Northern California Bankruptcy Lawyer

On The Bankruptcy Soapbox

The Soap Box

How 13 Works To Save Your House From Foreclosure

By

save house

Saving a house from foreclosure is the single reason most people file bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy stops foreclosure- that’s a given.

But then what?

How can bankruptcy save the house,  rather than just putting off the inevitable loss?

The mortgage lender has a lien on the house, and liens aren’t discharged in bankruptcy.

So, how does bankruptcy help?  Meet Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Chapter 13 bankruptcy is the chapter of choice if your goal is to keep living in the house, as opposed to selling it to realize equity or to avoid the credit hit of a foreclosure.

Chapter 13 imposes a payment plan on lender

Baked in to Chapter 13 is the power to cure defaults on long term debts like mortgages.

Gone is the ability of the lender to refuse to take catch-up payments or to insist on cure in a single payment.

This is federal law, and the homeowner is at the helm of this ship. [Read more…]

Chapter 13 Dismissed After All Payments Are Made: Self Inflicted Wounds

By

Debtors shoot themselvesThere’s been a rash of bullet-ridden feet lately in Chapter 13 cases.

Debtors seem to whip out their pistols and shoot themselves in the foot with increasing regularity.

Just when their goal of keeping the house was within reach, had they paid attention, they lose it all.

It happens when debtors don’t hold up their end of the bankruptcy bargain.

And at the end of the day, or the end of the plan, they get none of the benefits they sought through bankruptcy.

How does that happen?

Chapter 13 saves houses

The overwhelming majority of Chapter 13 cases in the Bay Area are filed to save a house.

The homeowner needs to catch up on payments, or more frequently, needs a loan modification in order to keep the house.

The Bay Area bankruptcy judges have developed procedures to confirm Chapter 13 plans, and get money flowing out to creditors, while a loan modification is under consideration.  If there is anything we know about loan modifications, it’s that they take time and persistence.

Troubles after the loan modification

One of the provisions of the Chapter 13 plan that the debtor proposes for confirmation by the court addresses how the mortgage lender will be paid while we wait on a loan modification.

The plan might provide that the debtor will make the regular payment, according to the loan terms, directly to the lender in the meantime.

Or, the debtor may propose to make an ongoing payment to the mortgage lender calculated according the the HAMP formula, which says that housing costs should be no more than 31% of a person’s gross income.

So, the HAMP payment to the lender works out to be 31% of monthly income, less property taxes and hazard insurance.

Whichever approach the debtor chooses to deal with the current mortgage payment, it’s set out in the plan, along with the monthly payment the debtor will make to the trustee toward other kinds of debts.

Once a plan is confirmed by the judge, it binds all parties, creditors, trustee and the debtor.  See §1327.

Only some debtors seem to forget their part of this deal.  They don’t make the ongoing payments and don’t modify their plans to match their behavior. [Read more…]

Chapter 13 Keeps You In Control

By

steering your financial course

Chapter 13 bankruptcy is about protecting assets, I read somewhere on the internet.

That sells Chapter 13 short by half in my view.

It’s not just about assets.

Many of my Chapter 13 clients have no meaningful assets to protect.  Assets to protect isn’t what made 13 right for them.

It’s that Chapter 13 kept them in control.

  • Control of creditor interaction.
  • Control of income.
  • Control of assets, too

In the face of a creditor who is entitled to levy, garnish, and harass, Chapter 13 lets the debtor-client stay at the helm of their financial life.

You call the shots

The basic difference between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 is the role of the bankruptcy trustee.  In 7, the trustee may take possession of your non-exempt assets to sell for benefit of creditors.

A Chapter 7 trustee is entitled to sue people you’ve paid off just before bankruptcy and to assert his own view of the value of your assets.  Chapter 7 can be uncomfortable and risky.

In 13, you commit to a payment plan that gives creditors at least what they would have gotten if a Chapter 7 trustee scooped up your stuff, sued your family members, and otherwise wreaked havoc in your life.

How a Chapter 13 plan is calculated

You stay in possession of your assets and in control of your income.

You write the plan that says how much you pay into your plan a month, within the requirements of the law.  The Chapter 13 trustee just cashes your check, and pays creditors as the plan directs.

