creditor – Rochester Bankruptcy and Debt Relief – Rochester, NY Bankruptcy Attorney

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and Creditors’ Chain of Title

It is fairly common for Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 debtors to have credit cards that went into default some time ago. It is also common for credit card issuers to sell of delinquent credit card accounts.

In Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, all creditors are notified of the bankruptcy filing and can file claims. It is common for a new entity to file a proof of claim as successor or assignee of the original credit card issuer, but often such proof of claim does not include any evidence that the claim was, in fact, assigned. This situation is commonly referred to as a missing chain of title, missing proof that the claim has been legally transferred or assigned to the new owner.

Here in Rochester, United States Bankruptcy Court Judge John C. Ninfo II has issued several decisions addressing this issue. In one of them, In re Doherty and In re Benedetti, he held that in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, the successor creditor was obligated to prove it was the legal holder of the claim.

In Doherty, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee filed his objection to the successor creditor’s claim arguing that (1) successor creditor was not scheduled as a creditor in the petition; (2) although the debtors had scheduled the creditors that the successor creditor alleged originally held the claims, there was no breakdown in the proofs of claim to support the amounts alleged to be due,which differed from the amounts the debtors had scheduled; and (3) there was no assignment or bill of sale produced to demonstrate that the successor creditor was the current holder of any of the claims that were alleged to have been sold and assigned to it.

Judge Ninfo held that the successor has failed to produce a chain of title from the alleged original holders of the claims to it by either a series of assignments or bills of sale, or by any other acceptable proof of ownership. As a result, he disallowed successor creditor’s claims, since there was no proof that it was a proper creditor entitled to file a proof of claim under Section 501 of the Bankruptcy Code.

This issue can be extremely important in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy cases where it may impact duration of the plan as well as the amount of money paid by debtors under the plan. In Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, this issue becomes particularly significant in asset cases, i.e., situations where debtors have nonexempt assets that the bankruptcy trustee may sell to pay the creditors.

If you are 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.

Importance of Providing Accurate Information in Your Bankruptcy Petition and Schedules

I have previously written how important it is for debtors to provide their bankruptcy attorney with accurate and complete information. Debtors have an absolute obligation under the Bankruptcy Code to disclose their assets, liabilities and income to the bankruptcy court. Once in a while, a debtor may forget a creditor or overlook an old debt. Not every debt appears on the credit report either. When a debt is omitted from the bankruptcy petition, under the Bankruptcy Code, there are several possible solutions.

Initially, if the debtor realizes that a debt was overlooked during the bankruptcy, the debtor is required to file amended schedules and identify the creditor. If this happens, the bankruptcy attorney should be notified and he will amend the schedules.

If a pre-bankruptcy debt is discovered after the bankruptcy case has been closed and discharge granted, there are a couple of possible options. In some situations, it will be necessary to request that the bankruptcy court reopens the bankruptcy case and discharge the debt. In other situations, especially in no asset Chapter 7 Bankruptcy cases, the debt is considered discharged as a matter of law, even though it wasn’t listed in the schedules. Finally, some types of debt, such as student loans, cannot be discharged under most circumstances, and will survive the bankruptcy.

The bankruptcy courts expect the debtor to provide a full and complete disclosure of both assets and liabilities. In Chapter 7 Bankruptcy asset cases and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy cases, an omission matters a great deal since listed creditors receive payments through the bankruptcy court. If a debtor deliberately fails to list a creditor, that debt is likely be declared non-dischargeable and will survived the bankruptcy. Under appropriate circumstances, courts have denied debtor a bankruptcy discharge because of the debtor’s intentional failure to list all debts or revoked already issued discharge.

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.

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.

Creditor Can’t Contact Debtor After the Bankruptcy Is Filed

When you file your bankruptcy case,the creditors must stop calling you. They can’t continue garnishing your wages. They must stop all collection activities because every bankruptcy case protects the debtor with the “automatic stay.” The automatic stay prohibits creditors from taking actions against you, unless they obtain a permission from the bankruptcy court.

While there are some exceptions, primarily for matters involving marital obligations, otherwise known as “domestic support obligations”, for most people and most debts, bankruptcy provides real relief.

