Dischargeability – Page 3 – Rochester Bankruptcy and Debt Relief

Second Mortgage In Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

It is common for someone who is about to file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy to have a pending or upcoming foreclosure action. It is also common for the debtors to have a house that is “under water”, i.e., to owe more on their first mortgage than their house is worth. It is also common for the debtors to have a second mortgage such as a standard mortgage, line of credit or a home equity line of credit. If the first mortgage exceeds the value of the home, it is clear that the second mortgage has no equity in the house to support it, and is fully unsecured.

Once the debtors or their bankruptcy attorney realize the above, the debtors have a choice to make. They can file a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, assuming that they can pass the means test. If the debtors are eligible for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, their personal liability under both mortgages can be eliminated. Then, the debtors can decide to pay the first mortgage only. They may also decide to take a calculated risk that the second mortgage holder would try to foreclose on its mortgage. But would the lender actually commence a foreclosure? Initially, unless the second mortgage holder acquires the first mortgage, it would end up with a house subject to a first mortgage that exceeds what the house is worth. That would likely make any such attempted foreclosure a money losing proposition. Also, if the first mortgage holder forecloses, that foreclosure would eliminate the second mortgage.

Another option that the debtors have is to file Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. While Chapter 13 will carry with it a repayment plan that may last as long as 5 years, it also allows for “lien stripping”, otherwise known as “Pond” motion. In Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, the totally unsecured mortgage is wiped away and no longer a lien on the debtors’ home. Then, the second mortgage is treated as unsecured debt that gets repaid in the bankruptcy in accordance with the terms of their repayment plan. According to bankruptcy courts’ decisions, the debtors have to receive a Chapter 13 discharge before the lien is stripped.

Most of the decisions addressing Chapter 7 Bankruptcies hold that the debtors cannot “strip” their fully second unsecured mortgage in a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case.

One important reason for many debtors to stay in their house after Chapter 7 is that it may cost them less to pay the mortgage than to rent another place to live. The second mortgage becomes a lot less important since the debtors may be able to strip it right away in Chapter 13, and, if economic conditions don’t improve, the debtors might be able to strip it 4 years from the date they filed their chapter 7 case – when they are eligible for a discharge under Chapter 13.

Another option that may be available to some debtors is to have their mortgage recast under the new Home Mortgage Modification Program. In my experience, here in Rochester, lenders are willing to work with debtors to recast their mortgages. Assuming that the debtors have ability to pay their mortgage, and meet other financial requirements, their mortgage may be modified by their lender.

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.

Repaying Debts After the Bankruptcy

Sometimes I am asked by debtors if they can pay their creditors after they received a bankruptcy discharge. My answer to them is that there is nothing in the bankruptcy law that prohibits debtors from voluntarily paying their creditors, either those creditors that are important to you, or all of them. However, for me as a bankruptcy lawyer, it can be a bit difficult to understand since debtors typically file for bankruptcy protection because they cannot afford to pay their creditors. At the same time, I understand that under some circumstances debtors make a deliberate decision to repay someone.

In many different situations, debtors have creditors that are important to them. Those creditors may be family member who have loaned debtors money. Typically, debtors do not want to discharge the debt owed to close relatives. In those situations, my advice is to list the debt but, once the case is over, repay it voluntarily.

Another usual situation is where the debtor may have credit at a small, local store. Since it may be important for the debtor to have that access to such credit, the debtor may choose to pay that debt even after the bankruptcy case is over and the debt is discharged.

From the creditor’s side, once the bankruptcy is filed, the creditor may not contact the debtor to attempt to “persuade” him to “voluntarily” pay the debt. TIf any creditors does this, it would be viewed by the bankruptcy court as an attempt to collect a discharged debt in violation of the discharge injunction.

If the debtor decides to repay a debt after filing for either Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, he should be very careful about making payments on a discharged debt. If a creditor were to sue the debtor on a discharged debt in state court, the debtor could raise the fact that the debt was discharged in bankruptcy by raising it as an affirmative defense in state court litigation or he could remove the action to bankruptcy court and allow the bankruptcy court to enforce its discharge injunction. By making payments on a discharged debt, the debtor could create a “waiver” of the bankruptcy discharge on that particular debt.

Adversary Proceedings In Bankruptcy

For most part, filing either Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 bankruptcy is an administrative process. The bankruptcy lawyer gathers information, prepares and files the petition. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the debtor attends a brief hearing conducted by a trustee. In Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, the debtor also has to attend a confirmation hearing. However, in some cases an “adversary proceeding” is filed.

An adversary proceeding is essentially a case within a case. It is a lawsuit within either Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy case about an issue related to the bankruptcy case. There are many other situations in which adversary proceedings arise. In other instances, the debtor brings the adversary proceeding to bring a claim or to obtain a determination from the court. The Bankruptcy Rules of Procedure specify the situations in which parties must file adversary proceedings.

