Bankruptcy Articles & Blog

CRAMMING DOWN SECURED PROPERTY PODCAST

An other very powerful tool debtors have at their disposal should they find themselves in a bankruptcy situation is the ability to pay only the value of an asset. This is particularly enticing if you have a lien against secured property such as an automobile, mortgage on income property (but not on a residence) or piece of furniture that far exceeds the value of the property. The common term for this disparagement in value vs. loan is being, “upside down”. In most cases, the value of secured property such as an automobile, boat, or furniture you are financing decreases more rapidly than the loan is being repaid.

For example, most debtors own much more on their car or truck then the value of the car or truck, should they try to sell it. Additionally, you may be able to lower the interest rate on your payments (though not on a mortgage). Many debtors have secured loans where they agreed to pay 18%-35% interest, and sometimes even more. In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy you only have to pay most secured debts at the prime rate plus 1-3%, depending on the circumstances of your case. A debtor in a chapter 13 bankruptcy has the ability to motion the bankruptcy court to lower the amount that you owe on nearly all secured debts to pay only the fair market value of that property and to discharge any amount in excess of that value.

The rub on this is that in most cases, you will be required to pay the entire present value of the secured property at a reduced interest rate, commonly referred to as “Till interest” (as a result of a Supreme Court case where one of the parties to the case was named Till). The relevant interest rate is the Prime Rate of Interest (which varies) plus a Risk Premium of 1% - 3%.

There are certain restrictions or limitations on cramming down a debt. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) places limitations on a Chapter 13 Debtor’s ability to cram down when dealing with Purchase Money Security Interests (“PMSI”). This deals with the situation when the money borrowed was used to purchase the collateral, which is the standard scenario in a car loan. If the collateral for a PMSI debt is an automobile acquired for personal use within 2 ½ (two and half) years prior to the Chapter 13 filing, the debt can not be crammed down to the value of the vehicle. However, if the collateral is not an automobile, the prohibition on strip down only applies if the PMSI debt was incurred within one (1) year prior to the bankruptcy filing.

As always, all situations relative to a strategy for bankruptcy and lien stripping should be discussed in detail with a bankruptcy attorney to understand all your avenues open to you.

LIEN STRIPPING PODCAST 

In the present economic times many individuals are living with financial decisions causing them to hold assets, such as houses, automobiles and boats, whose values have plummeted. Individuals are living in properties whose values have dropped far below the mortgages or driving cars, which are valued at a third of the loans. Those individuals with financial difficulties are looking for assistance through the bankruptcy courts in an attempt to get out from underneath all of the debts and liens acquired, which now vastly exceed their current assets.There are two types of liens, which can be attached to an individual’s property or assets. The first is a voluntary lien, which is basically a situation where you have agreed to use the asset as collateral for a debt, i.e. mortgages and auto loans. A non-voluntary lien is one that a creditor imposes on you and that gives them the right to force you to sell the asset so that they can be paid, for example: judgments against you or tax liens. These liens are either secured or unsecured as to the asset they are attached to.

The most common issue for an individual nowadays is the situation where a homeowner who has a first and second mortgage on a primary residence is facing bankruptcy and wondering if they have the ability to save the family home. As real estate markets fall and the fair market values of the homes fall, homeowners are left with mortgages that far exceed the current fair market value of their homes. There is a process which could be of help to many in this situation and it is called “lien stripping”.

“Lien stripping” refers to the process of reducing a secured claim to the value of the underlying collateral. It uses the combined effect of 11 U.S.C.A. § 506(a) and 11 U.S.C.A. § 506(d) to bifurcate the lien into secured and unsecured. The secured lien is allowed in the amount up to the fair market value of the property at the time of the stripping. The balance of the lien, which exceeds the fair market value of the property, is now deemed unsecured.

Liens can be stripped off of the debtor’s assets in Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 when there is not enough equity in the assets. Section 506(a) and 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code acknowledges that a lien is only a secured claim to the extent there is value in the asset to which it attaches. To the extent that the claim exceeds the value of the collateral, that portion of the lien is now unsecured. The most common application of lien stripping is the reduction of car loan liens to the present value of the vehicle however it is currently used more often with home mortgages in bankruptcy situations. Lien stripping with car loans has been limited to vehicles purchased over 910 days.

