Articles Posted in Chapter 13

Published on:

Vladimir Makovsky [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsThe Bankruptcy Code provides individuals and families with several options when they need to file a bankruptcy petition, and it allows them to convert a case from one chapter to another in certain circumstances. A federal appellate panel in California recently considered an interesting question:  if a debtor converts a case from Chapter 11 or 13 to Chapter 7, what happens to income earned after the petition but before conversion? It would belong to the bankruptcy estate under Chapters 11 or 13, but to the debtor under Chapter 7. The court ruled that it reverts to the debtor once the case is converted from Chapter 11 back to Chapter 7. In re Markosian, 506 B.R. 273 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2014) (PDF file).

By filing a bankruptcy petition, a debtor creates a legally distinct “bankruptcy estate.” A court-appointed trustee has the right to make certain decisions about estate property and the duty to manage the estate responsibly. In general, any property that a debtor owns when he or she files a bankruptcy petition becomes part of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 541. In Chapter 11 or 13 cases, property acquired and earnings received for services rendered by the debtor, including salary or wages, also become part of the bankruptcy estate until the case is dismissed, converted, or closed. 11 U.S.C. §§ 1115, 1306.

The debtors in Markosian, a married couple, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in February 2009. The trustee moved to dismiss the case for abuse under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b), claiming that the debtors had enough income to pay their debts. In response, the debtors converted the case to Chapter 11. While Chapter 13 is much more common among individuals and families, the Bankruptcy Code sets upper limits on the amount of debt a Chapter 13 debtor can have. Currently, Chapter 13 is not available to debtors whose secured and unsecured debts exceed $1,149,525 and $383,175, respectively. 11 U.S.C. § 109(e), “Revision of Certain Dollar Amounts in the Bankruptcy Code Prescribed Under Section 104(a) of the Code”, 78 F.R. 12089 (Feb. 20, 2013). Continue reading

Published on:

By Valugi (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsAn article published earlier this year in The Week tells the story of a professional debt counselor who filed for bankruptcy. His account is notable, as he candidly admits, in part because it seems odd for someone who makes a living advising other people about their debt to find himself unable to pay his own debts. The moral of the story, to the extent that any real-life story has a “moral,” is that financial difficulties can happen to anyone. It is not always the result of some major crisis and, despite some lingering negative perceptions in our culture, it is not necessarily brought on by laziness or irresponsibility. Someone might do everything exactly right, but things still don’t always work out. This person’s story offers a glimpse of how filing for bankruptcy is not a cause for shame or an admission of failure, but a useful tool that allows people to get a fresh start.

According to Dave Landry’s piece in The Week, he and his wife married just after graduating college, when they had $40,000 in student loan debt between them. He admits that they lived beyond their means for a few years, accumulating $20,000 in credit card debt on top of the student loans. The birth of their first child caused them to cease their “jet-setting ways,” but they needed a bigger place to live. After the birth of their second child, they upgraded to a larger house, one that Landry admits was bigger than they absolutely needed. This occurred around the time of the recession of 2008, resulting in a $100,000 loss on the sale of their first house.

With the benefit of hindsight, it might seem easy to look at this story and identify mistakes. Life never works like that in real time, though, and much like doctors who neglect their own health, a debt counselor can overlook important issues. People grow accustomed to a certain lifestyle and may not recognize changing circumstances until they have already gone deeper into debt. “A certain lifestyle” does not even have to mean extravagance. It might simply mean taking vacations every year, or eating out several times a week, or any other activities or expenses that push the boundaries of their income. Continue reading

Published on:

J.M. Gandy (Uploaded by User:Merchbow) [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsA bankruptcy court dismissed adversary proceedings brought in a Chapter 13 case, in which the debtors sought to strip off junior liens held by the U.S. government for loans issued through the Small Business Administration (SBA). In re Brisco, 486 B.R. 422 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2013). The SBA had junior liens on two properties owned by the debtors:  their residence and a rental property. The SBA did not file proofs of claim for either lien by the deadline established by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP), and the court held that this prevented it from valuing the SBA’s liens as requested by the debtors. The debtors objected, arguing that the SBA’s failure to file proofs of claim apparently shielded their liens from avoidance, but the court noted that the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to file a proof of claim on a creditor’s behalf.