The automatic stay prevents the continuation of litigation or collection action outside the court.

You’ve rounded up all the folks to whom you owe money and corralled them in the bankruptcy court, where the bankruptcy rules apply.

You’re on your way to getting control of the situation.

Even judgment creditors bound

The appeal of Chapter 13 for several of my recent clients involves the way Chapter 13 limits how much of their income going forward is exposed to judgment creditors.

Outside of bankruptcy, a creditor with a California judgment can reach 25% of a person’s after-tax paycheck.  I don’t know many individuals who can meet their other financial obligations with only 75% of their paycheck.

Sure, you can argue that you can’t live on 75%, but you have to work through the courts to reduce the amount a judgment creditor can get.

In Chapter 13, the means test, which I usually detest, saves the day.  It has a formula for calculating what is genuinely available to pay run-of-the-mill creditors.

That’s creditors as a whole.

All of them collectively.

Lumped together, creditors share their slice of the available pie.

General unsecured creditors in Chapter 13, under the means test, get what’s left after:

  • Rent or mortgage payments
  • Car payments
  • Health care
  • Child care
  • Delinquent taxes
  • Support of dependent elders

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Chapter 13 payment to general unsecured creditors that equaled 25% of my client’s after tax income.

So in addition to simplifying the process of how much a legitimate creditor gets, almost invariably, Chapter 13 reduces the absolute amount that the creditors get.

And the Chapter 13 debtor is assured of having control of his paycheck so his current living expenses are met.

Note that this analysis applies even to debts like student loans:  while the student loan may survive the Chapter 13 discharge, the amount paid out on the loan is limited by the means test and the claims of other creditors.

Time is on your side

Chapter 13 has a maximum length of 5 years.  The life of a judgment is generally far longer.  A California judgment is good for 10 years, and can be renewed for another 10.

So a Chapter 13 plan can halve the length of time your earnings are exposed to your creditor.

It may not be pleasant to be in bankruptcy for 5 years, but it shortens duration of the pain considerably.

Another time-related benefit of 13 is the durability of the Chapter 13 plan.   Plan terms are worked out and approved by the court at the beginning of the case.  Absent a marked improvement in your ability to pay creditors, the plan controls.

Chapter 13 has none of the periodic  judgment-debtor examinations that are features of state law.  Your time commitment to managing old debts is limited.

Chapter 13 protects paychecks

So, Chapter 13 isn’t just about protecting assets.  If you have a paycheck, or a small business, and have creditors you can’t pay, Chapter 13 allows you to chart a course out of debt, on your terms.

 

 

 

 

 

Image courtesy of Terence Faircloth under a Creative Commons license.

Discharged Debts Don’t Bar Chapter 20 Lien Strip

By

304526237_6d1acf58bb_z_opt

Underwater liens that linger after an earlier bankruptcy don’t count in Chapter 13.

At least, they don’t count against the unsecured debt limit that restricts entry into Chapter 13, says the 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in Free.

Great news for homeowners for whom Chapter 13 was not initially available because they exceeded the debt limits.

Free settles the question of whether the lien that passed through a prior bankruptcy case is a “debt” counted for eligibility purposes in a subsequent Chapter 13 if there is no collateral value to secure it.  The answer is no.

Neither the Code nor case law compels inclusion of the discharged in personam liability in such calculation.

What survives a bankruptcy discharge

Without getting so technical that only a lawyer would care, the problem when a Chapter 13 case is filed after a Chapter 7 is characterizing what’s left of the liens in effect when the 7 was filed.

The Chapter 7 discharge eliminated any personal liability of the debtor for the debt that was secured by a lien, but left the lien as a valid charge on any collateral to which it had attached. [Read more…]

Pay Off Credit Cards At Zero Percent

By

 

specialedition-frame_optI’ve got news for you:

There’s a government program that lets you pay the balance on your credit card without interest and owe nothing more.

Sound like one of those snarky radio ads?

This one’s legit.

Meet Chapter 13.

Here’s the refrain I hear from clients, over and over.

I want to pay off my credit cards, but the damned interest rate makes it impossible

They could pay back what they’ve charged if it wasn’t for the sky high interest rate. They want to pay what they owe.
Credit card interest, despite our national allegiance to unregulated business guided by market forces, still remains hugely more than the cost to borrow elsewhere.