The Bankruptcy Code does permit a bankruptcy plan to “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”. Section 1322 (b)(2). This section provides protection to the holder of a claim secured only by a lien on the debtor’s principal residence by prohibiting any modification of the terms, however the issue arose as to if this section precluded “lien stripping” of undersecured residential mortgages in the face of Bankruptcy Code section 506 which appears to permit bifurcation of undersecured mortgages and voiding of unsecured portions of the mortgage lien. At least two bankruptcy court judges sitting in Massachusetts have permitted such bifurcations, see In re Brown, 175 B.R. 129 and In re Richards, 151 B.R. 8.

In any event, there is an exception as to the lien on a principal residence lien and that is if there is a second or third lien on the same property. In this instance those liens, lien stripping is available to render them totally unsecured if the first mortgage balance equals or exceeds the value of the personal residence. The exception is only if there are two distinct mortgages on the property, not a refinancing situation. It should also be noted that the limitation of lien stripping of first mortgages only apply to personal residences, it will be allowed for a mortgage on a building used for business or renting.

As always, all situations relative to a strategy for bankruptcy and lien stripping should be discussed in detail with a bankruptcy attorney to understand all your avenues open to you.

 DISCUSSION OF CHAPTER 7 VS. CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY PODCAST
Individuals who have amassed large debts have many options. However, if an individual finds that non-bankruptcy alternatives are not feasible, a decision then must be then made between filing a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding or a debt adjustment proceeding under Chapter 13.A Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing is best described as obtaining a discharge from debts (with some exceptions) while retaining some assets such as a home, household goods and an automobile as long as they do not exceed certain values determined by the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Chapter 7 is consider a “liquidation” decision however if filed correctly and using the Bankruptcy Code to the best of your ability some assets can be retained while crushing debt is removed.

To be eligible to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy the filer has to reside or be domiciled in the United States. In addition, they can not have been a debtor in a bankruptcy case in the 180 day period prior to filing the current bankruptcy case; they must receive counseling from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency prior to the filing and pass the “median family income” test. In order to receive a discharge in a Chapter 7 an individual may not have received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in the previous eight years or a Chapter 13 discharge in the previous six years.

The element which will fully determine if you can file a Chapter 7, is the “median family income” level. The individual or couple must review income made within the previous six months and average it out. If when the average income is measured against the “median family income” as stated in 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(7) and it falls below, then a Chapter 7 filing is appropriate. If the household income exceeds the “median family income”, then the individual or couple will be subject to the means testing. The means testing calculation takes the average amount of the income received during the six-month period prior to the bankruptcy filing and subtracts it from the average monthly expenses. This determines the margin of excess income. Using this figure you determine if the excess income exceeds the margin allowed by 11 U.S.C. § 707(2)(A)(i) and if you are eligible to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

If you are unable to file for Chapter 7 due to the “median family income” level being too high and failing the means testing, then your other option is filing a Chapter 13. A Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing allows a person to seek protection of their property and develop a plan of paying creditors by making monthly payments to a Trustee under Court supervision. The plan can be for as little as 24 months or for as long as 60 months.

To be eligible to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy the filer must reside in the United States, have a regular income, have unsecured debt less hand $336,900 and secured debt less than $1,010,650 and receive counseling from an approved non profit budge and credit counseling agency. In order to obtain a discharge in a Chapter 13 an individual must not have been granted a discharge in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the previous 4 years or been granted a Chapter 13 discharge in the last 2 years.

The primary advantage of a Chapter 13 filing over a Chapter 7 filing is that a debtor by paying a portion of his or her pre-bankruptcy debts over the life of the Chapter 13 plan can obtain a discharge of the unpaid balances while retaining all of their asset, avoid foreclosure of a home and more debts are deemed dischargeable in a Chapter 13 verses a Chapter 7.

The disadvantages to a Chapter 13 verses a Chapter 7 is that the filer will have to pay something to unsecured creditors, a reduced amount against entire debt. However in a Chapter 7 filing it could result in a discharge from most or all pre-bankruptcy obligations without any payments. Another disadvantage to a Chapter 13 is that a discharge will not be received until all payments required by the plan are done whereas a Chapter 7 debtor will usually receive a discharge in three to five months from filing.

