Chapter 13 – Page 8 – Rochester Bankruptcy and Debt Relief

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and Debtor’s Credit Report

I am frequently asked by the debtors how long their bankruptcy filing will remain on their credit report and whether they would be able to obtain credit after the filing. There is a substantial amount of confusion with respect to when a bankruptcy can no longer be reported on the debtor’s credit report and whether credit becomes available to those who file for bankruptcy relief.

The length of time a bankruptcy can be reported on the debtor’s credit report is governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). The FCRA orders credit reporting agencies to remove bankruptcy case information from all consumer reports ten years after “the date of entry of the order for relief.” It does not differentiate between Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. The order for relief according to §301 of the Bankruptcy Code is entered on the filing date, so the ten year period is measured from the bankruptcy filing date, not the discharge date.

It is usually a good idea to order your credit report after the bankruptcy to make sure that the bankruptcy discharge also shows on the credit report so that potential new creditors understand that the creditors whose claims were discharged in bankruptcy have no remaining legal claims.

In my opinion, bankruptcy is no more harmful to the debtor’s credit score than the financial circumstances that lead to the bankruptcy filing. In today’s lending environment, credit is available to the recently bankrupt. It may be more expensive than prior to the bankruptcy filing, and available with lower limits, but it is likely to be offered. Similarly, according to the credit industry’s studies, 18-24 months after a bankruptcy discharge, bankruptcy debtors can qualify for a mortgage loan on the same terms as if they had not filed bankruptcy. The anecdotal experience of my clients has been that they were able to obtain mortgages within two years of filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. While it takes some effort to rebuild credit after bankruptcy, it is possible to do so.

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.

Disqualification of Debtor From Filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

I have previously written about the requirements that a debtor must meet in order to file for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. As long as the debtor is able to meet the means test and disposable income test, the debtor can file for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. However, there are a number of conditions that would disqualify a debtor from filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. The following post will address those conditions.

Generally, any debtor who is qualified to file and complete a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case is eligible for a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Discharge, unless the debtor falls into one or more of the following categories:

A person who has been granted a discharge in a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case that was filed within the last 8 years. This limitation prevents debtor from filing another Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case despite meeting all other qualifications. The bankruptcy petition specifically asks debtors regarding any prior bankruptcy filings.

A person who has been granted a discharge in a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy case that was filed within the last 6 years, unless 70% or more of the debtor’s unsecured claims were paid off in the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy case. Therefore, if the debtor’s Chapter 13 Bankruptcy case paid less than 70% of the unsecured claims, the debtor is limited to filing Chapter 13 Bankruptcy within the 6 year period.

A person who files and obtains court approval of a written waiver of discharge in the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case.

A person who conceals, transfers, or destroys his or her property with the intent to defraud his or her creditors or the trustee in the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case. This relates to the provisions denying discharge to the debtor who committed that type of conduct.

A person who conceals, destroys, or falsifies records of his or her financial condition or business transactions.

A person who makes false statements or claims in the Chapter 7 case, or who withholds recorded information from the trustee.

A person who files to satisfactorily explain any loss or deficiency of his or her assets.

A person who refuses to answer questions or obey orders of the bankruptcy court, either in his or her bankruptcy case or in the bankruptcy case of a relative, business associate, or corporation with which he or she is associated.

A person who, after filing the case, fails to complete an instructional course on personal financial management. This is the reason that it is critical for the debtor to complete the course within 45 days of the meeting of the creditors.

A person who has been convicted of bankruptcy fraud or who owes a debt arising from a securities law violation.

If the debtor meets on or more of the above conditions, he is not eligible for a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy discharge and should not file a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.

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.

Second Vehicles, Motorcycles and Bankruptcy

Periodically, I meet with debtors who own either second vehicles or motorcycles, and would like to keep them, after either Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy filing. Filing for either Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy doesn’t always mean that you have to give up your second vehicle or motorcycle, as long as the payments are considered a reasonable vehicle expense. The second vehicle, referred to above, is the vehicle that is an extra one for the single debtor, or the third one for joint filers.

How does the debtor know if the second car or motorcycle will be considered a reasonable expense? The answer to this question initially depends on the type of bankruptcy being considered: Chapter 7 or Chapter 13.

Since with Chapter 7 Bankruptcy there is no repayment plan for creditors, the secured debts, like vehicle loans, are either continue to be paid by the debtor or the vehicles are surrendered. The debtor is obligated to list his/her income and expenses in the bankruptcy petition. The purpose of listing income and expenses is to show that after deducting reasonable expenses, the debtor has no money with which to repay his creditors. If there is any significant money left over in the budget (more than about $100), the debtor will not qualify for Chapter 7. Instead, he will be required to file a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy where creditors are repaid some or all of what they are owed.