But the card’s interest rate no longer applies when you file Chapter 13. [Read more…]

The Zero Interest Get-Out-Of-Debt Tool: Bankruptcy For The Solvent

By

chapter 13 rescue

Once again, Chapter 13 rescued a client.

He’ll get out of debt and pay (effectively) no interest going forward on his credit cards.

He owned a home, had a job, and was solvent on paper, but he couldn’t sleep for worry about his debts.

Despite having lots of equity in a house, there wasn’t not enough income to retire the debt when the mortgage resets in the spring.

Chapter 7 would get rid of the debt, but cost him his house.

Thank goodness for Chapter 13, where you

  • keep your assets,
  • propose a plan, and
  • get a discharge.

Chapter 13 gets my client out from under credit cards with ruinous interest rates, reduces the interest rate on his high interest car loan, and lets him sleep at night knowing he won’t lose his house to unsecured creditors.

A pretty good deal for a $310 filing fee.

Interest free debt repayment

The good news is that the equity in his house requires that his Chapter 13 plan pay his debts in full. But, “in full” does not mean “with the usual credit card interest”.

Pay off the cards in full in Chapter 13 and you pay only the federal judgment rate.  Currently , that’s little more than  one half of one percent, instead of 18-34% due under the credit card agreements.

To pay off the cards according to their terms outside of bankruptcy, most of each payment for a long while goes to interest.  That’s why credit card issuers are content to have you carry a balance.

For this client, we figure that a 100% repayment plan for the cards and the tax debt will require a payment about 1/3 of what he currently pays each month on the cards.

No need to be broke to file bankruptcy

 

This client looks good on paper.  He’s solvent due to lots of equity in his house.   He’s current on his bills.

He just sees the freight train coming down the tracks when he reaches the end of the interest-only feature on his home equity loan.

You don’t have to be upside down, financially, to file bankruptcy.  You only need to be willing to play by the rules of the Bankruptcy Code for dealing with your creditors.

The applicable rule for this client says:  if you keep your house with that much equity, you must pay the creditors in full.

Bankruptcy won’t change the terms of his home loan, it will just spread out and pay off the other debts that have a claim on his monthly income.

And, he can stop underwithholding on his taxes.  He had increased his exemptions to get more cash monthly, leaving him owing taxes at the end of the year.

Part of our plan is making the withholding match the taxes owed, so we don’t have a recurring tax problem.

13 was my client’s lucky number.

Social Security Safe In Bankruptcy

By

Social Security in bankruptcyThe Chapter 13 trustee objected to the debtors’ repayment plan because they did not plan to devote their Social Security income to repaying creditors.  

And, he complained, they proposed to keep and pay for vehicles that are luxury items.

The plan is not proposed in good faith, he claimed, as required by the Bankruptcy Code.

The trustee fought for inclusion of the debtors’ Social Security payments through three different courtrooms.  The  9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided in the debtors’ favor.

The good faith test for confirmation is not a back door around the statutory calculation of disposable income to be paid to creditors nor does it entitle courts to second guess which pre bankruptcy secured creditors the debtor pays through his plan.

Chapter 13 plans that meet the statutory tests for confirmation cannot be rejected under the catch all provision that they lack “good faith”.  Drummond v. Welsh.

Good faith doesn’t require Social Security 

The trustee in Welsh argued that the debtors’ plan was not confirmable because it excluded Mr. Welsh’s Social Security benefits from the plan.  The plan was not  proposed in good faith, the trustee claimed.

Not so, said the 9th Circuit.

With the  1984 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, Congress created the best efforts test for confirmation of a plan.

With the formulation of that test, the amount of the payment to unsecured creditors was no longer a basis to challenge the debtor’s good faith.

The 9th Circuit held that BAPCPA and the means test introduced in those 2005 amendments refined the best efforts test.  The law did not permit opposition to a plan that argued for larger payments than the Form b-22 calculations, at least where those larger payments would have to be funded by Social Security.

Good faith could not be stretched to gather into the Chapter 13 plan the debtors’ Social Security. [Read more…]

Not Too Late To Strip Mortgage Lien

By

Strip mortgage liens

It’s never too late to value a lien and avoid it in bankruptcy.