There are three parties in the bankruptcy court case who can file an adversary proceeding. Those parties are the creditor, the trustee (either the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy trustee, Chapter 13 bankruptcy Trustee, or the United States Trustee), and the debtor. Each adversarial proceeding is heard by the United States Bankruptcy Judge for the district where the bankruptcy is filed. For the cases filed here in Rochester, the adversary proceeding cases are heard by Hon. John C. Ninfo, II.

When a creditor files an adversary proceeding, it is usually because the creditor is claiming that the debt owed to the creditor should not be discharged in the bankruptcy. Usually the creditor will argues that it is only that particular creditor’s claim that should not be discharged since it falls within one of the exceptions to discharge, such as a debt created through fraud, willful or malicious injury, or a personal injury caused by drunk driving. Alternatively, the creditor may argue that the filing of the bankruptcy case was done in bad faith and the debtor is not entitled to the discharge altogether. These kinds of adversary proceedings are not common.

Another kind of adversary proceeding is filed by the Chapter 7 Trustee, Chapter 13 Trustee, or the United States Trustee. A trustee may argue that the schedules were not filled out accurately and were intentionally fraudulent. A trustee may file a motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case if paperwork is not filed timely, improperly, or if the debtor misses a court date without a good reason. A trustee may file an adversary proceeding seeking to collect money back from a creditor who received funds or property from a debtor. A trustee may also file an adversary proceeding to reverse a transfer of real property. The United States Trustee may file an adversarial proceeding to force the debtor to move from Chapter 7 Bankruptcy to Chapter 13 bankruptcy, if the U.S. Trustee believes that the filing of the bankruptcy petition was done in bad faith. The U.S. Trustee may also file an adversary proceeding to dismiss the case, if the U.S. Trustee believes the filing of any bankruptcy petition was done to abuse the bankruptcy system.

Finally, a debtor may file an adversary proceeding against a creditor. The debtor may recover damages for a creditor’s actions taken in violation of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, or violated the automatic stay, or the discharge (such as contacting the debtor after the bankruptcy is completed).

Mere fact that an adversary proceeding is filed does not mean that the party filing it will prevail. The bankruptcy judge will hear the case and will determine each party’s rights. It is the job of the bankruptcy attorney to advise the party as to the likelihood of success in an adversary proceeding, but the case will be decided by the bankruptcy judge .

The following is an example of a situation where an adversary proceeding is filed. The debtor obtained a large cash advance prior to filing. That cash advance was used to prevent a foreclosure or recover a vehicle after a repossession. However, the credit card issuer is likely to object claiming that the cash advance taken out only a few months prior to filing bankruptcy and argue that the debt is nondischargeable since it was either fraudulent or the money was borrowed in anticipation of the bankruptcy filing.

The litigation would commence with a filing or a complaint. An answer would serve, and the parties would engage in discovery. If the parties were unable to resolve their dispute during pretrial proceedings, there would be a trial.

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.

Debtor Who Can’t Make His Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Payments and Hardship Discharge

Once debtor’s Chapter 13 Bankruptcy plan is confirmed, the debtor has an obligation to make monthly payments. Unfortunately, sometimes circumstances change and the debtor cannot continue to make payments. When the debtor can’t make the payments on a confirmed Chapter 13 plan, the choices available to the debtor are limited. While there are a number of options, the best option for the debtor is usually a hardship discharge under §1328(b).

A bankruptcy discharge under §1328(b) eliminates all the debt that would have been dischargeable had the case been filed initially as a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. While certain types of claims would still survive a hardship discharge, but the remainder of the debt is discharged, as if the plan has been completed over its term.

In order to obtain a hardship discharge, the debtor has to satisfy the best interests of creditors test, i.e., creditors must have received at least as much as they would have received had the case been filed as a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Additionally, the debtor’s reasons for his inability to complete the plan must be events outside of the debtor’s control. Usual events include death, illness, job loss, and, occasionally, divorce.

I prefer hardship discharge for my clients, as opposed to converting a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy to Chapter 7 Bankruptcy? When the discharge is entered under Chapter 13, the debtor is eligible to file another Chapter 13 immediately. If the case is converted to a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, the debtor cannot file under either chapter of the Bankruptcy code for a period of time. An additional advantage of a hardshipt discharge is that there is no need for a new 341 meeting or amended schedules, as there would be if the case were converted to Chapter 7.

Since Chapter 13 Bankruptcy often includes debt that is not dischargeable in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, while the hardship discharge won’t discharge priority taxes, by obtaining a hardship discharge, the debtor is eligible to file another Chapter 13 when he is again healthy or employed. Further, the debtor can receive the automatic stay in a subsequent case to finish paying the debts that often caused the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.

