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

Another Update on Discharge of Student Loans – The Challenge of Obtaining a Discharge

I wrote in 2020 about a bankruptcy case, In Re Rosenberg, where the court discharged $221,000 in student loans that were accumulated by a law school graduate. At the time, I had substantial doubts that the decision would be upheld on the inevitable appeal.

As I anticipated, the bankruptcy court’s decision was reversed by the district court.

U.S. District Judge Philip M. Halpern of the Southern District of New York said that the bankruptcy court should not have granted summary judgment to the debtor because he has not yet submitted sufficient evidence that repaying the loan would constitute an undue hardship.

Halpern said in his decision that he was expressing no opinion on whether the student loan at issue, totaling approximately $221,000, is dischargeable in bankruptcy. Halpern said that during the prior proceedings Rosenberg had not submitted enough evidence to satisfy the three-part test, known as the Brunner test.

The Brunner test goes through a three step analysis: (1) whether the debtor can maintain a minimal standard of living if forced to repay the loans; (2) whether an inability to maintain the minimal standard is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period; and (3)whether the debtor had made a good faith effort to repay the loans.

Judge Halpern considered creditor’s allegations that Rosenberg’s inability to repay his student loan was “a monster of his own making,” as alleged by the Educational Credit Management Corp., which holds the debtor’s student loans.

While Rosenberg had obtained a law degree, he worked as an attorney only minimally, getting fired after a few months. He did some contract legal work on a sporadic basis, subsequently placing his law license in “retired status.”

When contract legal work ended in 2008, Rosenberg started an outdoor recreation company, sold it and then started a similar company. The new company offers outdoor guided tours.

Before starting the new company, Rosenberg moved out of his Brooklyn, New York, studio apartment and leased a house in Beacon, New York. The Beacon lease was $2,150 per month, a $700 increase from his rent in Brooklyn.

Rosenberg defaulted on the student debt after periods of deferment and forbearance. He had repaid less than $3,000 of the debt.

In support of his motion for summary judgment, Rosenberg submitted a vocational evaluation report that said he could work as a legal assistant or a paralegal, at an annual salary of $42,000 to $120,000; as a retail store manager, at an annual salary of $45,000 to $100,000; and in other customer service or sales roles at an annual salary of $36,000 to $50,000. He has also claimed that he had physical limitations as a result of prior injuries.

Judge Halpern said Rosenberg had not presented any admissible evidence establishing the severity of his injuries and the impact on his ability to work. He also noted that Rosenberg was earning about $1,500 less than needed to meet his current expenses of about $4,000 per month, which include rent of $2,150 per month.

Rosenberg “offers no substantive explanation as to why his expenses are necessary to maintain a minimal standard of living and points to no admissible evidence supporting his conclusory argument that they are, indeed, necessary,” Halpern said.

Nor was it clear whether Rosenberg made a good faith effort to repay the loan. According to the court, the debtor “presumably made enough money to move out of New York City and rent a two-bedroom house—and ultimately made less than $3,000 in payments on a debt that ballooned from an initial balance of $116,465 to over $220,000.”

According to the decision, “[t]hese considerations are compounded by plaintiff’s apparent decision to abandon his career in law (i.e., he field for which he assumed the debt in the first place), his admission that he filed the Chapter 7 proceeding with the purpose of discharging the presumptively nondischargable student loan, and his representation that he has no interest in rehabilitating the debt through a repayment program. … This constellation of evidence certainly suggests a lack of good faith and that plaintiff has, indeed, placed himself in this predicament”.

Given that the district court remanded the case back to the bankruptcy court, it is likely that it will be tried at some point in the future.

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, Henrietta, 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.

Update on Discharge of Student Loans – $221,000 in Student Loans Discharged

One of the more difficult problems associated with bankruptcy has been discharge of student loans. A recent decision by Chief Judge Cecelia Morris of U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, In re: Kevin Jared Rosenberg, enabled law grad Kevin Jared Rosenberg to discharge the $221,000 loan debt he acquired as an undergraduate at the University of Arizona and later at the Cardozo School of Law. The win by Rosenberg, who represented himself in the matter, is surprising in view of the common belief that student loan debt is all but impossible to discharge in bankruptcy.

What made this case different is how the bankruptcy judge applied “Brunner test”—which lays out the three criteria student loan borrowers must meet to demonstrate that repaying their loans poses an undue hardship—that has caught the attention of the bankruptcy law world. Morris’ opinion includes a strongly worded rebuke of how judges have traditionally applied the Brunner test, saying they have made it more onerous on borrowers than it was intended to be. “Over the past 32 years, many cases have pinned on Brunner punitive standards that are not contained therein,” Morris wrote. “Those retributive dicta were then applied and reapplied so frequently in the context of Brunner that they have subsumed the actual language of the Brunner test. They have become a quasi-standard of mythic proportions so much so that most people (bankruptcy professionals as well as lay individuals) believe it impossible to discharge student loans.”

