bankruptcy – Page 5 – Rochester Bankruptcy and Debt Relief

Does the Debtor Need to Be Employed to File Chapter 7 Bankruptcy?

It is not necessary to have a job to file for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. In fact, the filing of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy is probably one of the few instances in the debtor’s life where it helps the debtor not to be working.

One of the basic requirements of the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy is that the debtor must show that he or she does not sufficient income available to pay their creditors any money under Chapter 13. Whether the debtor has sufficient income that would require him to be in a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy or in a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy is determined though by the “Means Test.”

A simple explanation of the Means Test is as follows. The Means Test takes the debtor’s income for the six month before the filing of a bankruptcy and compares that income to the average income for a person in the debtor’s state with the same family size. As an example, in New York, where I practice, if a single debtor makes $46,320.00 per year or less, he qualifies to be in a Chapter 7 Bakruptcy. So someone who is not working can file under Chapter 7.

The above is only a part of the Means Tests requirements since the amount of income is only a beginning when the means test calculations are done. Other factors and calculations also have to be considered when making a decision under which Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code the debtor should file .

Sometimes, the debtor can benefit from a loss of a job, usually in a situation where he earns more than the median income for his State, after the loss of the job, once a sufficient period of time passes, the debtor’s average monthly income will be reduced and the debtor will qualify for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.

The only time the debtor needs a job to file for bankruptcy is when he is filing for a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.

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.

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.

Who Qualifies For Bankruptcy?

Do I qualify to file a bankruptcy? This is one of the most common questions I am asked as a bankruptcy lawyer when I meet with debtors who are hoping to obtain relief from their debts in bankruptcy court. My answer is usually yes, since almost everyone qualifies for bankruptcy under either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.

I think that this question is often asked because of common myths and misinformation that people hear with regard to what bankruptcy is and what it does for the debtor. Unfortunately, there is much misinformation being passed around. It is rare that someone would not qualify for a filing under either chapter of the Bankruptcy Code. If there are horror stories, they typically arise out of situations where someone did not disclose accurate information to the bankruptcy court.

In order to qualify for a bankruptcy relief, the debtor needs to have a reason to file. The primary reason for most debtors is their inability to pay their debts. Whether or not the debtor owns assets is not a a consideration in qualifying to file for bankruptcy. Under New York’s bankruptcy exemptions, a single filer can protect $50,000 in home equity, $2,400 of equity in the vehicle, and there are other exemptions available for other classes of assets.

There are no minimal requirement as to how much debt a debtor must have before filing, nor does this debt has to be reduced to a specific figure. Also, if you are filing Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, you are not limited with respect to the property that you can own, but the amount of property may be a factor in the amount of payments under the plan. While there are maximum limits of the amount of debt that can be discharged under either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, the vast majority of debtors will not even approach them. In Chapter 7, there are no maximum debt limits. As a result, that Chapter 7 Bankruptcy is available to the debtors regardless of how much debt they owe, and its availability is only limited by the means test. In Chapter 13, you may not have more than $1,010,650 in secured debt and $336,900 in unsecured debt.

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.

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and Immigration Status

Can my bankruptcy filing affect my immigration status? This is a question periodically asked by my clients. The answer to that question is actually depends on the particular circumstances of each case, but here are some of the issues that may be relevant.

There is no immigration law, statute, or regulation that specifically forbids individuals who have filed for bankruptcy from applying for naturalization. Additionally, there is no specific question on Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, related to bankruptcy. However, the debtor’s immigration status can be affected if he has not filed required tax returns or if he owes money to the IRS.

While reviewing immigration-related applications, the INS is usually checking to see if an individual seeking naturalization has evidence of “poor moral character” which could be grounds to deny an application. The filing of a bankruptcy petition as a consequence of financial hardship clearly does not rise to the level of “poor moral character.”

However, if you are facing any type of immigration issue and are about to file for either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, you should disclose that fact to your bankruptcy lawyer at your initial consultation as well as discuss your potential bankruptcy filing with your immigration attorney.

If you 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.

Do Both Spouses Have to File for Bankruptcy Together?