Even after the Chapter 13 case is done and closed.

So says the 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in Chagolla, decided February 9, 2016.

In the absence of prejudicial delay, we find that a motion to value and avoid the lien of a junior lienholder may be brought after discharge if the confirmed plan called for its avoidance and treated it as unsecured and if no prejudice to the  junior lienholder will occur

And it’s a welcome decision in Northern California, where a number of courts have held that failure to value a lien in advance of confirmation of a Chapter 13 prevents subsequent avoidance of the lien.

Lien slips through cracks

Here’s what happened to Lucio and Maria when they filed Chapter 13 in 2008. [Read more…]

Who Gets To Choose Your Bankruptcy Chapter?

By

future-1126760_1280_optDoes someone other than the debtor get to choose which chapter a bankruptcy case is filed under?

Some seem to think so.

There’s an ongoing tug of war in the courts between the bankruptcy establishment on one side and debtors and their lawyers on the other about whether a Chapter 13 that pays only the attorneys fees necessary for the bankruptcy is allowed.

Some courts mutter that such a plan is a “disguised Chapter 7” as though Chapter 7 was the default choice and the choice of Chapter 13 needs to be justified.  Those courts propose to dismiss or convert cases that in the court’s view would be appropriate Chapter 7 cases.

That view is wrong, for many reasons which I’ll get to in a minute.

But the most compelling reason to choose Chapter 13 is baked into the Bankruptcy Code after Congress “reformed” it in 2005:

Choose Chapter 13 and, if your finances go to hell after you file your case, you can file another, full strength Chapter 13 to deal with new troubles.

File Chapter 7, and you are locked out of a subsequent bankruptcy discharge for four years.

How can anyone other than the debtor make that choice about future risks?  Where do judges get a crystal ball that sees into the debtor’s future? [Read more…]

Tugging On Superman’s Cape

By

When a Chapter 13 trustee complains that the means test is not easy to administer when only one spouse files, should I be sympathetic?

After all, Chapter 13 confirmation is often a negotiation on disputed issues between the trustee and debtor’s counsel.

Here’s what I said recently at ConsiderChapter13.org on that issue.

Come on, Madame Trustee, get over it. What is there about BAPCPA that leads you to expect that it or its misbegotten spawn of a means test treats debtors fairly or equally?

And where does the Chapter 13 trustee have a mandate to challenge the filing of a case by a debtor whose spouse will not or cannot join in the filing?

The Bankruptcy Code clearly permits a married person to file without their spouse. I see no basis to deny relief to one spouse or to hedge that relief because their spouse does not file.

The single spouse filing has become more attractive for debtor’s counsel in a world of longer periods between bankruptcy filings and Chapter 13 debt limits that disqualify homeowners in sections of the country that once had a hot real estate market.

I will join in the chorus of boos about how the means test is obscure. In so many ways, it simply does not fit neatly with a myriad of real world configurations.

How does it apply to the recently married, the recently widowed, the family whose composition will change when the expected baby is born? What’s the logic of including family support received in Chapter 7 but backing it out in Chapter 13?

Face it, this is simply an instance of drafter’s malpractice. The formerly explicit power of judges to determine whether expenses were reasonable or the plan non-abusive has been superseded by a judicial warrant to interpret an opaque and ill-conceived statute.

I sympathize with your difficulty in determining how to assess the appropriate elements of the marital deduction. We don’t get much help in the statute.

Some expenses seem obviously deductible: support arising from a previous marriage and debts incurred pre-marriage come to mind. It’s harder to find an analytic line for debts incurred during marriage in the non-filer’s name only. Is the deciding factor who is liable or the purpose of the expenditure?

But looking at the issue of fairness from another perspective, why should a creditor who has no claim against the non-filing spouse get the benefit of all of the non-filing spouse’s income? If the creditor expected recourse against the spouse, they should have bargained for it at the inception of the debtor/creditor relationship. Is the creditor any worse off than they would have been had the marriage failed before the bankruptcy case was filed?

Join debtors’ counsel in trying to make sense out of nonsense.

Image courtesy of aka kath

 

 

 

 

 

643 Bair Island Road
Suite 403
Redwood City, CA 94063
Phone: (650) 694-4700

Categories