Judge Morris’ application of the second two prongs of the test in the Rosenberg case are surprising. Rosenberg claimed in his bankruptcy petition that his annual income as an outdoor guide is $37,000 and that he has a negative monthly outlay of $1,500. But the court did not consider any potential increase in his earnings on the grounds that the entirety of his $221,000 loan balance is due because he went into default. Judges usually take a 10 or 25-year view of earnings based on the length of the repayment plan. What makes this decision particularly interesting is that Judge Morris declined to use Rosenberg’s decision not to pursue a legal career, as evidence that he has not made a good faith effort to repay his loans. In finding that Rosenberg made a good faith effort to repay his loans, Judge Morris credits him with making about 40% of his required loan payments, even though he was only required to make 26 payments over the course of 13 years due to securing multiple loan deferrals.

But whether Rosenberg’s case will be followed by other bankruptcy courts, including here in Western New York, is uncertain and will largely depend on whether Judge Morris’ decision is upheld on appeal. If the district court for the Southern District of New York, and subsequently U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, uphold it, that would make it more likely that more borrowers will see their loans discharged.

Determining Chapter 13 Repayment Plan Payment

If debtor does not qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, that debtor is likely to qualify for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The most important issue for anyone filing Chapter 13 is to know is how much their Chapter 13 Plan payment will be. In my opinion, given the typical 5 year duration of Chapter 13, properly set plan payment is the most important factor in whether the case will be a success.

Determining the amount of the payment can be challenging at the very beginning of the case. Early estimates of plan payment can change significantly as more information becomes available.

Generally, there are four tests applicable to determining the amount of the Chapter 13 Plan payment:

The Chapter 13 Means Test (officially, the “Chapter 13 Statement of Your Current Monthly Income and Calculation of Commitment Period and Calculation of Your Disposable Income”);
The Disposable Income Test;
The Chapter 7 Liquidation Analysis Test; and
The Required Payments Test

The Chapter 13 Means Test was imposed when BAPCPA became law in 2005. The Means Test’s purpose is to determine whether debtor’s Plan would be 3 years or 5 years long, and to have an objective way to determine the amount of the payment. This calculation uses one of the established four methods of determining your Chapter 13 Plan payment.

The Disposable Income Test is the only one of the four tests that is strictly based on debtor’s ability to pay. Initially, debtor’s net household income is calculated and from that figure, debtor’s actual reasonable monthly expenses are subtracted. The resulting number–disposable income–is Chapter 13 Plan payment. That calculation does not include a deduction for the debts that will be paid through the Chapter 13 case, such as mortgage arrears, car loan payments, student loan payments, tax payments, and credit card bills.

In the Chapter 7 Liquidation Analysis Test, bankruptcy attorney looks at how much debtor’s general unsecured creditors (typically credit cards, medical bills and personal loans) would receive in a hypothetical Chapter 7 case. In many cases, they would receive zero, because there are no non-exempt assets with equity, and creditors would get nothing in a Chapter 7 case. The total amount of payments under Chapter 13 plan can’t be less than the amount determined under the Liquidation Analysis Test.

The last test is the Required Payments Test. Usually, priority debt, such as recent taxes and domestic support obligations, must be paid in full during the course of the Chapter 13 case. Mortgage and other secured debt arrears must also be paid in full, along with unpaid attorney fees, trustee commissions and (in most cases) at least a nominal amount to the general unsecured creditors. Add these payments up, and you reach the Required Payments.

After all of the numbers under each test have been calculated, debtor is required pick the highest amount, which becomes the plan payment. At the same time, that figure may change during the case as creditors submit their proofs of claim, as debtor’s income, expenses and assets change. This figure may also change depending on trustee’s view of the debtor’s financial circumstances.

Debtor and Ability to Reopen Bankruptcy

Generally, chapter 7 debtors have the right to reopen their cases for various purposes after their case is closed. Usually, the court will allow the debtor to do so to remove judicial liens for otherwise discharged debt via 11 U.S.C. §522(f) motion, or to add an overlooked creditor, or to file a financial management course certificate, or perhaps for another purpose. In In re May E. Jones, Case No. 03-21929, debtor moved to reopen the case 13 years after it was closed, to amend the schedule of real property, disclosing (for the first time) her interest in a parcel of real property and seeking to have the property abandoned to her under 11 U.S.C. §554. If the court were to reopen the case, a substantial real estate asset would likely revert to the debtor.