While most married people think that if they file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, they must do so with their spouse. That is not true.

Whether one spouse or both file a bankruptcy petition, it’s their choice. It is not uncommon for one spouse to have most of the debt in his or her name only, in which case an individual filing would more appropriate. However, if both spouses are have a significant amount of debt, they should file together.

Sometimes I meet with only one spouse because the other spouse is is not willing to file for bankruptcy. In these situations, one spouse to file the bankruptcy petition and obtain necessary relief from the bankruptcy court.

There are also some additional issues that need to be considered. Initially, if only one spouse is filing and the couple is residing together, the other spouse’s income may be relevant for the purpose of household income as reflected on Schedule I, resulting disposable income reflected on Schedule J, and that spouse’s income may also be relevant for the means test.

As far as the means test, it is necessary to determine whether there is a presumption that there is enough disposable income available to give unsecured creditors sufficient payment under a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, such that permitting a Chapter 7 could be considered an abuse of discretion. But even if the means test is passed, and no presumption of abuse arises, or, alternatively, if this is a non-consumer bankruptcy and the means test is not even required, abuse can still be found given the totality of the circumstances. The income and assets of the non-filing spouse are important in both those considerations. If the debtor has legal rights to share in the income and assets of a non-filing spouse or even if the practice has been between spouses to share income and assets regardless of legal rights, the bankruptcy law tells us that the debtor’s access to the non-filing spouse’s income and assets has to be considered in deciding whether the bankruptcy court would permitting a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing.

An experienced bankruptcy attorney can analyze each consumer’s financial situation and suggest whether a married couple should file an individual or a joint petition.

Do Divorce Settlements Survive Bankruptcy?

I have previously written about interplay between divorce, family court proceedings and bankruptcy, as well as other issues involving interplay between bankruptcy and family law. One issue that is highly significant in situations where one of the former spouses is about to file a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy is whether the bankruptcy trusee will seek to undo a divorce settlement agreement.

With bankruptcy filings being so common, and divorce being a major reason for seeking bankruptcy relief, divorce lawyers are frequently concerned as to whether a divorce settlement will be upheld in a bankruptcy proceeding.

There are valid reasons to be cautious since if a debtor transfers a valuable asset to a spouse (or soon-to-be ex-spouse) prior to filing for bankruptcy, and the debtor-spouse does not receive reasonable value in return, then the transfer may be deemed to be a “fraudulent transfer.” In such a case, the bankruptcy trustee can sue the person who received the asset to recover it for the bankruptcy estate, so that all creditors can share in its value. As with any other situations involving fraudulent transfers, the debtor must have been insolvent at the time of transfer.

In order to demonstrate that a transfer was not a fraudulent transfer, the party who received the transfer would have to show that there was “reasonably equivalent value.” It is common for a divorcing spouse to settle the divorce case by giving the other spouse valuable assets such as an interest in real estate, bank accounts, investments, or other personal property. In those situations, both parties do not want a bankruptcy trustee to try to set such transfers aside.

There was a time when some of the bankruptcy courts have held that innocent spouses who received such a transfer were no different from any other party who received a large transfer without sufficient consideration. However, a case decided by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in June of 2009 will give many divorcing spouses a greater degree of certainty that a trustee will not be able to set aside a divorce settlement.

The decision in Bledsoe v. Bledsoe, 569 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2009) this issue by addressing when a bankruptcy court may avoid a transfer made pursuant to a state-court divorce decree. The Circuit Court affirmed that decision and held that a trustee can only set aside a matrimonial settlement if he alleges and proves “extrinsic fraud.” The Court also held that a divorce decree that follows from a regularly conducted, contested divorce proceeding conclusively establishes “reasonably equivalent value” in the absence of fraud or collusion. Since the Second Circuit has not addressed this issue, Bledsoe is valid law in the bankruptcy courts in New York. At the same time, the bankruptcy court, here in Rochester, New York, and elsewhere, will always review the totality of the facts.

