Procedure – Page 8 – Rochester Bankruptcy and Debt Relief

Another Remedy For A Failing Chapter 13 Bankruptcy- Amending Bankruptcy Plan

I have recently written about a situation where the debtor’s Chapter 13 Bankruptcy plan is failing for the reasons beyond the debtor’s control. One potential way to resolve this problem was to seek a hardship discharge. Today, I will describe another way of addressing this problem.

In a typical Chapter 13 Bankruptcy case, the debtor has to propose a monthly payment to repay his/her creditors over either 36 or 60 months. The length of the plan in either situation is substantial and carries with it some risks for the debtor. The primary risk is a substantial change in the debtor’s income, leaving him/her unable to make monthly payments approved by the bankruptcy court.

When a confirmed Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan is failing, the debtor should start thinking about having the plan modified in order to remain in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. Under the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the plan can be modified and the debtor can seek a change in the amount of the monthly payment or the length of the plan to fit the current circumstances.

Section 1329 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the plan can be modified to:

(1) increase or reduce the amount of payments on claims of a particular class provided for by the plan;

(2) extend or reduce the time for such payments;

(3) alter the amount of the distribution to a creditor whose claim is provided for by the plan to the extent necessary to take account of any payment of such claim other than under the plan; or

(4) reduce amounts to be paid under the plan by the actual amount expended by the debtor to purchase health insurance for the debtor.

If you are unable to make a payment on the plan on time, you should immediately contact your bankruptcy lawyer to determine if the plan can be modified. In order to modify the plan, the debtor must make a motion for modification. Such motion must show to the bankruptcy court new payments using documentation of the new income figures.

The advantages in keeping your Chapter 13 Bankruptcy include keeping the automatic stay in place; getting a discharge, and not incurring additional attorneys fees for converting to a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. If the bankruptcy remains in place, your creditors will not be able to sue you or begin collections activities.

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.

Bankruptcy Basics – All About Automatic Stay

Often, it is not the debt itself that drives someone to file for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, but it is the actions of the creditors. Creditors have many different ways to try to collect a debt, such as repeated telephone calls to debtor’s house or work, letters from collection agencies and attorneys, lawsuits, wage garnishment, and other collection activities.

The debtor has only one tool available to stop the creditors. That tool arises as a result of filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. It is called “automatic stay” and arises under 11 U.S.C. §362. The automatic stay will stop all collection activities by a creditor to recover a debt. The creditor will not be able to call debtor’s home or place of work, send letters, commence or continue a law suit, or enforce a judgment. It will prevent any garnishment and will stop any garnishment already in place. It will also stop any pending foreclosure. It will stop all collection activities and will require all creditors to resolve their claims in the bankruptcy court. If you file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, the automatic stay will prevent the utility company from shutting off your service. The automatic stay will even stop contempt proceedings in the divorce case that relate to nonpayment of financial obligations.

Once the automatic stay is in place, in order to take any further action, the creditor will have to file a motion in the bankruptcy court seeking to lift stay. Most of the motions to lift the automatic stay involve cars and houses. Typical creditor in a Chapter 7 may just be seeking to enforce it state court rights against the assets, especially if the debtor is surrendering the asset.

In Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, motions to lift automatic stay are usually filed by secured creditors when they believe that they aren’t getting paid sufficient money before the plan is confirmed. The most common motions to lift stay in a Chapter13 are filed after confirmation of the plan, usually, when the debtor fails to make the required payments.

Once imposed, automatic stay requiring a stop to almost all debt collection activity against the debtor and his property remains in effect until the earliest of the following events:

1. The case is closed;
2. The case is dismissed;
3. Or the debtor is granted or denied a discharge.

After the automatic stay is terminated, either by operation of law or special order, it is important to remember that property exempted in a bankruptcy generally remains protected from pre-petition debts, even if these debts were held to nondischargeable in the case.

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) which went into effect on October 17, 2005, included provisions that made it more dangerous for the creditors to violate automatic stay. Previous to BAPCPA, there appeared to be an exception for creditors who violated the automatic stay if the acts were done in good faith due to a bona fide question of law regarding the applicability of the automatic stay. In other words, if a creditor technically violated the automatic stay but believed it was not violating the stay due to the facts or its interpretation of the law, such an act would not have been considered “willful” so as to allow damages, attorney fees, and costs. Pretty much any act by a creditor in technical violation of the automatic stay is now actionable, despite the fact that the creditor truly believes its actions are completly justified. Even if the debtor may not sustain any actual damages, the creditor will be liable for statutory damages.