After reviewing the parties’ submissions and conducting an evidentiary hearing, Judge Warren found that the debtor was aware of her interest in the real property at the time the bankruptcy was filed but did not disclose that interest in her petition. The court further found that reopening of the case would not be to the benefit to the creditors, and the debtor could not establish that she had acted in good faith at the time her Chapter 7 bankruptcy case was filed.

Concluding his decision, Judge Warren wrote:

The Court will not accept Jones’s invitation to turn a blind eye to the signals pointing toward bad faith, so that she can have the undisclosed assets abandoned back to her. That seems a bit like a parent rewarding a child who was caught hiding her failing report card with a hot fudge sundae.

What is the takeaway from this case? The cardinal rule of bankruptcy is full and complete disclosure. Here, the debtor did not fully disclose all of her assets and did not act in good faith. Thus, the court denied her motion and debtor could not benefit from her actions. The above situation is unusual both in the length of time from the time of discharge and the relief sought. However, I believe that it illustrates a simple principal that in bankruptcy a debtor cannot benefit from his wrongful conduct.

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.

Student Loans and Possibility of Discharge

I have previously written about dischargeability of student loans in bankruptcy. For most people filing bankruptcy does not result in a discharge of a student loan under the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (“BAPCPA”) amendments. The code, as amended, does not provide for the discharge of a student loan in a bankruptcy. In order for the student loan to be discharged, the debtor must brings a lawsuit, known as adversarial proceeding, and ask bankruptcy judge to make a determination that the continued existence of the student loan will create an “undue hardship” on the debtor. Under the applicable prior decisions, “undue hardship” is the most difficult part, that is the debtor must convince the bankruptcy court judge that in this case under the circumstances applicable to this debtor, the debtor will not be able to make any significant payments on the student loans owed. The high burden of proof makes these lawsuits extremely difficult.

However, under appropriate circumstances, it may be possible to determine what position the Department of Education may take on student loan dischargeability. The Department of Education recently issued a guidance letter on whether a student loan dischargeability lawsuit will be litigated or whether the Department of Education will recommend agreeing to the discharge.

The Department of Education seems to be focusing on a number of factors such as debtor’s efforts in trying to repay the loans, physical or mental disability leading to inability to work, likelihood of significant future income and factors beyond debtor’s control that led to the filing of bankruptcy.

Private student loan lenders have no such policy and it will be up to the individual creditor/lender to determine if their attorney will defend such a lawsuit vigorously or agree to settlement before a trial or go to trial.

It is never easy to obtain discharge of student loans in bankruptcy and all potential alternatives should be explored. Another option may be Income-Based Repayment (“IBR”). This program was designed to make sure that graduates who aren’t earning a significant income after graduation aren’t spending all their income on repaying their student loans and may result in a significant payment reduction and potential loan cancellation.

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.

Banking After Bankruptcy

Most debtors are concerned about being able to open bank accounts after completing their bankruptcy and receiving their discharge. While most debtors will not have any difficulty opening new bank accounts, some debtors are unable to open a checking account after receiving their bankruptcy discharge. Typically, this is true for the debtors who have had a problematic history with their bank, involving bounced checks or excessive overdraft activity. As a result this negative information was reported to a check reporting company known as Chex Systems. Such negative information remains in this database service for five (5) years and is readily accessed and utilized by its members (usually financial institutions) in making decisions about who will be allowed to open new checking account.

While the debtors will not be removed from Chex Systems just because their debt to the bank was discharged in bankruptcy, as it is not required to remove a previously submitted, accurate report. However, Chex Systems is credit reporting agencies just like Equifax, Experian and Trans Union, and as such are required to follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and other laws. The banks reporting to Chex Systems are required to regularly update their consumer reports with accurate information. Accordingly, when the debt that formed the basis of their negative report is discharged in bankruptcy, the member bank must report the account as “$0.00 balance due, discharged in bankruptcy”, or something similar. If this is not done, there is a dispute procedure that is very similar to the procedure employed to fix a credit report that is includes inaccurate, post-bankruptcy entries:

Step 1: Order a copy of your consumer report from Chex Systems, whose mailing address for disputes is: 7805 Hudson Road, Suite 100, Woodbury, MN 55125.

Step 2: Review the Chex Systems consumer report for accuracy, making sure that each discharged debt is reported as “$0.00 balance due, discharged in bankruptcy”.

Step 3: If an inaccurate entry is noted, you should send to Chex Systems, preferably by certified mail:

A copy of the Chex Systems report, with the inaccurate information highlighted or flagged in some fashion;

A copy of your bankruptcy discharge;

A copy of Schedules “D”, “E” and “F” from your bankruptcy petition;

A letter explaining that the disputed item is no longer accurate, and that it should be reported as “$0.00 balance due, discharged in bankruptcy”.

