livingston – Page 7 – Rochester Bankruptcy and Debt Relief

Upcoming Changes to New York’s Bankruptcy Exemptions

As readers of this blog know, if a debtor is filing for either Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in New York, New York’s bankruptcy exemptions will apply. Unfortunately, those exemptions have not been updated in quite some time and are very limited as far as the values of protected assets is concerned.

There is a bill pending in New York State’s legislature that would substantially change the value of assets that could be protected in bankruptcy by changing the figures included in the Debtor and Creditor Law and CPLR which are the basis of those exemptions.

Specifically, this bill would increase the level of certain exemptions from the satisfaction of a money judgment. In addition to the increases, it would add one computer, one cell phone and one motor vehicle worth up to $4,000 to the list. If such vehicle was equipped for use by a disabled person, the limit would be $10,000. The money judgment exemption for the motor vehicle would not apply if the debt enforced is for child support, spousal support, maintenance or alimony.

It would increase the homestead exemption value of a home under Section 5206 of the CPLR from $50,000 to: $150,000 for the counties of Kings, New York, Queens, Bronx, Richmond, Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland, Westchester, and Putnam; $125,000 for the counties of Dutchess, Albany, Columbia, Orange, Saratoga, and Ulster; $75,000 for the remaining counties in the state.

It would also amend Subdivision I of Section 282 of the Debtor and Creditor Law to increase from $2,400 to $4,000 the exemption for one motor vehicle in bankruptcy. If such vehicle was equipped for use by a disabled person, the limit would be $10,000 in bankruptcy. The bill would amend section 283 of the debtor and creditor law to increase the amount of the aggregate individual bankruptcy exemption from $5,000 to $10,000.

The bill would add a new section 285 to the Debtor and Creditor Law to permit debtors to choose either the current federal exemptions or the exemptions in New York Law. The New York State exemptions are listed in Debtor Creditor Law Art 10-A, Sections 282 and 283. Federal exemptions are enumerated in 11 U.S.C. 522(d). It will apply a Cost of Living Adjustment to be published by the New York Banking Department for the applicable exemptions in sections 5205 and 5206 of the CPLR and Section 282 and 283 of the Debtor and Creditor Law.

If those proposed amendments pass into law, the debtors living in Rochester, and Western New York, would be able to protect an additional $25,000 in home equity per filer and also benefit from an increase in the value of vehicle exemption.

More significantly, the debtors will be able to chose between the New York exemptions or the Federal exemption limits. At this time, New York does not allow debtors to make this choice. The ability to utilize federal exemptions will help those debtors who do not own a home more than anything else, because there is a wildcard exemption under Federal Rules. The wildcard exemption, 11 U.S.C. 522(d)(5), typically allows the debtor to exempt a substantial amount of cash, which is presently limited under New York’s exemptions to $2,500.

If you are contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, New York, Canandaigua, Brighton, Pittsford, Penfield, Perinton, Fairport, Webster, Victor, Farmington, Greece, Gates, Hilton, Parma, Brockport, Spencerport, LeRoy, Chili, Churchville, Monroe County, Ontario County, Wayne County, Orleans County, Livingston County, and being harassed by bill collectors, and would like to know more about how bankruptcy may be able to help you, contact me today by phone or email to schedule a FREE initial consultation with a Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.

Do Both Spouses Have to File for Bankruptcy Together?

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, New York, Canandaigua, Brighton, Pittsford, Penfield, Perinton, Fairport, Webster, Victor, Farmington, Greece, Gates, Hilton, Parma, Brockport, Spencerport, LeRoy, Chili, Churchville, Monroe County, Ontario County, Wayne County, Orleans County, Livingston County, and being harassed by bill collectors, and would like to know more about how bankruptcy may be able to help you, contact me today by phone or email to schedule a FREE initial consultation with a Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.

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.

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.

Top Ten Bankruptcy Myths

There are lot of myths and misinformation regarding debtors’ rights to file bankruptcy. In my practice, I see a lot of debtors who seek to file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, who have heard a lot of rumors and incorrect information with respect to their rights and obligations when they file for bankruptcy relief. The following is a compilation of the typical questions, and correct answers to the questions I frequently hear from the debtors.

1. I will not be able to buy a house for ten years since I will not be able to obtain a mortgage.

Although Chapter 7 Bankruptcy will appear on your credit report for a period of ten years, you will be able to buy a house again much sooner than that, because the bankruptcy is likely to improve your credit rating. Chapter 13 Bankruptcy is likely to improve your credit sooner and is likely to disappear from your credit report much sooner as well.

2. I won’t be able to buy a car for ten years since I will not be able to obtain a car loan.

Although Chapter 7 Bankruptcy is likely to be on your credit report for a period of ten years, you will be able to borrow money to purchase a car again because because the bankruptcy is likely to improve your credit rating.

3. I won’t get a credit card or a good credit score for ten years.

Both Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy are likely to improve your credit rating. In my experience, although I do not recommend it, the debtors are able to obtain credit cards again within 1 to 2 years.

4. I won’t be able to get a student loan for myself or my children.

Since guaranteed student loans must be repaid, and cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, therefore, there is little concern that student loans will not be paid back. Any private lender may deny a student loan based on the debtor’s credit score, however most student loans are government backed.