If the Chapter 7 debtor’s monthly income equals to his/her monthly expenses, the debtor has no money with which to repay his creditors in a Chapter 13. However, those expenses must be reasonable or the trustee will object to the bankruptcy. This is the critical issue in whether the debtor will be able to keep the second vehicle or motorcycle. Usually if teh budget shows that even befor the payment on the second vehicle or motorcycle, the debtor is either at break-even, or is in the negative territory, the bankruptcy court will not require him to give it up. If the debtor wants to spend less on other expenses, the debtor can do that. If the debtor wants to make the payments, he can keep the second vehicle or motorcycle. An additional caveat has to do with any equity in such second vehicle. If there is any equity, the trustee is likely to demand that such equity be paid to the bankruptcy estate since it would not be protected by teh bankruptcy exemptions.

The above also applies for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. In Chapter 13, any vehicle payments allowed in the repayment plan take money away from what the unsecured creditors receive. So a payment for the second vehicle or motorcycle will reduce the money the trustee has available to repay other claims and is likely to be objected to. Here in Rochester, the bankruptcy trustee will permit the debtor to keep the second vehicle or motorcycle if the plan repays all unsecured debtors at 100%. So, if the joint debtors, for example, are a couple with three vehicle payments, three vehicle payments are not necessary for “the effective reorganization of the debtor” required by the bankruptcy statute. The second vehicle or motorcycle is likely to be toy, and allowing the toy to be paid off in the plan reduces the amount the unsecured creditors receive.

The easiest way to determine whether the second vehicle or a motorcycle will be viewed as an allowable expense in Chapter 7 bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy is to discuss these issues with a bankruptcy lawyer prior to making a decision to file.

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and Purchase of a Vehicle

I frequently meet with debtors who tell me that they are thinking about filing for bankruptcy, but have concerns since they may need a new car in the near future. I am usually asked if a new car or used car should be purchased prior to filing for bankruptcy protection. As a bankruptcy lawyer, the current status of the law prevents me from counseling debtors from acquiring more debt prior to filing for bankruptcy. However, if I were in the debtor’s position, I would consider the following.

First, if you planning to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and you will need a different car, you should buy the car since it is easier to buy a car prior to filing for bankruptcy, assuming that your credit allows it. If the car is financed, the loan will have to be reaffirmed, and assuming that the amount of equity does not exceed you New York exemption for a vehicle, you will be able to keep your vehicle. At the same time, a financed vehicle on your credit report will help you rebuild credit after filing for bankruptcy.

If you are filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and decide to buy the car before filing, you will be able to keep the car and payments on the loan will be a part of your repayment plan. If anything, since in Chapter 13 bankruptcy the bankruptcy court allows only a certain amount of interest to be paid on secured loans, it is possible that your monthly payments may be reduced. The situation becomes more complicated if the debtor suddenly needs a car after filing Chapter 13 bankruptcy. In order to obtain new debt, the debtor would need the bankruptcy’s court’s permission to take on a car loan. This is likely to require a motion to amend the plan that was previously approved by the bankruptcy court. If the court approves the purchase, that may change the monthly payments made by the debtor. A potential benefit to the debtor is that if the payments are made on time, this is likely to improve debtor’s credit.

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.

Automatic Stay and Proceedings in New York Family Court

I have previously written about automatic stay in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, and divorce, and domestic support obligations. While divorce is handled in the New York State Supreme Court, once in a while, a family court petition seeking child support or spousal support is filed against one of my bankruptcy clients in New York State Family Court. When this happens, usually I am asked whether the automatic stay prevent the filing or continuation of the family court proceedings. My answer to that question will depend on the type of bankruptcy filed.

While the debtors tend to believe that the automatic stay prevents creditors from proceeding with collection activities, it does not stop most family court matters. The Automatic Stay, in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, which is governed by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, will terminate any collection activities. However, one of the exemption included in §362(b) allows for actions in Family Court matters and also in Supreme Court involving domestic support obligations.

Specifically, Bankruptcy Code §362(b)(2)(A)(ii) provides:

The Automatic Stay created by a bankruptcy filing bars the commencement or continuation of most legal proceedings, but it has no effect on a proceeding for –

the establishment of paternity,

the establishment or modification of an order for a Domestic Support Obligation such as child support,

the determination of child custody or visitation issues, or

the dissolution of marriage, except to the extent that such proceeding may seek to determine a division of marital property in which the bankruptcy estate also has an interest.

While the divorce can be granted in Supreme Court without first obtaining relief from the Automatic Stay, the marital property cannot be divided without obtaining such relief. The Automatic Stay also does not prevent the post-petition collection of Domestic Support Obligations such as alimony or child support.

from any property belonging to the debtor, providing that the bankruptcy estate does not also have an interest in said property,

from automatic wage deduction orders created by a statute or judicial or administrative order,

from the interception of debtor’s federal or state income tax refunds, or

from the withholding, suspension or restriction of a debtor’s driver’s license or professional or occupational license.

Thus, there is no protection in bankruptcy court from the obligations imposed by a Domestic Support Obligation which can be brought in either the Family Court or Supreme Court. The above is true with respect to Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, however, in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy the answer is not the same.

The reason for this is the way Chapter 13 Bankruptcy treats debtor’s earnings after the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The property of the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy estate, which is broadly defined, specifically includes “earnings”. See 11 U.S.C. §541 [a] [6]; §1306 [a]. Because payments to creditors must come from the debtor’s post-petition earnings, those earning are property of the Chapter 13 estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1306 [a] [2]. Thus, the claimant seeking to collect arrearages in support obligations is not free to pursue the Chapter 13 debtor’s post-petition earnings in Family Court.