In subsequent posts, I intend to discuss additional options available to the debtor.

Student Loans and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

On March 23, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa, No. 08-1134 (2010), which affirmed the 9th Circuit’s holding that a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy debtor can obtain a discharge of a student loan by including it in a Chapter 13 plan. The loan can be discharged if the creditor fails to object after notice and opportunity to do so, and the bankruptcy court enters an order confirming the Chapter 13 plan.

In a typical bankruptcy, whether Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, a student loan is not discharged unless the bankruptcy court makes a determination that the student loan would be an undue hardship on the debtor. Under Bankruptcy Rules, the court is required to make such a determination in an adversary proceeding, which is a lawsuit within the bankruptcy case. In United Student Aid Funds, the debtor did not bring an adversary proceeding. Rather, the debtor put in his plan that only the principal amount of the student loan would be paid through the plan, but that accrued interest would be discharged. The student loan lender did receive a copy of the plan, and even filed a Proof of Claim. However, the lender did not object to confirmation of the Chapter 13 plan.

Subsequently, the bankruptcy court entered an order confirming the plan as proposed. After confirmation, the Chapter 13 trustee sent a notice to the lender, saying that the Proof of Claim amount differed from the amount stated in the Chapter 13 plan, and that if the lender disputes the amount in the plan, it should notify the trustee within 30 days. After the debtor completed his plan payment, several years later, the student loan lender tried to collect the remaining amount due.

The debtor filed a motion seeking enforcement of his bankruptcy discharge. The lender filed a motion seeking to declare the order confirming the Chapter 13 plan void. Ultimately, this was the issue that the Supreme Court resolved. That is, the student loan lender argued that the bankruptcy court order confirming the Chapter 13 plan void because the lender was denied due process regarding the required statutory finding of undue hardship, which did not happen in this case.

The Supreme Court, in looking only at Bankruptcy Rule 60(b)(4), which permits a court to relieve a party for a final order or judgment, found that the lender was not denied due process, since the lender did receive the plan, filed a claim, and received the notice from the chapter 13 trustee. The Court agreed that the confirmation of the plan without an undue hardship determination was legal error, however, the legal error does not void the order. The Court noted that Rule 60(b)(4) strikes a balance between the need for finality of judgments, and the right of parties to have a full and fair opportunity to raise issues and the lender had ample notice and opportunity to contest the debtor’s actions.

What is to be learned from United Student Aid Funds? Bankruptcy lawyers are well aware of the fact that lenders can make errors in dealing with both Chapter 7 Bankruptcies and Chapter 13 Bankruptcies. However, in most chapter 13 bankruptcies, here in Rochester, New York, and elsewhere, the student loans are paid pro rata through the plan. Thus, the bankruptcy lawyers are unlikely to follow the debtor’s approach to the student loans in United Student Aid Funds, since it is likely to be rejected by the bankruptcy court. It appears that the bankruptcy court in that case ignored its obligation to make sure that the debtor followed the Bankruptcy Code in his Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. At the same time , there is little harm in trying to discharge some or all of the student loan debt, since if the above approach is followed, and the bankruptcy court or the bankruptcy trustee object, the plan can be amended to comply with the law, but if the bankruptcy court rubberstamps the plan and the lender fails to object in a timely manner, the debtor may get a discharge.

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Stripping of Unsecured Second Mortgage

One question that I am often asked is whether the unsecured second or third mortgage on the property owned by the debtor can be stripped in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. In Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, the unsecured second mortgage can be stripped by bringing a Ponds motion.

Unfortunately, in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, the unsecured second or third mortgage cannot be stripped. In a recent decision which also applies to the bankruptcy cases in Rochester, New York, In re Grano, the Buffalo Bankruptcy Judge Bucki held that in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy cases, the debtors cannot avoid wholly unsecured second or third mortgages.

Joseph and Ann Grano owned a residence in the Town of Amherst, New York. After filing a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy petition, they commenced the adversary proceeding against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to avoid a second mortgage. In their complaint, they alleged that their real estate has a current fair market value of $445,000 and that it is encumbered by two mortgages: a first lien with an outstanding principal balance of $511,000, and the second mortgage of Wells Fargo with a balance of $95,837.60.

Granos asserted that they can avoid the second mortgage pursuant to the authority of 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) and (d). In lieu of an answer, Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. In relevant part, section 506(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code states that “[a]n allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest . . . is a secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property . . . and is an unsecured claim to the extent that the value of such creditor’s interest . . . is less than the amount of such allowed claim.” Asserting that the first mortgage secures a debt greater than the value of the property, the debtors argue that in its status as a second mortgagee, Wells Fargo retains only an unsecured claim. Subject to exceptions not here present, 11 U.S.C. § 506(d) states that “[t]o the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void.” In reliance upon this later subdivision, the debtors commenced their adversary proceeding to avoid the second mortgage of Wells Fargo.