It is essential that when trying to figure out if bankruptcy is the right option to contract an attorney to discuss the entire matter, review your current financial situation, determine what is most important to keep and let go and decide which is the best plan for their situation.

An individual’s largest asset is usually their homes. In an attempt to keep these large assets in the family and to avoid probate, individuals are either gifting the homes away to children early by signing over the deed or setting up a living revocable or irrevocable trust. Unfortunately sometimes these instruments are not used properly, don’t take in all that needs to be done in estate planning and could cause harms not initially apparent when initially create them.Trusts are used to manage assets. They can be set up to accomplish any number of goals such as providing income for a child, grandchild or other family member or it can provide income for a favorite charity or distribute assets in an attempt to reduce tax consequences or security assets from those inevitable issues that come with aging.

If you are setting up a trust in order to protect your assets from creditors or other unforeseeable situations which may arise as you age you must look at both types of trust closely to determine which is best for your circumstance. There are two types of living trusts, revocable and irrevocable. The difference being that the revocable trust can be changed or modified, giving the creator the flexibility of continued control over the assets during his lifetime. The other type of trust is an irrevocable trust. Once an irrevocable trust is established it cannot be changed. The creator will have no access or control over the assets any further through their lifetime once it is placed in the irrevocable trust. Some individuals do not like particular aspect of irrevocable trusts. They want the protection of the trust however they do not want to give up all control of their assets. Depending on what needs to be done in the protection of the assets, an individual might have to give up all control over the property in order to get the protection necessary from creditors or lien holders.

It is important to understand prior to forming such an instrument, that general creditors may use the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) under G.L. c. 109A to void or rescind a transfer by a individual debtor for less than fair consideration, regardless of whether the transfer is to an individual or a trust. The Fraudulent Transfer Act can be used by an individual’s creditor if they can show that: 1) the debtor had “actual intent” to “defraud either present or future creditors”; or 2) the debtor believed “that he will incur debts beyond his ability to pay as they mature”; or 3) even if there was no fraudulent intent, the debtor was “thereby rendered insolvent”. What this act will do is render an individual’s trust void and rendered charges against the individual for a fraudulent transfer. This “look back” period as it is called is a statute of four years. If for example an individual has placed a piece of property into a trust and then enters a nursing home the creditor or Medicaid will look back four years from the date of incurring the charges to see if any property was transferred. If such property was transferred and the intent is considered fraudulent then the trust is considered void and the nursing home will be able to attach the home for charges incurred.

Also prior to placing assets into a trust the individual must understand that in bankruptcy, debtors must report all transfers made within one year of signing the bankruptcy petition. In conjunction with the one year “look back” period in bankruptcy, creditors may also use the Fraudulent Transfer Act to reach assets that have been transferred without fair consideration within their four year “look back” period as well.

If after discussing all aspects of why you need an instrument for estate planning with your attorney understanding the difference in the instruments, what they can and can’t do is the next step. While a revocable trust gives the individual the ability to continue to control their assets, this control makes it impossible for the trust to offer any protection to an individual from creditors seeking to collect on a debt. “The established policy of the Commonwealth long has been that a Settlor (person who creates the trust) cannot place property in the trust for his own benefit and keep it beyond the reach of his creditors”. Merchants Nat’l Bank of New Bedford v. Morrissey, 329 Mass. 601, 605 (1953). Under State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Reiser, 390 Mass. 864 (1984), and those cases following, after the settlor’s death, creditors of a settlor also have access to any and all trust assets that the trustee could have distributed during his lifetime. The plain meaning is that a revocable trust offers no creditor protection to the creator of such a trust.

A revocable trust may also result in loss of homestead protection and right of survivorship. A homestead or homestead exemption means that your home is protected from creditors up to the limit of the exemption for as long as the house is your primary residence. A homestead prevents most creditors from taking the house away from you to satisfy a debt that you owe the creditor. It will also protect your home in the event that you have to file for bankruptcy. If the home is placed in a trust, the homestead does not work. The home is no longer a primary residence, it is placed in the trust name and is no longer in your name. The placing of the home in a trust also will break the right of survivorship relative to a spouse that survives you.