5. My employer will fire me because I filed for bankruptcy.

While bankruptcy information is available as a public record, employer, or prospective employer, is not allowed to discriminate against you based on debtor’s decision to file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. If a prospective employer asks you for a copy of your credit report, questions you about bankruptcy, most employers are prefer to know that the debtor no longer has any financial issues which may affect work performance. Discharging the debt is preferable to an employer as opposed to a situation where the debtor is receiving phone calls at work from collectors or a credit report that shows a pattern of irresponsibility. Further, in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, employers are not notified of the filing. In Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, the employer is likely to be aware of the filing since here in Rochester, New York, the Bankruptcy Court requires a wage deduction order that is sent to the debtor’s employer and requires a portion of the wages to be remitted directly to the Chapter 13 Trustee.

6. I don’t qualify for chapter 7 bankruptcy because I own a house.

You can file for a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy even if you own a home. Most states, including New York, allow a homeowner a certain amount of equity in their residence. In New York, pursuant to its homestead bankruptcy exemption, a single filer can have $50,000 worth of equity in their residential property, and joint filers (husband and wife) can have $100,000 worth of equity in their property.

7. I will lose my car if I file for bankruptcy.

If the debtor has a financed car, and can afford the payments, the bankruptcy court will not take away the car, unless the amount of equity in the vehicle is considerably greater than New York’s vehicle exemption. Further, the lender is likely to ask the debtor to reaffirm the car loan. Most Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filers who have car loans, tend to reaffirm them.

8. I am not a citizen, and therefore I can’t file for bankruptcy protection.

You can qualify to file bankruptcy even if you are not a United States citizen. If you have the right to reside in the United States, have a social security number, and have filed income tax returns, you can file for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy protection.

9. Bankruptcy can’t help because I have unpaid federal and state taxes.

Under appropriate circumstances, even taxes can be discharged in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Chapter 13 Bankruptcy can reduce debtor’s monthly payment to the IRS or New York Department of Taxation and Finance and allow for payments over the life of the plan, as long as five years, without interest.

10. My creditors tell me they will still sue to recover the money owed to them.

Once the bankruptcy is filed, the automatic stay, imposed by the bankruptcy law, protects you from any further attempts to collect a debt or any pending or future lawsuits. While secured creditors may ask for their property back if you do not continue to make payments, they must seek consent of the bankruptcy court before attempting to recover the property.

Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, Giving Advice to Clients and Restrictions Under BAPCPA

The U.S. Supreme Court has resolved an issue earlier this week that was of great concern to the bankruptcy lawyers ever since enactment of BAPCPA in 2005. This issue had to do with a provision of BAPCPA, which barred attorneys from advising their clients to take on more debt before filing for bankruptcy protection. The Supreme Court held in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz v. United States, 559 U.S. ___ (2010), that giving such advice is permissible in appropriate situations.

The high court, in an opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the provision prohibiting such advice was valid, but should be read narrowly. This provision should be read to prohibit bankruptcy lawyers from advising clients to abuse the bankruptcy system. Justice Sotomayer indicated that it would be permissible for lawyers to advise clients contemplating bankruptcy to take on additional debt in certain situations. She wrote that bankruptcy lawyers could advise clients to refinance a mortgage or purchase a reliable car prior to bankruptcy on the grounds that doing so would reduce the debtor’s interest rates or improve the debtor’s ability to repay. According to the opinion, “[i]t would make scant sense to prevent attorneys and other debt relief agencies form advising individuals thinking of filing for bankruptcy about options that would be beneficial to both those individuals and their creditors.” Professionals specializing in bankruptcy “remain free to talk fully and candidly about the incurrence of debt in contemplation of filing a bankruptcy case,” Sotomayor wrote.

This provision has been problematic in the past in situations where my client would have a vehicle that was likely to need repairs in the near future due to its age or mileage. Under BAPCPA, I could not advise the debtor in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy to obtain a new car lease or car loan, as getting a new car is easier to do before filing for bankruptcy than after. Since BAPCPA contained a provision which prevented attorneys from advising clients to incur debt in contemplation of bankruptcy, I was unable to give debtors such advise since BAPCPA’s enactment. Similarly, this provision prohibited me from advising a debtor to refinance his mortgage immediately prior to filing for bankruptcy in order to benefit from a lower interest rate in the future.

The Supreme Court decision now clarifies the scope of BAPCPA provisions and holds that as long as bankruptcy lawyer’s advice is not meant to abuse the system, it is considered appropriate. Of course, a bankruptcy attorney cannot advise a client to go out and run up debt when the client has no reasonable expectation to repay it. The decision also upheld the BAPCPA’s requirement that attorneys make certain disclosures in their advertisements and ruled that attorneys who provide bankruptcy assistance are debt relief agencies within the meaning of the law. This requirement is the reason that whenever bankruptcy attorneys advertise their service, that sentence is included in the advertisement.

Overall, Milavetz was a positive result for bankruptcy lawyers here in Rochester, New York, and elsewhere across the country. The Congress should not have limited bankruptcy attorneys’ ability to engage in frank and open communications with their clients and give debtors the best possible advice.

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.