monroe – Page 7 – Rochester Bankruptcy and Debt Relief

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and Immigration Status

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

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

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

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

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

Do Both Spouses Have to File for Bankruptcy Together?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do Divorce Settlements Survive Bankruptcy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can You Be Fired For Filing Bankruptcy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should You Hire a Bankruptcy Lawyer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and Projected Disposable Income

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adversary Proceedings In Bankruptcy

For most part, filing either Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 bankruptcy is an administrative process. The bankruptcy lawyer gathers information, prepares and files the petition. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the debtor attends a brief hearing conducted by a trustee. In Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, the debtor also has to attend a confirmation hearing. However, in some cases an “adversary proceeding” is filed.

An adversary proceeding is essentially a case within a case. It is a lawsuit within either Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy case about an issue related to the bankruptcy case. There are many other situations in which adversary proceedings arise. In other instances, the debtor brings the adversary proceeding to bring a claim or to obtain a determination from the court. The Bankruptcy Rules of Procedure specify the situations in which parties must file adversary proceedings.

There are three parties in the bankruptcy court case who can file an adversary proceeding. Those parties are the creditor, the trustee (either the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy trustee, Chapter 13 bankruptcy Trustee, or the United States Trustee), and the debtor. Each adversarial proceeding is heard by the United States Bankruptcy Judge for the district where the bankruptcy is filed. For the cases filed here in Rochester, the adversary proceeding cases are heard by Hon. John C. Ninfo, II.

When a creditor files an adversary proceeding, it is usually because the creditor is claiming that the debt owed to the creditor should not be discharged in the bankruptcy. Usually the creditor will argues that it is only that particular creditor’s claim that should not be discharged since it falls within one of the exceptions to discharge, such as a debt created through fraud, willful or malicious injury, or a personal injury caused by drunk driving. Alternatively, the creditor may argue that the filing of the bankruptcy case was done in bad faith and the debtor is not entitled to the discharge altogether. These kinds of adversary proceedings are not common.

Another kind of adversary proceeding is filed by the Chapter 7 Trustee, Chapter 13 Trustee, or the United States Trustee. A trustee may argue that the schedules were not filled out accurately and were intentionally fraudulent. A trustee may file a motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case if paperwork is not filed timely, improperly, or if the debtor misses a court date without a good reason. A trustee may file an adversary proceeding seeking to collect money back from a creditor who received funds or property from a debtor. A trustee may also file an adversary proceeding to reverse a transfer of real property. The United States Trustee may file an adversarial proceeding to force the debtor to move from Chapter 7 Bankruptcy to Chapter 13 bankruptcy, if the U.S. Trustee believes that the filing of the bankruptcy petition was done in bad faith. The U.S. Trustee may also file an adversary proceeding to dismiss the case, if the U.S. Trustee believes the filing of any bankruptcy petition was done to abuse the bankruptcy system.

Finally, a debtor may file an adversary proceeding against a creditor. The debtor may recover damages for a creditor’s actions taken in violation of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, or violated the automatic stay, or the discharge (such as contacting the debtor after the bankruptcy is completed).

Mere fact that an adversary proceeding is filed does not mean that the party filing it will prevail. The bankruptcy judge will hear the case and will determine each party’s rights. It is the job of the bankruptcy attorney to advise the party as to the likelihood of success in an adversary proceeding, but the case will be decided by the bankruptcy judge .

The following is an example of a situation where an adversary proceeding is filed. The debtor obtained a large cash advance prior to filing. That cash advance was used to prevent a foreclosure or recover a vehicle after a repossession. However, the credit card issuer is likely to object claiming that the cash advance taken out only a few months prior to filing bankruptcy and argue that the debt is nondischargeable since it was either fraudulent or the money was borrowed in anticipation of the bankruptcy filing.

The litigation would commence with a filing or a complaint. An answer would serve, and the parties would engage in discovery. If the parties were unable to resolve their dispute during pretrial proceedings, there would be a trial.

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.

Debtor Who Can’t Make His Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Payments and Hardship Discharge

Once debtor’s Chapter 13 Bankruptcy plan is confirmed, the debtor has an obligation to make monthly payments. Unfortunately, sometimes circumstances change and the debtor cannot continue to make payments. When the debtor can’t make the payments on a confirmed Chapter 13 plan, the choices available to the debtor are limited. While there are a number of options, the best option for the debtor is usually a hardship discharge under §1328(b).

