreting Rule 60(b) states that relief will only be granted by the existence of “extraordinary circumstances”. Judge Warren stated in his decision that this provision “does not provide the easy procedural do-over frequently envisioned by litigants appearing before this court”. The court found that since neither the debtor nor the attorney responded to the default letter or the motion to dismiss, and did not appear at the hearings, the debtor did not present any extraordinary circumstances that would justify the reopening of the case.

Once the debtor received the first letter from the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Trustee, she should have immediately contacted her attorney as well as Trustee to find out why the payments were not being made. Further, if the debtor receives a notice of hearing from the Bankruptcy Court, that notice should not be ignored.

Bankruptcy Fraud and Revocation of Discharge

Once the discharge is granted, can it be revoked? This question was addressed by the court had to address in In Re Galan, (W.D.N.Y. 2014).

Section 727(d)(2) provides that a bankruptcy judge should revoke the discharge if, the debtor acquired property that is property of the estate, or became entitled to acquire property that would be property of the estate, and knowingly and fraudulently failed to report the acquisition of or entitlement to such property, or to deliver or surrender such property to the trustee.

In Galan, the debtor had failed to report his interest in real property and also had failed to disclose that he was in receipt of insurance proceeds related to the property. Once debtor’s failure to disclose these facts to the bankruptcy court was discovered, both the bankruptcy and the U.S. Trustee moved to revoke his discharge.

The court held that revocation of a debtor’s discharge is permitted pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(2), where a debtor “acquired property of the estate, or became entitled to acquire property that would be property of the estate, and knowingly and fraudulently failed to report the acquisition of or entitlement to such property, or to deliver or surrender such property to the trustee.” The provision is triggered when the debtor is in receipt of or becomes entitled to estate property, either before or after discharge. Since the court found that debtor submitted false testimony with regard to his prior dealings with bankruptcy court, the court disregarded his entire testimony as not credible and disregarded his explanations of his actions. After discussing the facts in detail, the court determined that revocation of discharge was warranted.

Galan demonstrates that it is always a bad idea to mislead the bankruptcy court. Also, debtor’s conduct could subject him to criminal prosecution.

Similarly to the above, a material fraud, which would have resulted in the denial of a debtor’s Chapter 7 discharge had it been known at the time of such discharge, can justify subsequent revocation of that discharge under Bankruptcy Code Section 727(d)(1).