If creditors keep calling you, mailing you, garnishing your wages or taking other actions against you, call your lawyer immediately. Regardless of whether the creditors acted with or without the knowledge of your filing, a bankruptcy lawyer make them stop. Also, regardless of whether the creditors acted with or without the knowledge of your filing, the creditors may be liable for actual and even punitive damages as well as attorneys fees.

Section 362 of the US Bankruptcy Code states that § 362. Automatic stay states that the filing of a petition in bankruptcy operates as a stay “applicable to all entities, of the commencement or continuation, of any action against the debtor.” Section 362(k) states that an individual injured by any willful violation of a stay shall recover actual damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, and, in appropriate circumstances, may recover punitive damages.

So what’s a willful violation of a stay? The creditor needs to know that you have filed for bankruptcy. It must take an action to collect against the debtor after that stay is in effect. The creditor doesn’t need to willfully violate the stay, it needs to willfully take the action. That means the creditor needs to send out the collection letter after that creditor knows of the stay.

Here in Rochester, Judge Ninfo addressed the issue of willful violation of automatic stay in In re Engel, holding that mailing of a billing statement after the bankruptcy was filed was a willful violation of automatic stay. In Engel, the creditor was listed in bankruptcy schedules and was also contacted by the debtor’s attorney who demanded that the creditor stop any and all contact with the debtor. Even after the debtor’s attorney notified the creditor, the creditor mailed two additional billing statements. While the creditor claimed that the contact with the debtor was an unintentional mistake, the court found that the creditor’s actions were intentional and ordered a hearing on damages.

If you 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 bankruptcy attorney.

Bankruptcy Basics – Preferences

The Bankruptcy Code permits a trustee to recover from creditors payments made shortly before the bankruptcy filing, where the payment gave the creditor more than other creditors in a similar position would get through the bankruptcy process.

The policy behind the statute is to reduce the advantages that a creditor might get by suing or by collection activities that force the debtor into bankruptcy. That is accomplished by making payments received in the 90 days before the filing recoverable in bankruptcy by the trustee.

It is neither wrong for the debtor to make a preferential payment, nor is it wrong for a creditor to accept such payment. The preference statutes are simply an attempt to achieve equity between creditors.

Bankruptcy Code §547 defines a preference as:

Payment on an antecedent (as opposed to current) debt;
Made while the debtor was insolvent;
To a non-insider creditor, within 90 days of the filing of the bankruptcy;
That allows the creditor to receive more on its claim than it would have, had the payment not been made and the claim paid through the bankruptcy proceeding.

Any payments to a fully secured creditor are not usually preferences, because the creditor would not get more than he would have in bankruptcy, where the creditor would get the value of the collateral.

While the look back period for preferences is usually 90 days, the bankruptcy code also permits the recovery of payments on claims owed to insiders, such as relatives, friends, corporate officers or directors, or related entities, made within 1 year of the bankruptcy filing. This provision attempts to prevent the debtor from paying relatives, friends and business decision makers at the expense of other creditors.

Preference recovery is generally a matter between the trustee and a creditor. When the creditor is a third party, the debtor may not care very much. When the creditor in question is a relative or a friend, however, most debtors are very concerned. If a bankruptcy case is filed within a year of these payments to relatives and friends, the trustee may take the money from the friend or relative the debtor paid, and redistribute it to creditors in accordance with the bankruptcy laws.

There are some procedural issues that apply to preferences. For example, a payment made by check is effective as of the date the check cleared, not the date on the check or the date it was mailed. There are also some defenses to preferences, usually available in a business rather than a consumer setting. Preferences can be voluntary payments, like a check sent in payment of an invoice, or involuntary, like attaching a bank account.

A debtor needs someone with knowledge and experience in these issue on his side. One of the most valuable things an experienced bankruptcy attorney can do is prevent problems for you, and unintended consequences for your family members or business partners. It is also best to seek such advice before you make that payment, or transfer that asset. Lawyers can control damage in most situations, but we prefer to prevent a problem arising in the first place and this can be accomplished in most situation with pre-bankruptcy planning.

If you are dealing with debt problems in 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.