There are some exceptions to the automatic stay. However, one of the exceptions included in §362(b) allows for actions in Family Court matters and also in Supreme Court involving domestic support obligations.

In short, the automatic stay is the most powerful tool in the bankruptcy lawyer’s arsenal. It will provide the debtor with an opportunity to resolve all claims in a single proceeding before the bankruptcy court. Without automatic stay, it would be very difficult for a bankruptcy attorney, if not impossible, to guide the debtor toward the fresh start contemplated by the bankruptcy law.

What Happens If a Creditor Is Omitted In Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

When I prepare a bankruptcy petition in either Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, I do everything possible to make sure that every creditor is included and given a proper notice of the filing. However, once in a while, a Chapter 7 debtor realizes that he or she forgot to include a creditor after the case has closed.

If you are a bankruptcy lawyer, this occurs periodically. I file a routine Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, the case goes proceeds normally, the debtor gets a discharge, and, subsequently, the case is closed. Then, sometime later, the debtor contacts me to say that a creditor was inadvertently omitted. The debtor explains that that he simply forgot and that it was an innocent mistake. A bankruptcy lawyer may think that this should not be a big problem since the case can be reopened by motion, and an application can be brought to amend the schedule of creditors to include the omitted one.

However, there have been a great number of cases on this issue, with divergent theories and conclusions. Some have held that the case can be reopened, and some have held that it can’t. Some bankruptcy courts routinely grant debtors’ motions to amend schedules to list previously omitted creditors. Some cases focus on whether there is prejudice to creditors or whether there was fraud.

Some courts will refuse to permit the case to be reopened, because they believe omitted debts are non-dischargeable. Yet other courts will refuse to permit the case to be reopened because they believe that omitted debts are automatically discharged even if they are not listed, and therefore reopening the case serves no purpose.

There are two possible approaches that courts can take in addressing this issue. Under the “mechanical approach” courts have denied motions to reopen no-asset cases, finding that the debt owed to an omitted creditor is discharged “as a matter of law.” Under this approach, there is no reason to reopen a bankruptcy case, provided that it is a no-asset case and the debt is not otherwise excepted from discharge.

Under the “equitable approach,” courts consider whether the debtor’s omission was the result of fraud, recklessness or intentional design, or if it would prejudice the creditor’s rights. Good faith is an important element. Courts adopting this approach have held that motions to reopen no-asset cases to list omitted creditors should be liberally granted.

For most garden variety situations where the debtor omits a typical credit card debt and advises the attorney within a few years, the courts will probably be unwilling to permit counsel to reopen the case to add the creditor, asserting that, under the mechanical approach, the debt is dischargeable. In such cases, the bankruptcy attorney should consider sending a certified letter to the creditor stating that the debt has been discharged, together with copies of the notice of commencement and order of discharge.

However, in situations where the creditor raises objections to this approach, the bankruptcy lawyer should be prepared to file a motion to reopen, in which case the court will probably consider the various factors in the equitable approach.

Bankruptcy and Personal Injury Lawsuits

Periodically I meet with debtors who either have a personal injury law suit pending, or may have a potential personal injury case. Personal injury lawsuit issues can complicate a bankruptcy since there are limitations on the debtor’s ability to receive a personal injury award, as well as different procedural hurdles imposed by the bankruptcy code.

Initially, personal injury lawsuits and causes of action are assets of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy estate. Under New York’s bankruptcy exemptions, the debtor can exempt the first $7,500 in net proceeds, but anything over and above that belongs to the bankruptcy estate and would be administered by the bankruptcy trustee. Since personal injury lawsuit or causes of action are assets, it is critical that the bankruptcy lawyer includes the debtor’s personal injury lawsuit or cause of action in the bankruptcy petition. If the debtor fails to include a potential cause of action in the bankruptcy petition, that may cause a dismissal of the personal injury action. According to New York cases, if a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy petition but failed to list a potential cause of action for personal injuries, then the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the personal injury action.

If the personal injury case or cause of action is included in the petition, the bankruptcy trustee will decide whether the case is valuable enough to administer. The bankruptcy lawyer is expected to provide the trustee with copies of the pleadings. Most trustees will consider the right to sue for a relatively small injury as being of “inconsequential value to the bankruptcy estate” and may decide to abandon the trustee’s interest in the cause of action. Generally, if a personal injury case will not result in any significant non-exempt recovery, then the trustee will not care about administering it. If the trustee determines that the case has value in excess of the exemption, he may want to administer the personal injury claim as an asset of the bankruptcy estate.