In Dewsnup, the Supreme Court accepted the position of the secured creditor, that “the words ‘allowed secured claim’ in §506(d) need not be read as an indivisible term of art defined by reference to § 506(a).” Instead, the language of section 506(d) “should be read term-by-term to refer to any claim that is, first, allowed, and, second, secured. Because there is no question that the claim at issue here has been ‘allowed’ pursuant to §502 of the Code and is secured by a lien with recourse to the underlying collateral, it does not come within the scope of §506(d), which voids only liens corresponding to claims that have not been allowed and secured.” 502 U.S.at 415. Effectively, therefore, the Supreme Court refused to recognize section 506(d) as a grant of authority to a debtor in Chapter 7 to “strip-down” or cancel the lien of an undersecured mortgage.

In contrast to Chapter 7, debtors in Chapter 13 may assert rights under special statutory provisions for the treatment of secured claims. Specifically, 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) provides that a Chapter 13 plan may “modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence, or of holders of unsecured claims, or leave unaffected the rights of holders of any class of claims.” InNobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324 (1993), the Supreme Court held that the language of section 1322(b)(2) precluded the bifurcation of an undersecured homestead mortgage into secured and unsecured claims. Consequently, to the extent that a homestead has value to collateralize any portion of a mortgage, a chapter 13 plan must treat that lien as fully secured. However, in In re Pond, 252 F.3d 122 (2001), the Second Circuit distinguished those circumstances where the homestead lacks equity to collateralize any portion of an inferior lien. In this special circumstance, because the lien is wholly unsecured, the debtors “are not ‘holders of . . . a claim secured only by a security interest in . . . the debtor’s principal residence,’ 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2), and their rights in the lien are not protected under the antimodification exception of Section 1322(b)(2).” 252 F.3d at 127.

In the present instance, Mr. and Mrs. Grano contended that this court should adopt for Chapter 7 the same exception that the Second Circuit has recognized for cases in Chapter 13, to the effect of permitting the avoidance of secondary liens that are totally undercollateralized. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the unique statutory predicate of Chapter 13. In allowing a debtor in Chapter 13 to avoid a fully unsecured homestead mortgage, the decision in In re Pond utilized the authority of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2). No parallel provision applies in Chapter 7. The court concluded that notwithstanding the absence of equity beyond superior liens, the debtors may not avoid the second mortgage of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

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 benefit 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.

Bankruptcy, Bad Checks, Discharge and Criminal Liability

A bad check, hot check, NSF check, returned check, rubber check, worthless check, or whatever you want to call it, is a check which the bank will not pay because there is either no such checking account or insufficient funds in the account to pay the check. In Texas, writing a bad check is a misdemeanor or can be a felony depending on the amount of the bad check and the circumstances of the issuance of the check. No matter how nominal you think the check is, you can still get you charged with a crime. If you file for bankruptcy and have hot checks outstanding it might make your bankruptcy case a bit more complicated. For the most part, bad check debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy, but since each case is unique, you should obtain legal advice on your bad checks before filing bankruptcy.

If you live in Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, or anywhere in the State of Texas and need to file for bankruptcy & have bad checks, contact the Texas Bankruptcy Attorneys at The Law Offices Of R.J.Atkinson for a free initial consultation to determine the best option to deal with your bad checks in bankruptcy.

Keep in mind that every bad check and bankruptcy situation is different, so it is important to obtain legal advice for your particular case. The following are some frequently asked questions about bankruptcy and bad checks.

1. If I file for Bankruptcy, will it stop “Prosecution for my Bad Check?”

No. If the prosecution is by a District Attorney, Attorney General, or any law enforcement authority of the State for a criminal action, then it will not stop prosecution for a bad check. When you file a bankruptcy case, there is a stay against any attempts to collect a debt from you which extends to creditors holding or collecting on Bad Checks, Hot Checks, Dishonored Checks, NSF Checks, Bounced Checks, Worthless Checks, Rubber Checks, or whatever you choose to call them.