The debtors owned two properties: their residence, which was appraised at $135,000 and had a first-priority lien held by JPMorgan with a secured claim of $161,064.57, and a rental property appraised at $100,000, with a first-priority lien and secured claim by JPMorgan of $213,829. The SBA had junior liens on both properties and secured claims of $25,800 and $25,700, respectively. The court entered a judgment reducing the amount of JPMorgan’s secured claim on the rental property to its value of $100,000, with the remaining $113,829 becoming an unsecured claim under 11 U.S.C. § 506(a).

In two adversary proceedings brought against the United States, the debtors asked the court to rule that the SBA’s liens were wholly unsecured under § 506(a), and to strip the liens off the two properties under 11 U.S.C. §§ 506(d) and 1322(b)(2). The United States moved to dismiss for failing to state claims on which the court could grant relief, in large part because of the absence of proofs of claim. Secured creditors are not required to file a proof of claim, but if they choose to do so, the deadline for a governmental unit is set by FRBP 3002(c)(1). If the creditor does not file a proof of claim, the debtor may do so for them under 11 U.S.C. § 501(c). Continue reading

Published on:

mireyaqh [Public domain, CC0 1.0 (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en)], via PixabayPersonal bankruptcy under Chapters 7 and 13 offer ways for people to obtain financial relief when their income is not high enough to continue making required payments on their debts. The federal Bankruptcy Code deals with different types of debt in different ways. The Bankruptcy Code establishes that certain types of debt have priority over others, and these creditors are therefore entitled to payment from the bankruptcy estate first. While many debts may be subject to discharge at the end of a personal or business bankruptcy case, some debts are expressly excepted from discharge, such as debts for recent taxes or child support obligations. However, these priority debts can be paid back via a Chapter 13 over a period of 3 to 5 years. Understanding how bankruptcy law treatss various types of debt is critical to planning and preparing for a bankruptcy filing.

Secured vs. Unsecured Debt

A key distinction in bankruptcy is between secured and unsecured debts. A secured debt has one or more specific items of property attached to it, known as collateral. See 11 U.S.C. § 506. A secured creditor has the right to take possession of the collateral if the debtor defaults on their repayment obligation. A mortgage, for example, is typically secured by the real property purchased with the mortgage loan.

Unsecured debt does not have collateral. The Bankruptcy Code divides unsecured debts into priority and nonpriority debts. 11 U.S.C. § 507. Many priority unsecured debts are also included in the list of debts excepted from discharge. 11 U.S.C. § 523.

Continue reading

Published on:

old manSeniors, generally defined as people age 65 or older, comprise a growing percentage of the U.S. population. According to the Administration on Aging, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, seniors accounted for 14.5 percent of the population in 2014. That percentage is expected to increase to 21.7 percent by 2040. A greater and greater number of people want to retire, or are no longer able to work, and must rely on various types of fixed income. Increased health care costs for the myriad medical issues that seniors face will become an increasingly pressing concern. While specific debts are not necessarily passed on to a person’s heirs, creditors can cause considerable havoc in a person’s estate. Seniors who find themselves in financial distress may find that bankruptcy offers some solutions. Many types of income that seniors receive are exempt from creditors both before and during a bankruptcy case, and many debts commonly associated with seniors are unsecured and therefore subject to discharge in bankruptcy.

Debtors filing for personal bankruptcy usually choose between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. In a Chapter 7 case, a debtor’s non-exempt assets are liquidated to pay debts, and the court discharges most debts at the end of the case. A Chapter 13 case involves a repayment plan that lasts several years, followed by a discharge. While some debts are not subject to discharge, bankruptcy can result in having most of one’s unsecured debts wiped out.

A California debtor filing for bankruptcy has two options for claiming property as exempt under California law. The first system allows exemptions for seniors that include up to $175,000 of the equity in their residence, up to $2,300 in motor vehicles, and up to $6,075 in “jewelry, heirlooms, and works of art.” See Cal. Code Civ. P. §§ 704.010 et seq., 704.730. The second system does not include a specific homestead exemption but allows multiple other exemptions and a “wildcard” exemption for property valued up to $24,060. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 703.140.

Continue reading

Published on:

By Oparvez (http://www.flickr.com/photos/oparvez/390728321/) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsA U.S. district judge affirmed a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of a Chapter 13 case, finding that the debtor did not respond to two separate motions to dismiss filed by the trustee and a creditor. In re Quezada, No. 1:13-cv-00638, mem. op. (D.D.C., Dec. 20, 2013). While this failure to respond would allow the court to treat any issues presented by the motions to dismiss as conceded by the debtor, the court went further and addressed several other reasons for dismissing the petition. The court’s opinion provides a useful guide to various Chapter 13 filing deadlines and the consequences of missing them.