An irrevocable trust in turn will protect you from your creditors as long as the trust is created in such a way the individual has no control over the trust asset for which it was made. In making any type of long term estate plan it is the best policy to speak to an attorney regarding your assets, your long term planning, and how you would like to manage such assets during and after your lifetime. Due to the “look back” period this should be done sooner rather than later.

In these tough times, bankruptcy protection is a tool used by not only many debtors and businesses, but now cities and towns who can meet their financial obligations.  Early this summer, the town of Vallejo California filed for bankruptcy to protect its assets from creditors.  It would appear that the town overextended its credit, similar to the way many small businesses do the same.  The town reported it did not have the ability to pay for services it renders.

With declining tax revenues and increasing labor costs the town is squarely staring at over $16 million in debt.  By filing, the town will be able to take advantage of the automatic stay put in place, in much the same way, consumers use the stay.  Creditors will be unable to file suit or attempt to collect debts, while the town comes up with a plan to pay off its creditors; Home owners often file in order to stay a foreclosure.

What this filing signifies to me is that we are in a truly new era of financial difficulty, one that now affects not only consumers and business, but also the very government services we all depend upon.

A short sale, also called a distress sale, is when the homeowner’s property has been devalued below the mortgage leaving a shortage between the current market value of the property and the present mortgage on the property held by the lender. Homeowners owe the difference between the mortgage balance and the discounted amount as a result of the short sale, which is referred to as the debt shortage.A short sale would generally benefit the lender because the lender avoids the expenses and hassle of seizing a delinquent customer’s property. In addition, lenders realize that they could lose money if the borrower’s home is auctioned in a foreclosure proceeding.

To decide whether or not to do a short sale, lenders look at various factors. Those factors are:

1. Whether the seller is deserving of a break.
2. Whether it would be cheaper to simply repossess and sell.
3. How many other properties the lender has in default.
4. Whether there are cosigners on the mortgage who can be held responsible for the balance covered on the mortgage.

Even when borrowers engage in a legitimate short sale, there is no guarantee of success. It’s difficult to have an agreement where the interests of all parties are satisfied. One has to take into account the interests of the lender, homeowner, agent, buyer and investor who held the mortgage. Also, if the husband and wife were divorcing, then both would have to agree to have a short sale.With regard to managing a short sale, it’s important that sellers review loan documents with an attorney to make an informed decision.

Pursuant to the U.S. Bankruptcy code, subsequent to a debtor filing a chapter 7 or 13 bankruptcy, they are unable to obtain another discharge of unsecured debt for 8 years. As such, many debtors believe they have no way out of new debt incurred. This could not be further from the truth. There is substantial statutory and case law that suggests a right to negotiate in good faith with creditors. Moreover, creditors must partake in the interactive process.It has long been held that if a creditor has no agreement for acceleration of an entire obligation upon default, the creditor may not accelerate a debt unless the debtor’s default rises to the status of an anticipatory repudiation. See, e.g., Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 76 Credit Union v. Hufnagle, 295 N.W.2d 259, 29 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 1087 (Minn. 1980).

The Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) § 1-309 provides that a term allowing an acceleration of payment or performance or additional collateral at will, or when the creditor or the creditor’s successor in interest deems himself insecure, and language of similar import, will be construed to mean that the creditor has the power to do so only if he in good faith believes that the prospect of payment or performance is impaired. Section 1 - 309 has been increasingly applied to real estate transactions. See generally Greenwald v. Columbus Bank & Trust Co., 228 Ga. App. 527, 492 S.E.2d 248, 34 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 547 (1997) (good faith itself does not give rise to an action).

Section 201 of the Bankruptcy Reform Act can be construed as a model to require creditor’s to negotiate in good faith with debtor’s prior to filing any legal action to collect the debt. It would have amended Section 201 proposes to allow a bankruptcy judge to reduce a creditor’s claim by up to 20% if the creditor had “unreasonably refused to negotiate a reasonable alternative repayment schedule.

Perhaps the most relevant and significant factor pointing to a strong suggestion if not requirement for creditor’s negotiating with debtors stems from litigation itself. At a clerk or magistrate’s session in small claims court prior to appearing before a judge, the magistrate will almost always offer free mediation services provided by the court, and in many cases go so far as to require the Plaintiff and Defendant to attend a non-binding mediation session prior to appearing before the District Court Judge.