When a bankruptcy petition is filed, Bankruptcy Law imposes “the automatic stay” which is an injunction on all collection actions and which prohibit further collection efforts on debts that came about prior to the bankruptcy filing. This “automatic stay” is one of the primary reasons many people file for bankruptcy. Although the “automatic stay” is a very powerful part of Federal Bankruptcy Law, the “automatic stay” does not extend to proceedings by the State or any Federal governmental agency pursuant to its police powers. More specifically, any criminal prosecutions which enforce criminal laws are not subject to the automatic stay of bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court treats prosecutions of bad checks as criminal proceedings and not attempts to collect debt as long as the actual purpose of a bad check prosecution is to enforce criminal bad check laws. Since a bad check prosecution isn’t meant to pressure the debtor into paying a debt that could otherwise be discharged in a bankruptcy the automatic stay of bankruptcy will have no effect on bad check prosecutions which enforce criminal law.

2. I have written postdated checks to several payday loan companies over the last year. I have to file for Bankruptcy; can they come after me criminally for the “Bad Checks” or sue me?

No. The payday loan company doesn’t have the authority to charge you with a crime. Only the District attorney, Attorney General, or the State or any Federal governmental agency with police powers can charge you criminally. They can however, make a recommendation to the District attorney, Attorney General, or governmental agency with police powers that criminal charges should be brought against you. Whether or not that happens depends on the particular facts of your case. As for filing suit, they could file a lawsuit against you in the Bankruptcy Court as an “adversary proceeding” if the want to attempt to lift the stay. They would have to file a special motion in the bankruptcy Court to lift the “automatic stay”. In thousands of cases, this law firm has never seen this happen. Whether they file suit this way will depend on the facts of the case, I.E. how much is owed, how they are treated in your bankruptcy, when you wrote the checks, etc…

3. I wrote a postdated check to a payday loan company, if I file bankruptcy can they still deposit the check after I file?

Yes, but if they deposit the check after they receive notice of the bankruptcy filing, it could be construed as a violation of the automatic stay. It’s not uncommon for checks to be processed after a bankruptcy filing. Many auto drafts and other similar ACH debits can still go through if the money is there. You should address your bank accounts accordingly, and if you do file for bankruptcy, it’s important that all of your creditors receive proper notice of the filing. Despite the fact that the automatic stay stops collection actions, your bank account can still be debited and outstanding checks can still go through if creditors aren’t properly noticed. Although you may get the money back at some point if the creditor wrongfully takes the money from you, it will still take some time. Whenever you post date a check you are in essence representing that the check will be good on that date. If you write a post dated check to a payday loan company or anyone for that matter, and then later file for bankruptcy, it will ultimately end up in the bankruptcy court if that debt is included in the bankruptcy.

The bankruptcy court will have to sort through the facts and then consider whether there was an agreement between you and the payday loan company or other party to hold the postdated check. The bankruptcy court will also consider other factors, but primarily, whether or not you ever intended to pay on the postdated check. Obviously if the day or weeks before filing bankruptcy you went on a check writing spree to payday loan companies, knowing that there were no funds in your account and that you would be filing for bankruptcy, then the bankruptcy court could get the impression that you never “intended” to make good on the checks. Generally, it all comes down to intent and representation. If your intent was to make good on a postdated check when you issued it, then it may be difficult for a payday loan company to prove you never intended to pay. This is especially true if you previously had an ongoing relationship, or have gotten caught up in the payday loan cycle for the months or years preceding a bankruptcy filing. The whole payday loan business is predicated on postdated checks, so they have the burden as potential creditors in your bankruptcy case to prove your intent. As for representation, if you misrepresent or fraudulently make statements to induce a party to accept your postdated check, then you could have problems discharging the debt in bankruptcy. Everyone’s situation is unique so it is always good advice to seek competent legal counsel.

4. If I file for Bankruptcy, can I discharge the debts owed for bad checks?

It depends. Every case is different, so the facts of each case will dictate if a bad check will be treated as dischargeable or nondischargeable. Generally, so long as there wasn’t any fraud, false pretenses, or material misrepresentations made or conveyed in the actual writing of the check or checks, then the “debt” component from the bad check(s) is quite often dischargeable. That being stated, going on a bad check writing spree days or weeks before filing for bankruptcy filing could make it difficult to discharge such debt.

The Bankruptcy Code doesn’t allow you discharge and debts incurred or obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or false pretenses. Where Bad Checks, Hot Checks, Dishonored Checks, NSF Checks, or Bounced Checks are concerned, it depends on the circumstances. Obviously if, for example, you had been doing business with a payday loan company for the 6 months prior to bankruptcy and you didn’t have money in your account for 3 months, then wrote a check for $1000.00, and filed bankruptcy the next week, it would be tough to prove that your actions weren’t fraudulent. Therefore, when an irate creditor comes to bankruptcy court in a chapter 7, 13 or 11 case where the creditor is holding the check issued by the debtor that was dishonored, the expectation may be that the debt is not dischargeable. Unfortunately, debt based on a bad check is not automatically and not even usually held to be non-dischargeable.