The Bankruptcy Code requires that all attorneys who render services to a debtor must be approved by the court. A trustee may employ as special counsel under a contingency fee arrangement, any attorney who has represented the debtor in pre-petition litigation, when it is in the best interests of the bankruptcy estate and the attorney has no interest adverse to that of the debtor or the estate. Theoretically, the trustee can hire any attorney of the trustee’s choosing to represent the debtor in the personal injury lawsuit, and can even take the case away from the existing personal injury attorney.

The automatic bankruptcy stay imposed by Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code does not stay any actions brought by the debtor. The automatic stay only acts to stay actions brought against the debtor including cross-claims, counter-claims and third-party claims.

The greatest unknown in a personal injury case filed by the bankruptcy debtor, is what interest the bankruptcy trustee will take in the case. Debtor’s bankruptcy attorney would do well to contact the trustee at the earliest opportunity to get an idea of the trustee’s intentions with respect to the personal injury lawsuit.

Bankruptcy and Cash in Excess of New York’s Exemption

Sometimes clients come to me with while having cash or liquid bank accounts in excess of New York’s $2,500 cash exemption. As a bankruptcy lawyer, it is my job to help the client retain as much value as possible for the fresh start after the bankruptcy. So what can be done without running afoul of the Bankruptcy Code?

Initially, there is a difference between the way this situation is treated in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. In Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, any cash in excess of the New York’s $2,500 cash exemption is the property of the bankruptcy estate and is no longer the debtor’s property to use. In Chapter 13 bankruptcy, any such funds are still property of the debtor, provided that the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan pays to the creditors a sum equal to the unexempt portion of the cash or other unexempt assets over the plan’s duration. This is also known as the good faith test.

If the debtor will be filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, the debtor can spend the money prior to the filing in such way that it would be accepted by the bankruptcy trustee. Some of the things that can be done include the following:

Stock up on groceries
Fix the car
Make a mortgage payment ahead of time
Pay car or homeowner’s insurance
Repay retirement loans
Pay for medical or dental care
Pay delinquent child support or spousal support
Pay for child care
Pay overdue taxes

Having too much cash in a bank account can be a problem for a debtor. Discussing these issues in advance with a bankruptcy lawyer and engaging in bankruptcy planning can preserve the debtor’s cash and help with the future after the bankruptcy. Avoiding problems is the joint responsibility of the debtor and the debtor’s bankruptcy attorney. Timing is critical to minimizing your financial exposure. An experienced bankruptcy attorney can help you maximize the benefits of the bankruptcy laws and navigate around any problem areas.

Emergency Bankruptcy Filing – It Can Be Done

Late at night, most people are sleeping. However, sometimes circumstances arise when someone needs to file either a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy before the stroke of midnight, in the middle of the night, or early in the morning. Therefore, occasionally I file bankruptcy petitions late at night.

Sometimes, there are clients who come to me at the very last minute, when there may just be hours to spare before a scheduled foreclosure sale. In such cases, the bankruptcy petition needs to be filed as soon as possible because the minute the petition is filed, the “automatic bankruptcy stay” goes into effect, effectively preventing the sale from going forward. Lawyer’s ability to file an emergency bankruptcy cases is an important part of effective bankruptcy representation.

The reason I am able file bankruptcy petitions in the middle of the night is because all of the bankruptcy filings are done by electronic case filing (otherwise known as “E.C.F.”). By using E.C.F., the petitions and other bankruptcy documents are filed over the internet electronically, directly into the bankruptcy court’s computers. As a result, I can file a bankruptcy petition at any time.

The local rules do not require that the debtor file all of the supporting schedules at the time the case is initially filed. The case can be commenced by filing just the two-page bankruptcy petition together with a list of creditors and their addresses either in the form of the matrix or by filing the schedules of creditors. The debtor must also pay the filing fee.

The local rules permit the debtor to file the remaining schedules and forms within the next few days. If the remaining schedules and supporting documents are not filed during the applicable time periods, the Bankruptcy Court has the right to automatically dismiss the case. One requirement of a normal bankruptcy filing that cannot be waived in an emergency filing is the consumer credit counseling course. However, with consumer credit counseling courses available over telephone and internet, an emergency course provider can be found and a course can be completed at almost any time of day and night.

I prefer not to file emergency petitions, but sometimes it is necessary, and it is a part of the service I offer. Sometimes, I receive calls from the debtors who believe their house is about to be sold at a foreclosure sale. However, many of them confuse a motion return date in the foreclosure proceeding with the actual sale date. Before preparing an emergency filing, I always verify that there is a need to file bankruptcy as soon as possible.