In order for a divorce settlement to be upheld by the bankruptcy court, it must be ratified by the matrimonial court. That means that any transfer should be accurately described in a stipulation of settlement. In addition, the stipulation must be specifically referred to and incorporated in the judgment of divorce. It is not enough that the parties merely stipulate to a settlement; the court must specifically approve the settlement. In a typical judgment of divorce, this is accomplished by stating that the stipulation survives the judgment of divorce and is not merged into it.

Can You Be Fired For Filing Bankruptcy?

Many people who file for bankruptcy in New York have fears about their relatives, friends, neighbors and employers discovering that they have filed for bankruptcy. They try to hide this fact from everyone. Many people who would greatly benefit from filing for bankruptcy under either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 are reluctant to do so is because the perception among some people is that it is shameful to file for bankruptcy. I spend a considerable amount of time explaining to my clients that there is nothing shameful about filing for bankruptcy.

A lot of people are scared that their employers would find out that they filed for bankruptcy. They are afraid that their employers might fire them from their jobs if employers find out about their bankruptcy filing. They try as much as possible to hide their filing for bankruptcy because of this sense of insecurity.

The debtors should not be concerned since federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against them or from terminating their employment solely because of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing. Specifically, the bankruptcy code’s non-discrimination provision, 11 U.S.C. section 525(b), states as follows:

No private employer may terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, an individual who is or has been a debtor under this title … solely because such debtor … is or has been a debtor under this title…. 11 U.S.C. sec. 525(b).

One caveat to the above provision is that the Bankruptcy Code prohibits discrimination solely on the basis of the bankruptcy filing. It will not protect an employee who is having other employment-related problems.

The reality now is that a great number of people in Rochester, New York, or elsewhere in Western New York, have filed or are filing for bankruptcy. For a business having employees who file for bankruptcy is simply a fact of life. In many respects, it is better for the employer to have an employee file for bankruptcy, so that the employee is not spending time answering phone calls from the debt collectors, or that employer does not have to waste time garnishing employer’s wages. In today’s economy, bankruptcy is a reality that everyone is facing, and so companies would rather not do anything that would appear to be a form of discrimination against their employees.

Should You Hire a Bankruptcy Lawyer?

Some of the major reasons why people who know they need to file for bankruptcy, but postpone doing so, is fears about filing either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, and concern about paying the legal fees.

Some debtors consider filing bankruptcy on their own. However, this can be a major mistake and can create additional problems. As I have written about previously, bankruptcy involves a number of procedural and substantive steps and tests that have to be satisfied before the bankruptcy court can grant a discharge.

In both Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, the debtor must appear before a court-appointed trustee for a 341 hearing. The bankruptcy trustee who conducts the hearing is not someone who is there to help the debtor. His role is just the opposite. The trustee is charged with investigating the debtor and his financial circumstances to determine if there are any assets available for thee benefit of creditors. Meeting with an experienced bankruptcy attorney will enable the debtor to have his or her financial situation reviewed and assets protected in advance to the extent possible.

What debtors may not realize is that certain types of financial transactions that may have taken place years before filing can have a major impact on the debtor’s bankruptcy. For example, if any significant assets were given away or if real estate was transferred, this may amount to what is known as a fraudulent conveyance or a preference, and may result in significant litigation in the bankruptcy case. Usually, a bankruptcy lawyer will review these issues before a bankruptcy petition is filed in order to mitigate the risk.

While the bankruptcy petition is written in plain English, it is a difficult document to prepare for someone who is not familiar with the Bankruptcy Code. A complete petition in a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in New York, including all of the various forms and schedules runs in excess of 40 pages. The petition requires preparing numerous schedules and budgets. The debtor must list appropriate information about his debts, assets, income and expenses.

The Statement of Financial Affairs includes numerous questions that must be answered. All of the debtor’s creditors must be listed not only in a schedule of debts (segregated in three separate categories) but also in a special format called a Matrix. Such listing must include creditors’ names, addresses, account numbers, dates when any debts were incurred and their purpose.