To succeed in getting a bankruptcy court to find a bad check debt is non-dischargeable, the creditor has the burden of proof to show fraud or false representation by the debtor.

5. How will the Bankruptcy Court decide if the Bad Checks I include in a Bankruptcy will be discharged?

Since every situation is different, there is no way to determine what the Bankruptcy Court will do to interpret the facts of any issue. However, Bankruptcy Courts have examined various things in prior cases to determine whether a bad check is dischargeable or not. Some of the things the Bankruptcy Courts have examined to determine bad check dischargeability are as follows:

Whether there was an agreement to hold a post-dated check.

The time between delivery of the check and the bankruptcy filing.

Did the person issuing the check obtain legal advice from an attorney about bankruptcy before writing the check.

How many bad checks were written and included in the bankruptcy.

The amount or amounts of the bad checks.

The debtor’s financial condition at delivery of the check.

Whether multiple checks were delivered the same day

Whether the person filing was employed when the bad check was written.

Whether the check was written on a closed account.

The financial sophistication of the debtor.

Whether life necessities or luxury items were purchased.

6. I wrote a hot check for $35.00 to the convenience store. Can they do anything if I file bankruptcy?

Sure they can. They can contact the district attorney and file a criminal complaint against you. However, having handled almost two thousand cases, my clients have rarely had problems with bad checks less than $300. That’s probably due to the length of time and hassle involved with pursuing criminal charges, especially when the person who wrote the bad check just filed bankruptcy. I have seen very angry holders of bad checks occasionally show up at creditors meetings and have received calls from a few district attorneys in other states wanting to work out a payment plans, but not for nominal amounts. Since writing a bad check in any amount is a crime, I advise all on my bankruptcy clients to pay anyone who may be holding a bad check.

7. I have to file Chapter 13 Bankruptcy to stop foreclosure, but I have about $1000.00 in hot checks out. Can I repay the checks in my bankruptcy and avoid criminal charges?

There is no way to know for sure. It may be possible to include repayment for the hot checks in your Chapter 13 Bankruptcy but its up to the district attorney as to whether you will be charged with a crime whether you include it in a Chapter 13 plan or not.

When you file bankruptcy, your creditors, which include any parties holding a bad check, are prevented from taking any attempts to collect from you. The Automatic Stay of bankruptcy automatically stops most legal actions against you, but filing bankruptcy will not stop criminal prosecutions against you. So, if you have written bad checks, the party to whom you wrote a bad check to could request to have you arrested and criminally prosecuted for a bad check. When a person who has written a Bad Check files for bankruptcy under any chapter under the Bankruptcy Code, it will not protect them from criminal prosecution and will not discharge their criminal liability for any restitution, costs and fines associated with the criminal prosecution & restitution.

At The Law Offices Of R.J.Atkinson we generally recommend that if at all possible you should attempt make bad checks good prior to your filing for Bankruptcy in order to avoid criminal prosecution on the checks. It isn’t always possible to take care of a Bad Check prior to filing for Bankruptcy since you may be facing a foreclosure, repossession, or other urgent motivating factor, but when the only option is to file Bankruptcy before taking care of a Bad Check, you should be aware that filing for bankruptcy will not stop criminal prosecution for a Bad Check.

If you have bad checks, hot checks, rubber checks, NSF checks, bounced checks, dishonored checks, or worthless checks and live in Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, or anywhere in the State of Texas and need to file for bankruptcy, contact the Texas Bankruptcy Attorneys at The Law Offices Of R.J.Atkinson for a free initial consultation. We may be able to help you with the bad checks before you file for bankruptcy and can help you determine how to deal with your bad checks in bankruptcy if the Texas Bankruptcy Means Test provides you are eligible to file.

What happens if prior to filing for bankruptcy, the debtor gives a bad check to someone? A bad check, Not Sufficient Funds check, or a bounced check, is usually a check which the bank will not pay because there is either no such checking account or there are insufficient funds in the account to pay the check. In New York, writing a bad check is a misdemeanor, punishable up to 90 days in jail for the first offense. To be charged criminally for issuing a bad check usually means that the check was issued with knowledge that it would not be paid by the bank. If you file for bankruptcy and have bad checks outstanding it might make your bankruptcy case more complicated. For the most part, bad check debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy, but each case is unique.