The gist of the forgoing would seem to indicate that a debtor is not without recourse even if they have filed for bankruptcy and obtained a discharge on unsecured debt within the past eight (8) years. In many case, it may be a good idea to still speak with a bankruptcy attorney or credit counselor to garner assistance in proposing a workout plan with one’s creditors.

The U.S. real estate boom of the past ten years has seen homeownership rise from 65% to 69%. Unfortunately with the market cooling the value of real estate is plummeting leaving homeowners holding mortgages that greatly out value the real estate they presently hold. There is now something that can help.The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 was enacted on December 20, 2007 to assist homeowners who are in such a predicament. Normally, a homeowner, in an attempt to avoid foreclosure would modify their current mortgages, that is, “short sell” the property, or deed their home in lieu of foreclosure back to the bank holding the lien on the property. Such remedies often leave the homeowner with a debt for property no longer in their possession. In most situations the lender would forgive the homeowner’s debt either in part or full. Unfortunately this left the homeowner facing an additional and in most cases, undischargable financial difficulty, the IRS. That debt which is so graciously forgiven by the lender is now recognized as taxable income by the IRS. The homeowner receives a tax bill for the forgiven amount for money forgiven and never truly received.

The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act is designed to exclude such debt forgiveness on the principal residence if the balance of the loan was less than $2 million for a debtor’s primary domicile. The act only applies to that debt which was forgiven in the 2007, 2008 or 2009 tax years. Debt reduced through mortgage restructuring, as well as mortgage debt forgiven in connection with a short sale or foreclosure, may qualify for this relief. The requirements are that the debt must have been used to buy, build or substantially improve the taxpayer’s principal residence and must have been secured by that residence. Debt used to refinance qualifying debt is also eligible for the exclusion, but only up to the amount of the old mortgage principal, just before the refinancing.

What does this mean to the homeowner in trouble? Everything. There is now another option available to them, which will not lead them from one financial frying pan to the other. Prior to the Act, homeowners would attempt to negotiate with the lender not to forgive the deficit in the loan but to file suit against them. This was the strategy in the reasoning that a judgment lien is dischargeable under a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy were IRS liens are not. IRS tax liens remain through the bankruptcy filing and distribution and the homeowner would end up with the lien coming out on the other side of the bankruptcy. Leaving them in the same predicament of owing money on income never actually received.

The Act will not extend to other forgiven debt such as those on second homes, income or rental property, business property, credit cards or car loans. In those instances the filing of a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy might be in the homeowner’s best interest depending on the financial situation he is presently in. The homeowner should always consult with an attorney regarding what strategy would be in their best interest.

Emotional damages qualify as “actual damages” under the Bankruptcy Code provision authorizing recovery of actual damages for the willful violation of automatic stay. Fleet Mortg. Group, Inc. v. Kaneb, 196 F.3d 265, 35 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 45, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶78044 (1st Cir. 1999).”Actual damages,” such as may be recovered by any individual injured by willful violation of automatic stay, include damages for emotional distress. In re Dawson, 390 F.3d 1139, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P 80207 (9th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. May 27, 2005).

To be entitled to award of emotional distress damages for willful violation of automatic stay, an individual must: (1) suffer significant harm; (2) clearly establish that significant harm; and (3) demonstrate a causal connection between that harm and violation of automatic stay. In re Dawson.

Though pecuniary loss is not prerequisite to recovery of emotional distress damages for willful violation of automatic stay, not every willful stay violation merits compensation for emotional distress, In re Dawson. For individual to recover emotional distress damages for willful violation of automatic stay, he must clearly establish that he has suffered significant emotional harm, such as by presenting corroborating medical evidence or by presenting non-experts, such as family members, friends or coworkers, to testify to manifestations of mental anguish and to clearly establish that significant emotional harm occurred. ID.

Damages for emotional distress are recoverable for willful automatic stay violations; while claims for fleeting or trivial emotional distress are not compensable, an individual who suffers significant harm and demonstrates a causal connection between the harm and the violation of the automatic stay is entitled to be compensated. 11 U.S.C.A. § 362(k). Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Taylor, 369 B.R. 282, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P 80901 (S.D. W. Va. 2007)