Chapter 7 Means Test

Under the current version of the bankruptcy law, in order to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the debtor must pass a “means test” which will determine whether debtor, or his family, is eligible to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

The purpose of the means test is to keep debtors from abusing the bankruptcy system by filing when they don’t have to do so. The presumption is that if the debtor fails the means test, he/she is trying to abuse the system.

If the debtor’s income is below the median income for families in New York, based on Census Bureau statistics, the debtor will be eligible for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The current means test figures for New York are listed here.

The means test uses the income of the debtor for the six months leading up to the filing of the bankruptcy. The monthly income figure for that time is referred to as the debtor’s “current monthly income”.

Even if the debtor’s income has recently decreased, the use of the six months before the filing date may make the debtor’s income for bankruptcy purposes higher than it will actually be and place him/her into an income situation where he/she may be required to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

If you make more than the median income for families in New York, your income over the past six months is considered, along with mortgage and car payments, back taxes and child support obligations, and school expenses up to $1,500 per year. You won’t be eligible for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy if, after deducting these amounts, and the living expenses provided in the Internal Revenue Service’s national collection standards, you have a monthly disposable income of more than $100.00 per month.

If your monthly disposable income is more than $166.66, you have failed the means test, and cannot qualify for Chapter 7.

If your monthly disposable income is between $100.00 and $166.66, and that is enough to pay more than 25% of your unsecured, nonpriority debts (credit card bills, student loans, medical bills, and so on) over a five-year period, then you fail the means test, and Chapter 7 won’t be available to you. If it is not enough to pay more than 25% of your unsecured, nonpriority debts over a five-year period, then you pass the means test, and Chapter 7 remains an option.

If you don’t qualify for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, your only option would be a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Debt Settlement – Does It Work?

Recently, I read a New York Times article, “Debt Settlers Offer Promises But Little Help“, that confirmed something that I already knew – debt settlement, in most cases, does not work and usually costs a lot more than a Chapter 7 or a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Also, most people working with debt settlement companies are likely to find themselves in the worse financial situation after entering debt settlement. One quote summarizes how debt settlement industry does business:

Consumers who turn to these companies sometimes get help from them, personal finance experts say, but that is not the typical experience. More often, they say, a settlement company collects a large fee, often 15 percent of the total debt, and accomplishes little or nothing on the consumer’s behalf.

While I appreciate the fact that most debtors want to avoid filing bankruptcy, in my opinion, bankruptcy represents an opportunity for a fresh start for most people. The critical difference between a bankruptcy and a debt settlement, despite what a debt settlement company may claim, is that the creditor does not have to agree to a debt settlement arrangement. In a bankruptcy, under either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, the creditor is obligated to follow the Chapter 13 repayment plan or accept results of the Chapter 7 discharge.

At the same time, if a debtor has a only a few debts, may have other alternatives to either filing a bankruptcy or working with a debt settlement company.

I have experience with “workouts” which is a term used to describe a non-bankruptcy negotiated modification of debt. A workout is an out-of-court agreement between a debtor and his or her creditors for repayment of the debts between them, which is negotiated without all the procedural complications — and perhaps the stigma — of the bankruptcy process. A typical workout takes form of either “composition”, which is a contract between the debtor and two or more creditors in which the creditors agree to take a partial payment in full satisfaction of their claims. Another option is an “extension”, which is a contract between the debtor and two or more creditors in which the creditors agree to extend the time for payment of their claims. An agreement may be both a composition and an extension, i.e., an agreement to accept less money over a longer period of time.

There is no requirement that all of the debtor’s creditors agree to a composition or extension, but most of them must voluntarily support it for it to work. Creditors that do not agree to the workout are not affected by it and remain entitled to pursue other remedies to collect the debts owed to them. My role in this process is to negotiate such agreements on behalf of the debtor.

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Objections to Discharge

You have filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. You and your lawyer went to the meeting of the creditors. Everything seemed to be in order. Then your lawyer calls you, and tells you that one of your creditors has filed an adversary proceeding in your Chapter 7 case, objecting to discharge of its debt. So what exactly is taking place?