Step 4: Chex Systems will have 30 days to investigate the dispute. During this time the FCRA requires it to contact the member bank to verify that the account now has a $0.00 balance due because of the bankruptcy Discharge.

Assuming that Chex Systems and the member bank follow the law, the above steps should result in the previously reported negative information either being deleted or corrected so that it no longer acts as an impediment to the debtor opening a checking account.

In order to prevent this type of a problem, prior to an actual bankruptcy filing I advise my clients to open a checking account in a bank where they do not owe any money. Debtors will be able to use this new account after their bankruptcy filing without any difficulty.

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.

New Bankruptcy Court Judge in Rochester

The uncertainty with regard to the next bankruptcy court judge in Rochester has finally been resolved. On March 15, 2012, Paul R. Warren, Esq., the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York, was sworn in as the next Bankruptcy Judge for the Rochester Division of the Bankruptcy Court. Judge Warren replaced Judge Kaplan who was sitting in Rochester following Judge Ninfo’s retirement.

Mr. Warren received his undergraduate degree from St. John Fisher College and his law degree from the University of Dayton. He was admitted to practice in the Western District of New York in 1984. In the past, Mr. Warren served as a Chapter 7 panal trustee. A few years later, he was appointed the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court. Based in Rochester, Mr. Warren had worked in both Rochester and Buffalo offices of the Clerk’s office.

While Judge Warren has been on the bench for only two days, I already heard positive feedback from fellow bankruptcy lawyers who appeared before him during the motion term last week. I look forward to having some first hand experience appearing before him, and I will post my own impressions on this blog.

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.

Bankruptcy and Cash Advances

Most of my Chapter 7 bankruptcy clients have a lot of credit card debt that was accumulated over time. That debt may have come from making purchases, incurring services charges and interest, as well as taking cash advances on credit card. While most of credit card debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy, credit card cash advances may represent a significant problem for potential bankruptcy filer.

According to the Bankruptcy Code, any cash advance, or combination of cash advances from one lender, totaling more than $875, obtained within 70 days of the bankruptcy filing date is presumed to be non-dischargeable. This particular provision is included in Section 523(a)(2)(C)(i)(II). The dollar amount of the cash advance, changes every three years.

This provision was included in the Bankruptcy Code because the Congress was concerned that consumers, who obtained significant cash advances relatively close to time they filed for bankruptcy, knew or should have known that they would be seeking bankruptcy relief, and should not be able to eliminate such debts. Another reason for that provision was to prevent consumers from taking cash advances immediately prior to a bankruptcy filing.

However, in terms of procedural issues associated with cash advances taken out with 70 days prior to the filing, in order to have the court declare that the debt is non-dischargeable, the creditor must file objections in the bankruptcy court. Specifically, the creditor must file an adversary proceeding. Since there are filing fees and other expenses associated with such filings, if the amount of the cash advance is not particularly large, most creditors will not bother filing an adversarial proceeding.

However, since a cash advance may result in an adversary proceeding, I always ask my clients about them and, in appropriate situation, may ask the client to postpone the bankruptcy filing until after the expiration of the 70 day period.

Who Will Be the Next Bankruptcy Judge in Rochester?

At the end of the year, Judge John C. Ninfo II, who has been presiding over the bankruptcy court in Rochester since 1992, will be retiring. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has been interviewing candidates to replace Judge Ninfo since early this fall.

However, since the Second Circuit has not made its selection so far, the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York has established a contingency plan for January and February 2012. The Hon. Michael Kaplan, one of the two Buffalo bankruptcy judges, will be coming to Rochester and Watkins Glen to preside over motions and hearings.

The administrative order posted on the Court’s Website states that the motion calendars for Rochester in January and February will be held on Fridays rather than Wednesdays, but will not be changed otherwise. Since Judge Ninfo has presided over the bankruptcy court in Rochester for the last 20 years, Judge Kaplan may represent a significant change and Rochester bankruptcy lawyers will have to learn about his approach to bankruptcy cases and judicial philosophy.

Upcoming Changes in Bankruptcy Filing Fees

I have previously discussed fees associated with both Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. As of November 1, 2011, those fees are going to increase for the first time in several years.

The filing fee for filing a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy will increase by $7. For Chapter 7, the filing fee will increase from $299 to $306. The Chapter 13 filing fee will rise from $274 to $281. The Court Clerk for the Western District of New York announced changes in the filing fees on the bankruptcy court’s website on October 17, 2011. The cost of filing an adversary proceeding and various motions is rising as well.