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 and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, Giving Advice to Clients and Restrictions Under BAPCPA

The U.S. Supreme Court has resolved an issue earlier this week that was of great concern to the bankruptcy lawyers ever since enactment of BAPCPA in 2005. This issue had to do with a provision of BAPCPA, which barred attorneys from advising their clients to take on more debt before filing for bankruptcy protection. The Supreme Court held in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz v. United States, 559 U.S. ___ (2010), that giving such advice is permissible in appropriate situations.

The high court, in an opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the provision prohibiting such advice was valid, but should be read narrowly. This provision should be read to prohibit bankruptcy lawyers from advising clients to abuse the bankruptcy system. Justice Sotomayer indicated that it would be permissible for lawyers to advise clients contemplating bankruptcy to take on additional debt in certain situations. She wrote that bankruptcy lawyers could advise clients to refinance a mortgage or purchase a reliable car prior to bankruptcy on the grounds that doing so would reduce the debtor’s interest rates or improve the debtor’s ability to repay. According to the opinion, “[i]t would make scant sense to prevent attorneys and other debt relief agencies form advising individuals thinking of filing for bankruptcy about options that would be beneficial to both those individuals and their creditors.” Professionals specializing in bankruptcy “remain free to talk fully and candidly about the incurrence of debt in contemplation of filing a bankruptcy case,” Sotomayor wrote.

This provision has been problematic in the past in situations where my client would have a vehicle that was likely to need repairs in the near future due to its age or mileage. Under BAPCPA, I could not advise the debtor in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy to obtain a new car lease or car loan, as getting a new car is easier to do before filing for bankruptcy than after. Since BAPCPA contained a provision which prevented attorneys from advising clients to incur debt in contemplation of bankruptcy, I was unable to give debtors such advise since BAPCPA’s enactment. Similarly, this provision prohibited me from advising a debtor to refinance his mortgage immediately prior to filing for bankruptcy in order to benefit from a lower interest rate in the future.

The Supreme Court decision now clarifies the scope of BAPCPA provisions and holds that as long as bankruptcy lawyer’s advice is not meant to abuse the system, it is considered appropriate. Of course, a bankruptcy attorney cannot advise a client to go out and run up debt when the client has no reasonable expectation to repay it. The decision also upheld the BAPCPA’s requirement that attorneys make certain disclosures in their advertisements and ruled that attorneys who provide bankruptcy assistance are debt relief agencies within the meaning of the law. This requirement is the reason that whenever bankruptcy attorneys advertise their service, that sentence is included in the advertisement.

Overall, Milavetz was a positive result for bankruptcy lawyers here in Rochester, New York, and elsewhere across the country. The Congress should not have limited bankruptcy attorneys’ ability to engage in frank and open communications with their clients and give debtors the best possible advice.

Past Judgments, Real Estate and New York’s Exemptions

Whenever there are judgments against real property, owned by the debtor who files Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, those judgments, under appropriate circumstances, can be removed by filing 522(f) motion. The judgment can be removed provided that the debtor’s equity in the property does not exceed $50,000.00 per single filer, or $100,000 per married couple. The $50,000.00, otherwise known as a homestead exemption, comes from the present version of New York’s Debtor and Creditor Law. Prior to August 30, 2005, New York’s homestead exemption was $10,000.00 per single filer, or $20,000.00 per married couple.

One issue that was not conclusively resolved in Western New York bankruptcy court was what happened in a situation where the creditor’s judgment was perfected prior to August 30, 2005. If the judgment was perfected prior to the effective date of the increase in the homestead exemption, would the new homestead exemption or old homestead exemption would apply if the debtor filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy?

According to the United States Bankruptcy Court Judge Bucki in Buffalo, the applicable homestead exemption amount is the new $50,000.00. In Re Calloway, Judge Bucki held that once the New York statute was amended, the homestead exemption amount became $50,000.00, and it would apply regardless of the date it was perfected. Judge Bucki wrote that to hold otherwise, would disregard the meaning of the statute and its interpretation under New York law. Specifically, he wrote that “C.P.L.R. § 5206 was immediately changed to provide that a homestead “not exceeding fifty thousand dollars in value above liens and encumbrances, owned and occupied as a principal residence, is exempt from application to the satisfaction of a money judgment, unless the judgment was recovered wholly for the purchase price thereof.””

Pursuant to the Debtor and Creditor Law § 282, the debtor has exercised her right to exempt her property from the bankruptcy estate. Therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §522(f), the debtor may now avoid judgment liens that impair a homestead not exceeding $50,000 in value.

Therefore, debtor’s bankruptcy attorney does not need to be concerned with the date when the judgment was perfected. As with most §522(f) motions, the biggest concern that a lawyer would have is the value of the property and whether debtor’s equity in it does not exceed the homestead exemption.