Sometimes, while the debt may be listed in the bankruptcy petition, the debtor may be charged criminally. The bankruptcy filing, and the automatic stay associated with it, will not stop a criminal prosecution. The automatic stay prevents any attempts to collect a debt from you which extends to creditors holding or collecting on that check. Although the automatic stay blocks all collection actions by the creditors, it does not extend to proceedings by the State or any Federal governmental agency pursuant to its police powers. More specifically, any criminal prosecutions which enforce criminal laws are not subject to the automatic stay of bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court treats prosecutions of bad checks as criminal proceedings and not attempts to collect debt as long as the actual purpose of a bad check prosecution is to enforce criminal bad check laws. Since a bad check prosecution isn’t meant to pressure the debtor into paying a debt that could otherwise be discharged in a bankruptcy the automatic stay of bankruptcy will have no effect on bad check prosecutions which enforce criminal law. If the debtor is found guilty of a crime of passing a bad check, the debtor may be liable for civil restitution, which is not likely to be found dischargeable by the bankruptcy court.

If no criminal charges are filed, the situation becomes clearer. The debt associated with a bad check is likely to be dischargeable, but its dischargeability will depend on whether there was any fraud, false pretenses, or material misrepresentations made in the actual writing of the check. If there was no fraud or misrepresentations involved, then the debt from the bad check is usually dischargeable.

“Pond” Motion and Avoiding Second Mortgage Lien in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

In Chapter 13 bankruptcies, it is not uncommon to see situations where the debtor, who owns a home, has both a first and a second mortgage, or even a third mortgage on that home. In today’s real estate market, it is not uncommon for those mortgages to exceed the value of the home by a significant amount. Since the secured debt must be paid in full in Chapter 13 bankruptcy, does it make sense for the debtor to greatly overpay the value of that home? The bankruptcy law offers us a solution for those situations. Debtor’s bankrutcy lawyer can bring a “Pond” motion. The motion is named after a decision, In re Pond, 252 F.3d 122 (2nd Cir. 2001).

A Pond motion is a motion made in a chapter 13 Bankruptcy case where the debtor owns and lives (as his or her primary residence) in a residence which has a second mortgage and the value of the house is less than the amount owed on the first mortgage, as of the date the debtor files his or her Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. If the motion is successful, the second mortgage will be treated as unsecured debt, removing its secured status. As a result, the amount owed to the second mortgage company gets treated like any other unsecured debt, and paid, in most Chapter 13 bankruptcies, pro rata. If the debtor is paying 50% of his unsecured debt through the Chapter 13 plan, it means that the amount paid on the second mortgage will be 50% of the amount owed. Once the debtor obtains his or her discharge the remainder of the second mortgage debt is no longer owed.

Here in Rochester, Judge Ninfo has written a number of decisions addressing Pond motions. One critical issue associated with Pond motions is valuation of the real estate. In In re Dzenziel, the central issue presented to the court was whether the valuation of the property would make the second mortgage unsecured.

The debtors brought their Pond motion, alleging that their residence had a value of $99,047, and the balance due on the first mortgage was $99,813.97 as of their most recent mortgage statement. Since the balance due on the first mortgage exceeded the value of the residence, the debtors asserted that the second mortgage was totally unsecured on the date they filed their Chapter 13 petition. Because the second mortgagor disputed the debtor’s valuation of the property, the court conducted a trial on the Pond motion.

Testimony at trial indicated that the debtors originally purchased the property for $101,000 when the property had been appraised at $111,000. The debtors reported that when they obtained the second mortgage in 1999, the property had been appraised at $180,000. The competing real estate appraisers testified respectively that the value of the property was either between $97,808 and $100,285 (adjusted to $99,047), or $120,000.

Analyzing the Pond decision, Judge Ninfo wrote, “If there is no equity in a debtor’s residence after accounting for other encumbrances that have priority over a mortgage lien, so that the mortgage lien is not even partially secured, the lien can be avoided and the mortgage debt treated as unsecured.” The court further stated that the burden falls upon the debtor to demonstrate that there is not even $1 of value over prior valid liens to support the mortgage lien that is to be avoided. The court also held that the debtor’s burden of proof is higher when “it appears that there was equity available for the mortgage … at the time it was executed; the alleged value deficiency may have been created in part because of a debtor’s failure to make payments on superior mortgages… and [if] the alleged value deficiency is not substantial….”
Reviewing the evidence presented, the court determined that the property has a value of at least $100,000, which does exceed the balance due on the first mortgage, and based upon relevant testimony, the property probably has a value between $120,000 to $145,000. Judge Ninfo concluded that the debtors have not met their burden to demonstrate that there is no value over prior liens that would enable the court to avoid the second mortgage and denied the motion.

The above demonstrates that valuation of property is critical in those situations where the debtor has an opportunity to convert second mortgage to unsecured debt. The bankruptcy lawyer would do well to use a reputable real estate appraiser and be prepared to conduct a hearing to substantiate the property’s value.

