Chapter 7 – Page 7 – Rochester Bankruptcy and Debt Relief

What Happens If a Creditor Is Omitted In Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Bankruptcy and Personal Injury Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bankruptcy, Cancellation of Debt and Tax Issues

I am often asked if the debt discharged in bankruptcy is treated as debtor’s income and is subject to taxes. The answer to that question under the Bankruptcy Code, for both Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy is unequivocally no. Debt discharged in bankruptcy does not result in taxable income to the debtor.

While I have written previously about the problems with debt settlement, this is one more advantage that bankruptcy has over various debt settlement arrangements. If the debtor has his debt reduced or cancelled, the creditor may issue an IRS Form 1009-C form and the debtor would have to report it on his taxes. As a result, the amount of cancelled debt will be added to the debtor’s income as miscellaneous income, and while not subject to self-employment or social security tax, it will be subject to income taxes. If the amount of the cancelled debt is significant, the debtor may face an unexpected tax liability amounting to thousands of dollars.

One exception to the above is cancellation of mortgage debt. The Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007 generally allows debtors to exclude income from the discharge of debt on their principal residence. Debt reduced through mortgage restructuring, as well as mortgage debt forgiven in connection with a foreclosure, qualifies for the relief as well.

This provision applies to debt forgiven in calendar years 2007 through 2012. Up to $2 million of forgiven debt is eligible for this exclusion ($1 million if married filing separately). The exclusion does not apply if the discharge is due to services performed for the lender or any other reason not directly related to a decline in the home’s value or the taxpayer’s financial condition. For a detailed discussion of IRS’ position on these issue, please follow this link.

Occasionally, even the debtor who filed fro bankruptcy may receive 1099-C from one of his creditors. Nonetheless, if the debtor received a discharge as a result of either Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, the debtor is able to file IRS Form 982, which will inform the IRS that the debtor went through the bankruptcy and any discharged debt should not be included in his gross income. If you are considering your options between a bankruptcy or debt settlement, one of the issues that you should discuss during a consultation with a bankruptcy lawyer is what impact either approach would have on your tax liability.

Emergency Bankruptcy Filing – It Can Be Done

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

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

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

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

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

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

Student Loans and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Past Judgments, Real Estate and New York’s Exemptions

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.