A bankruptcy discharge under §1328(b) eliminates all the debt that would have been dischargeable had the case been filed initially as a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. While certain types of claims would still survive a hardship discharge, but the remainder of the debt is discharged, as if the plan has been completed over its term.

In order to obtain a hardship discharge, the debtor has to satisfy the best interests of creditors test, i.e., creditors must have received at least as much as they would have received had the case been filed as a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Additionally, the debtor’s reasons for his inability to complete the plan must be events outside of the debtor’s control. Usual events include death, illness, job loss, and, occasionally, divorce.

I prefer hardship discharge for my clients, as opposed to converting a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy to Chapter 7 Bankruptcy? When the discharge is entered under Chapter 13, the debtor is eligible to file another Chapter 13 immediately. If the case is converted to a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, the debtor cannot file under either chapter of the Bankruptcy code for a period of time. An additional advantage of a hardshipt discharge is that there is no need for a new 341 meeting or amended schedules, as there would be if the case were converted to Chapter 7.

Since Chapter 13 Bankruptcy often includes debt that is not dischargeable in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, while the hardship discharge won’t discharge priority taxes, by obtaining a hardship discharge, the debtor is eligible to file another Chapter 13 when he is again healthy or employed. Further, the debtor can receive the automatic stay in a subsequent case to finish paying the debts that often caused the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.

In subsequent posts, I intend to discuss additional options available to the debtor.

Bankruptcy Basics – All About Automatic Stay

Often, it is not the debt itself that drives someone to file for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, but it is the actions of the creditors. Creditors have many different ways to try to collect a debt, such as repeated telephone calls to debtor’s house or work, letters from collection agencies and attorneys, lawsuits, wage garnishment, and other collection activities.

The debtor has only one tool available to stop the creditors. That tool arises as a result of filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. It is called “automatic stay” and arises under 11 U.S.C. §362. The automatic stay will stop all collection activities by a creditor to recover a debt. The creditor will not be able to call debtor’s home or place of work, send letters, commence or continue a law suit, or enforce a judgment. It will prevent any garnishment and will stop any garnishment already in place. It will also stop any pending foreclosure. It will stop all collection activities and will require all creditors to resolve their claims in the bankruptcy court. If you file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, the automatic stay will prevent the utility company from shutting off your service. The automatic stay will even stop contempt proceedings in the divorce case that relate to nonpayment of financial obligations.

Once the automatic stay is in place, in order to take any further action, the creditor will have to file a motion in the bankruptcy court seeking to lift stay. Most of the motions to lift the automatic stay involve cars and houses. Typical creditor in a Chapter 7 may just be seeking to enforce it state court rights against the assets, especially if the debtor is surrendering the asset.

In Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, motions to lift automatic stay are usually filed by secured creditors when they believe that they aren’t getting paid sufficient money before the plan is confirmed. The most common motions to lift stay in a Chapter13 are filed after confirmation of the plan, usually, when the debtor fails to make the required payments.

Once imposed, automatic stay requiring a stop to almost all debt collection activity against the debtor and his property remains in effect until the earliest of the following events:

1. The case is closed;
2. The case is dismissed;
3. Or the debtor is granted or denied a discharge.

After the automatic stay is terminated, either by operation of law or special order, it is important to remember that property exempted in a bankruptcy generally remains protected from pre-petition debts, even if these debts were held to nondischargeable in the case.

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) which went into effect on October 17, 2005, included provisions that made it more dangerous for the creditors to violate automatic stay. Previous to BAPCPA, there appeared to be an exception for creditors who violated the automatic stay if the acts were done in good faith due to a bona fide question of law regarding the applicability of the automatic stay. In other words, if a creditor technically violated the automatic stay but believed it was not violating the stay due to the facts or its interpretation of the law, such an act would not have been considered “willful” so as to allow damages, attorney fees, and costs. Pretty much any act by a creditor in technical violation of the automatic stay is now actionable, despite the fact that the creditor truly believes its actions are completly justified. Even if the debtor may not sustain any actual damages, the creditor will be liable for statutory damages.

There are some exceptions to the automatic stay. However, one of the exceptions included in §362(b) allows for actions in Family Court matters and also in Supreme Court involving domestic support obligations.

In short, the automatic stay is the most powerful tool in the bankruptcy lawyer’s arsenal. It will provide the debtor with an opportunity to resolve all claims in a single proceeding before the bankruptcy court. Without automatic stay, it would be very difficult for a bankruptcy attorney, if not impossible, to guide the debtor toward the fresh start contemplated by the bankruptcy law.

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.