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

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Denial of Discharge for Willful or Malicious Injury

One of the limitations on receiving a discharge in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is that the debtor cannot discharge any debt for willful or malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code precludes the discharge of a debt “for willful and malicious injury.” As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Kawaahua v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61 (1998), the “word ‘willful’ in (a)(6) modifies the word ‘injury,’ indicating that nondischargeability takes a deliberate or intentional injury, not merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury.” For the same reason, nondischargeability under this section will attach only to injuries that are malicious. In the Second Circuit, the Court of Appeals set the standard for “willful and malicious injury” in its decision in Navistar Financial Corp. v. Stelluti (In re Stelluti), 94 F.3d 84 (1996). The Court concluded that “[t]he term ‘willful’ in this context means ‘deliberate or intentional,’” and that “[t]he term ‘malicious’ means wrongful and without just cause or excuse, even in the absence of personal hatred, spite, or ill-will.” Id. at 87 (citations omitted).

In a recent case, In re Alessi, Judge Bucki held that the deliberate failure to abide by the terms of the contract, amounted to willful and malicious injury. In Alessi, the debtor, Mrs. Alessi, not only failed to pay a debt, but a failure to pay from funds that the debtor had agreed specifically to earmark for that purpose. The uncontroverted facts showed that the funds resulting from a real estate transaction were accessible and not otherwise encumbered, that the debtor knew of her obligation to turnover the funds, and that through his counsel, Mr. Alessi made timely demand for payment, even though not obligated to do so. The resulting injury was willful, in that Ms. Alessi deliberately and intentionally refused to turn over the sale proceeds. By violating a contractual provision for use of committed funds, Amy Alessi inflicted a wrongful financial loss without just cause or excuse. Hence, she caused an injury that was malicious within the meaning of section 523(a)(6).

Thus, if you are a debtor, you may have an obligation to follow through on the contracts where the funds are specifically designated for a given purpose. If you fail to do so, you may be denied a discharge.

Discharging Income Taxes in Bankruptcy

There are four general requirements for discharging an income tax in bankruptcy. Initially, the tax must be one for which the return was not last due within three years of the filing of the bankruptcy. Therefore, if a 2006 income tax return was last due on April 15, 2007, the three-year requirement would be met after April 15, 2010.

The “last due” requirement may be complicated by the debtor’s actions. If the debtor requests and receives an extension, the three-year clock starts after the last extension. See In re Wood, 866 F.2d 1367 (11th Cir. 1989). The three-year period is also tolled during the time when the taxing authority is barred from collecting the debt because of a prior bankruptcy.

The second requirement is known as the 240-day rule. For an income tax to be dischargeable, it must not have been assessed with 240 days of the filing of the bankruptcy. When a tax is assessed is sometimes complicated and depends on the practices of the federal or state taxing authority. For federal taxes, the I.R.S. regulations state that “the date of the assessment is the date the summary record is signed by an assessment officer.” This is not the same time as when the return is filed. However, when a return is timely filed, the assessment date is usually around the time a return is filed.

A debtor will know that a tax has been assessed when they are notified by the taxing authority of the tax claim. The exact date of assessment of a federal tax can be obtain by requesting and analyzing a debtor’s tax transcript.

Another related requirement is that, to be discharged in a bankruptcy, an income must not be not yet assessed but be assessable at the time that the bankruptcy is filed. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a), tax liability must be assessed within “three years after the return was filed….” Therefore, even if a tax has not yet been assessed for some reason at the time a bankruptcy case is filed, and the case postdates the applicable return by three years, this requirement for dischargeability will met.

The third requirement relates to the timing of when the return is filed. If a return is filed late, it cannot not be filed within two years of a bankruptcy for the tax to be discharged. Under this rule, amended returns are treated as original filed returns. Also, if the debtor provides to the IRS with correspondence containing financial statements with all the information needed to complete a return, this can also be deemed to be a return. The two-year period begins once the taxing authority actually receives the return, and not when the return is mailed, as is the case with timely-filed returns.

The final requirement is the following. The return must be filed. A substitute return filed by a taxing authority on behalf of a taxpayer is not considered a return for these purposes. There is, however, a split of authority on whether a return filed by a debtor after a substitute return is filed can is considered a return for this test. The return must not be fraudulent and the debtor must not have attempted to evade the tax.

Tax evasion is generally rare and courts disagree on what is deemed to constitute tax evasion for purposes of this test. Tax evasion is found usually in situations where a debtor is hiding assets, constructing complicated transactions for tax purposes, or making false and misleading statements to avoid tax. However, evasion has also been found to exist in some cases in which a debtor has simply not paid a tax while having the ability to do so.

If you have pending tax liabilities, and you believe that you can satisfy all or some of the above requirements, you should meet with a bankruptcy lawyer to determine whether a Chapter 7 bankruptcy will result in a discharge of some or all of your tax liabilities.