Bankruptcy Planning – Rochester Bankruptcy and Debt Relief

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.

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.

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.

Homestead Exemption and Married Spouses

It is not uncommon for one spouse to seek bankruptcy relief under Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code in a situation where title to the real property is held in both parties’ names. Generally, under such circumstances, the debtor typically claims a half interest in the property. Thus, the homestead exemption, under either New York law or federal bankruptcy exemptions, would be used to protect that interest. This creates an interesting legal issue since under New York’s Real Property Law both spouses hold an undivided interest in the entirety of the property. If so, does the homestead exemption have to protect all of the equity in the property?

In In re Naples, W.D.N.Y. Bk #14-10264, the bankruptcy trustee made precisely that argument. The trustee argued that since only one of the spouses had filed bankruptcy, and since the property was held by the parties as tenants by the entirety, creating undivided interest in each spouse, the debtor did not have sufficient homestead exemption to protect his equity in the property. The bankruptcy court disagreed. It held that under those circumstances, for purposes of valuing the debtor’s interest in the property, only one half interest needs to be valued and homestead exemption would be applied only to that half interest. The court reasoned that since the way the title is held creates limitations on each spouses to transfer title without consent of the other spouse, for the bankruptcy court’s valuation, only one half interest needs to be valued.

I think that this is a well thought-out result. If both spouses were filing for bankruptcy, each spouse would be able to apply their own exemption to any equity in the property, so if only one spouse files, that spouse should only need to protect that spouse’s half interest.

Bankruptcy and Eviction

If you are behind on the rent and are hoping to buy some time, or wipe out the obligation to the landlord altogether, under appropriate circumstances, Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy may be a solution. Filing for bankruptcy will usually wipe out the balance due for past due rent as of the date on which the case is filed. Rent for any period after the case is filed won’t be discharged. If the filing of the case is done correctly, you may also be able to buy some more time in the place before you have to move out.

The filing of a bankruptcy petition stops all efforts at collection, including an eviction proceeding. This automatic stay remains in effect until a creditor makes a request to the court and that request is granted, or until the case is closed or dismissed, or when your discharge is granted. Once the Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy case is filed, the eviction action has to stop as soon as the bankruptcy case is filed. Stopping the eviction means the debtor will get some extra time before having to move out.

However, there an exception to the above rule. If there a judgment for possession of the property due to failure to pay rent that was issued before the bankruptcy is filed, it is an exception to the automatic stay. This exception to the automatic stay will not apply if the debtor’s attorney did all of the following:

Specially marked the petition indicating a judgment of possession has been obtained on the rental property;

Provided the name and address of the landlord that obtained the judgment;

Filed with the petition and served on the landlord a certification under penalty of perjury that, under the applicable landlord-tenant law, there are circumstances under which debtor would be permitted to cure the entire monetary default that gave rise to the judgment for possession;

Along with the petition, deposited with the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court any rent that would become due during the 30-day period after the filing of the bankruptcy petition; and

Within 30 days of the filing of the petition, filed with the bankruptcy court and served on the landlord a further certification (under penalty of perjury) that the entire monetary default has been cured.

If the tenant is being evicted because of a reason aside from failure to pay the rent – for example, conduct causing a health and/or fire risk; use of illegal drugs on property – then there is also an automatic exception from the automatic stay.

This exception applies only to residential property in which debtor resides, if debtor is “endangering” the property or using, or allowing to be used, illegal controlled substances on the property. In order for this exception to apply, the landlord must file with the court, and serve on debtor’s attorney, a certification under penalty of perjury that such an eviction action has been filed, or that debtor, during the 30-day period preceding the date of the filing of the certification, have endangered property or illegally used or allowed to be used a controlled substance on the property.

If such a certification is filed then debtor is required to file an objection with the court and serve such objection on the landlord within 15 days of the landlord’s certification. The court will hold a hearing, and debtor will have the burden of proving that the landlord is incorrect.

Bankruptcy and Judgments

One of the issues that periodically concerns my clients is the one of removing filed judgments after receiving bankruptcy discharge. Initially, filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy won’t remove a judgment that has been already filed. Whether or not the debtor will need to remove it after receiving a discharge in either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy depends on each individual situation.

When a debtor files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, that debtor is trying to remove his or her personal liability for repayment of certain debts. If a creditor sued the debtor and obtained a judgment before the bankruptcy case was filed, then the bankruptcy filing will eliminate that liability, but the judgment is a separate matter. It is a record of an official result of a lawsuit and remains filed with the court or local county clerk’s office. Even when the bankruptcy discharged liability for the debt, the record of the judgment remains in place.

In those situations, debtors have two different options. Option one is to do nothing. Assuming the underlying debt is has been discharged in your Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the judgment remains nothing more than a piece of paper.
The creditor cannot freeze debtor’s bank account, seize wages, or take any further collection action. However, the judgment may remain on record as a valid lien against any property you owned at the time your Chapter 7 bankruptcy was filed. In New York, the judgment is automatically a lien against real property. The creditor can’t do anything with the lien, but it will need to be paid off in the event that you try to sell the property while the judgment is in place, or removed via a motion under Section 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. A judgment does not last forever. Judgments expire in 10 years under New York laws, but may be extended of an additional 10 year period.

Some debtors prefer to have discharged judgments removed. That brings us to option two. Under New York Debtor and Creditor Law Section 150, once a year has passed since the debtor’s discharge in bankruptcy, the debtor may apply for an order, directing that a discharge or a qualified discharge of record be marked upon the docket of the judgment. If the debtor fails to take this action, the judgment will remain on record with the New York Supreme Court or New York Civil Court and will remain enforceable.

Given the above, the debtors have options in dealing with any discharged judgments. Each debtor’s financial circumstances and other factors will factor into the decision whether to have any outstanding judgments removed. In my experience, unless the judgment is impairing the debtor’s interest in real property, vast majority of debtors will not seek to remove discharged judgments.

Upcoming Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Filing Fees Increases

It seems inevitable that bankruptcy filing fees are going up again. The Judicial Conference which determines the amount of various filing fees associated with bankruptcy cases has approved a fee increase which will be effective on June 1, 2014.

The fees for filing a chapter 7 case will increase from $306.00 to $335.00. The fees for filing a chapter 13 case will increase from $281.00 to $310.00. This is a $29.00 increase in the filing fees for both Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 Bankruptcies.

The fees for filing an adversary proceeding will increase as well to $350.00. However, debtors are not charged filing fees for adversary proceedings. Chapter 11 filing fees will increase to $1,717.00.

Unfortunately, it will get more and more expensive for the debtors to achieve any relief from their debts.