If a creditor determines that an objection with respect to discharge of its debt is warranted, the creditor will file an Objection to Discharge of its particular debt. This filing begins what is known as an adversarial proceeding in the bankruptcy court. An adversarial proceeding is simply a law suit within the bankruptcy, seeking to declare a particular debt as non-dischargeable. The debtor responds to the complaint, evidence is gathered and supplied to both sides, and a hearing is held in front of the bankruptcy judge who decides the case. Here in Rochester, Hon. John C. Ninfo, II, would hear the case. Typically, neither the bankruptcy trustee nor the U.S. Trustee are involved in the adversarial proceeding.

A creditor may object to the discharge of its debt in a number of different situations. An unsecured creditor may object using Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, which contains several different types of non-dischargeable debt. The debt under that section may not be dischargeable because it is: (1) $500 owing to a single creditor for the purchase of “luxury” goods within 90 days prior to filing of the bankruptcy; (2) $750 owing to a single creditor for a cash advance (i.e. balance transfers are cash advances) obtained within 70 days prior to filing of the bankruptcy; or (3) for money obtained under false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud. There are also additional reasons to declare a debt non-dischargeable.

With respect to situations (1) and (2), the applicable rules are known as as the per-se rules. That means that the creditor need not prove debtor’s intent (i.e. fraud), and needs to show only that the transactions meet the criteria stated. Situation (3) means that the debtor made the charges/cash advances knowing that he/she was going to file bankruptcy, or made the charges/cash advances while insolvent and/or could not have had a reasonable expectation to pay back the debt, or made false representations in obtaining credit resulting in the debt he/she is trying to discharge at this time.

If the creditor is successful in having a debt declared non-dischargeable, the debtor will owe that debt until it is paid, with all accumulating interest, and the debtor can never discharge that debt.

The following is a brief description of procedural issues applicable to the objections. The complaint must be filed on or before 60 days from the first date set for the creditors meeting (also know as 341 meeting). Typically, a creditor has less than 90 days after receiving notice of the bankruptcy case to file a complaint. A creditor must act promptly to determine there are grounds to object to discharge.

Even if a creditor files an objection to discharge of its debt, the rest of the bankruptcy will proceed normally. The debtor will recieve the discharge on time, and most of the time, the discharge will be received before the hearing in the adversarial proceeding.

Once the adversarial proceeding is filed, the debtor has a number of options with respect to the creditor’s claim. The debtor can agree to repay all or a portion of the debt by signing a reaffirmation agreement. A typical reaffirmation agreement results in the debtor paying 50% of the debt over 12-18 months. The next option is fighting the objection. The debtor will have to be able to either fight the objection on his/her own or pay an additional retainer to the attorney to fight the claim.

The way that a creditor proves its case, is by showing to the court that the debtor was in financial distress at the time the objectionable transactions were made. Therefore, the debtor’s financial history will be disclosed through the discovery process, usually for a period of 12 months prior to the challenged transaction, and from the date of the transaction to the date of filing. Since an adversarial proceeding is a civil matter, both parties may call witnesses, and the debtor may be called to testify by either side. A creditor’s theory of the case in an adversarial proceeding is usually that no reasonable person could have expected to be able to pay off the debt, at the time that debt was taken out.

If the creditor wins, a judgment is entered, declaring the debt non-dischargable. This judgment can ultimately be used in New York State court, or elsewhere, to obtain a money judgment that can then be used to garnish wages, restrain bank accounts or conduct other collection activities. That judgment will not be dischargeable in any subsequent bankrupcies and can only be extinguished by payment or by New York’s statute of limitations, presently 20 years. Even if the creditor prevails, the debtor is not responsible for the creditor’s attorney’s fees and costs.

If the debtor wins, the debt is discharged, and, under appropriate circumstances, the creditor will have to pay debtor’s attorney’s fees and costs.

Thus, if an adversarial proceeding is brought, the debtor must choose between either settling or fighting. The cost to defend an adversarial proceding is usually substantial. Therefore, it should be compared to the cost of settling the case. If the proposed settlement reduces the debt and the payments are affordable, especially if the settlement amount is less than the cost to defend, the debtor should consider settlement.

If you are dealing with debt problems in 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.