Filing for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Keeping Your Bank Accounts

One of the most common questions I hear from clients is whether they are able to keep their bank accounts while they are in bankruptcy, or to open new accounts after bankruptcy. My usual answer to that question is that there is nothing under bankruptcy code that would prevent a debtor from having or keeping bank accounts. While there is nothing under the bankruptcy law that prohibits it, there are may be some practical complications.

As I have discussed previously, a typical bankruptcy requires planning and preparation. One of the possible situations I prepare my clients for is a possibility that their bank may close their bank accounts or withdraw money from their accounts. If the debtor has a bank account with a bank or credit union that has also loaned him or her money, that bank has the right of set-off. That is the bank has the right to set-off the money in the debtor’s account against any debt owed to the bank. This is true even if the debt was not delinquent and the funds would be protected by the debtor’s cash exemption. Under a typical lending agreement, a bank or a credit union is usually cross-collateralized. That means that any assets you have securing the loan, including any accounts you may have at that institution, secure all of debtor’s debts with that bank or credit union. If the debtor files for bankruptcy, the bank may take any funds and apply them to any outstanding loan. Even if the debtor is planning to continue to pay on the loan, and sign a reaffirmation agreement, the funds may be frozen or suddenly become unavailable. It is usually my advice to open a back-up account elsewhere, at an institution where the debtor didn’t borrow any money.

If the debtor has accounts which might be subject to set off, there is no need to close such accounts. If there is a small amount of money left in the account, those issue can be resolved after the bankruptcy filing. With respect to opening bank accounts after bankruptcy, the debtor may run into some problems with the Chex Systems which is utilized by most banks. Chex Systems operates similarly to credit bureaus and receives reports from its member institutions.

Eviction, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

I often receive phone calls from people in Rochester and elsewhere in Western New York who are facing a potential eviction involving a commercial or residential lease. Usually the debtors do not know what their bankruptcy options are and are seeking advice how to proceed.

A bankruptcy filing by the tenant, either residential or commercial, immediately stops any pending eviction proceedings as a result of an “automatic stay.” Automatic stay, as I have written previously, is a mandatory injunction that arises by operation of law without the need for a hearing or order of the Bankruptcy Court. The automatic stay stops all of creditor’s efforts to pursue collections, litigation or judgment enforcement. The automatic stay protect the debtor and the property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate. However, with respect to leases, it is critical to know at what stage the eviction proceedings are.

In the case of a lease, whether commercial or residential, the critical issue is whether a writ of eviction has already been issued from the landlord-tenant court. There is a significant body of case law holding that once a writ of eviction has issued from the landlord-tenant court the interest of the tenant in the lease has terminated. As result, if the lease is considered to be terminated by the bankruptcy court, the tenant can be evicted and the automatic stay will not stop the eviction. Thus, if a bankruptcy is being considered to prevent to postpone the eviction, it is critical for the debtor to contact a bankruptcy lawyer as soon as the eviction petition is served.

For a tenant who files for bankruptcy, the available options depend upon what chapter (type) of bankruptcy the debtor may be filing.

If the debtor is filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy, it may provide a delay in being evicted, and discharge the tenant from any liability under the lease. At the same time, the filing will not allow the debtor to either cure the default or give extra time to make payments under the lease.

For an individual debtor who has a lease, and has not kept up with the payments, Chapter 13 bankruptcy can provide the opportunity to cure the arrears (past due rent) over time. In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the arrears can be paid over a 5 year period, depending on the terms of the plan. If the tenant doesn’t stay current with post-bankruptcy rent, the landlord can seek “relief from the automatic stay” from the Bankruptcy Court to permit the landlord to move forward to evict the tenant in state court.

Do Debtors Meet Bankruptcy Judge During Their Chapter 7 Bankruptcy?

I am often asked whether the debtors here in Rochester will get to meet the Bankruptcy Court Judge during their 341 meeting, otherwise known as the meeting of the creditors. My usual response to this question is no, since the bankruptcy court judges are barred by law from attending the meeting of the creditors.

While the meeting of creditors is open and the public can attend it, the bankruptcy judge assigned to the case may not do so. While it seems counterintuitive, the reasons for this is to avoid any perception of bias on the part of the judge. Prior to 1979, when the current version of the bankruptcy code became effective, a bankruptcy court judge was able to attend the meeting of creditors. However, the Congress decided that it was necessary to prohibit judges from attending the meeting.

Accordingly, Bankruptcy Code section 341(c) provides that “the court may not preside at, and may not attend, any meeting under this section.” Although the local meeting of creditors is held in the Rochester Federal Courthouse, it is not a court hearing and the trustee presiding over the meeting is not a judicial officer. I tell the debtors that in most Chapter 7 consumer bankruptcy cases, the debtor will never appear before the judge assigned to the case.

If I am asked the same question about the Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, my answer will be the opposite since as a part of any Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the debtors will have to attend a confirmation hearing which, in Rochester, will be presided by Judge Ninfo.