When Congress passed BAPCPA in 2005, it imposed many new requirements. The most significant of those requirements is a complex and complicated means test, as well as the requirement for mandatory credit counseling. The Chapter 7 trustee as well as the Office of the U.S. Trustee reviews each and every petition to make sure all of the requirements under the new law are properly met. The means test is complicated, and the debtor’s failure to properly prepare the bankruptcy means test can create significant problems as the United States Trustee can seek to have the bankruptcy case dismissed.

The debtor must also choose which Chapter of bankruptcy to file. If a debtor is seeking to stop foreclosure and cure mortgage arrears, a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing won’t be helpful. At the same time, a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy filing is likely to result in a 3-5 years payment plan.

There are self-help books that explain how a debtor can prepare and file his petition and complete the process. However, there are many traps for the unwary that even attorneys who do not regularly practice bankruptcy often create problems for their clients.

Every bankruptcy trustee I know in Rochester, New York, has expressed concern about those debtors who file bankruptcy without an attorney because these debtors often make serious procedural and substantive mistakes. Self-representation by pro-se debtors in bankruptcy matters can end up being a mistake, and result in further financial problems for the debtor.

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and Projected Disposable Income

In order to confirm a plan in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, unless creditors are paid in full, the debtor must pay to unsecured creditors his or her “projected disposable income” expected to be received in an “applicable commitment period”, either 36 or 60 months depending on the Chapter 13 plan. Since the enactment of 2005 BAPCPA, there has been a dispute over what “projected disposable income” meant. A recent decision of the United States Supreme Court has resolved that issue, at least partially.

In Hamilton v. Lanning, decided on June 7, 2010, the Supreme Court held that “when a bankruptcy court calculates a debtor’s projected disposable income, the court may account for changes in the debtor’s income or expenses that are known or virtually certain at the time of confirmation.” In other words, rather than simply applying the calculation of “current monthly income,” which looks at the debtor’s income for the 6 calendar months before the filing of the petition, the court may consider changes in income that have occurred, or are expected to occur, or virtually certain to occur at the time of confirmation.

In Lanning, the debtor had received a termination buyout from her former employer which, when included in “current monthly income,” dramatically increased her income over what she was really making, and the mechanical application of current monthly income approach would have resulted in her having to pay more into the plan than she possibly could afford. Because after the buyout she was making wages well below the state median income, the Supreme Court held that this change in income could be considered in calculating her “projected disposable income.”

While being practical and understandable, this “forward looking” approach should not give the bankruptcy court or the bankruptcy trustee, or the debtor, an opportunity to make unsubstantiated claims. The Supreme Court stated that “a court taking the forward-looking approach should begin by calculating disposable income, and in most cases, nothing more is required. It is only in unusual cases that a court may go further and take into account other known or virtually certain information about the debtor’s future income or expenses.”

While the debtor’s expenses as included in the “projected disposable income” were not specifically before the Court, the opinion stated that the court may consider changes in income or expenses when calculating projected disposable income. In Lanning, the Supreme Court stated that what is required is a “change” in income or expenses, not a discrepancy between the expenses allowed on the “means test” and the debtor’s actual expenses. As I previously discussed, debtors whose “current monthly income” is above the state median, many expenses are determined based on fixed allowances, not on what the debtor’s actual expenses are. For example, the food and related items allowance (set by the IRS) is $1,000 for the debtor’s household size, but the debtor only spends $500 on these items, he or she can claim the full allowance in calculating “projected disposable income.” Under the statute, the bankruptcy trustee is not be allowed to recapture that difference, and require that it be paid to creditors. Conversely, if the debtor spends $2,000, he can still only claim the allowance. As a result, for many debtors, the fixed “means test” numbers result in a more favorable result than their real expenses as stated on Schedules I and J. Because the difference between the means test expenses and expenses reported on Schedule J, Lanning does not change the existing differences between them.

At the same time, under Lanning, the debtor may be disadvantages if the debtor is disallowed a deduction for secured debt payments where property is being surrendered or perhaps where liens are being stripped down or off. Under Lanning, such change in the debt payments may be seen as “change” in expenses. However, unless there is a “change” in those secured debt expenses that are allowed as real figures on the means test, the means test expenses will remain the same.