The debtor was the owner of a multi-unit apartment building in Washington, D.C. The beneficiary of the deed of trust, the Dyer Trust 2012-1 (“Dyer”) foreclosed on the property when the debtor fell behind on mortgage payments. It scheduled a foreclosure sale on January 10, 2013, but the debtor filed a Chapter 13 petition two days earlier. The automatic stay therefore prevented the sale.

The Chapter 13 petition did not include all of the documents required by federal law. The bankruptcy court instructed the debtor to file the remaining required financial documents and a Chapter 13 plan of reorganization within two weeks, and later extended that deadline by another two weeks. The trustee had to cancel a creditor meeting scheduled on February 11, 2013 because the debtor still had not filed the required documents. On February 12, the trustee filed a motion to dismiss the petition, in part for the lack of financial documents and a reorganization plan. Dyer filed a separate motion on February 21, citing additional grounds for dismissal. The debtor did not respond to either motion. Continue reading

Published on:

By White House photographer Paul Morse [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons2015 marks the 10-year anniversary of the comprehensive law known as the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) of 2005, Pub. L. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23. Supporters of the bill claimed that it would streamline the bankruptcy process and cut costs for everyone involved, but analyses of the law’s impact have suggested that creditors received most (or all) of the benefits. Some studies have suggested that BAPCPA has actually caused debtors’ costs to go up. Now that 10 years have passed, let us take a look at the bill and a handful of the changes it brought.

Passage of the Bill

Much of the support for BAPCPA came, unsurprisingly, from creditors. These are often the parties that bear the greatest loss when a bankruptcy court grants a discharge of debt, so they sought changes to the Bankruptcy Code that would ease this burden.

Opponents of the bill covered a wide spectrum, but a major point of contention was the assumption of widespread bankruptcy fraud. It was not clear to many that fraud was occurring at a rate that merited such a radical overhaul. Regardless of the opposition, however, the bill passed both houses of Congress—74 to 25 in the Senate, and 302 to 126 in the House of Representatives. President George W. Bush signed it into law on April 20, 2005.

Continue reading

Published on:

Medical debt may be the single biggest factor leading to personal bankruptcy in the country. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), which began to take effect in 2014, makes health insurance coverage much more widely available to people. It does not, however, address many of the health care issues that lead to bankruptcy, such as high premiums, high deductibles, out-of-pocket costs, and external costs like missed work. It seems that wider access to insurance has not led to fewer bankruptcies. At least one report indicates that nearly 80 percent of debtors filing for bankruptcy due to medical bills have health insurance. The bankruptcy system offers solutions for people with overwhelming medical bills, and California law also offers some options short of bankruptcy.surgeon-3-1562055

A 2013 study found that as many as 10 million adults with full health insurance coverage would incur more medical debt that year than they could pay. This is only a small part of the 56 million adults who the study predicted would have some amount of difficulty paying their medical bills. A study of one county in Oregon found that medical debt was a factor in almost three-fourths of new bankruptcy cases in 2014. Over half of the total medical debt in that county was owed to hospitals and hospital systems, where costs can quickly skyrocket, and patients are often surprised to find bills for services that are not included in their insurance provider’s network.

Part of the purpose of a bankruptcy filing is to stop debt collection activities with the automatic stay. California offers some ways for debtors to seek relief from certain types of debt collection, short of filing for bankruptcy. The tools that creditors may use to enforce judgments vary from state to state, and California allows one of the worst ones, at least from a debtor’s point of view:  wage garnishment.

Continue reading

Published on:

Tyler [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/)], via FlickrA bankruptcy judge recently denied a debtor’s request to convert his case from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7, finding that he had not acted in accordance with his fiduciary duties throughout the case. Most individual debtors do not find Chapter 11 to be helpful. It is much more common for business bankruptcies and individuals with very large estates. In this case, the debtor is a professional hockey player. In re Johnson, No. 2:14-bk-57104, petition (S.D. Oh., Oct. 7, 2014). When he moved for conversion to Chapter 7, the court reviewed the course of the case and issued a 150-page order denying the motion and criticizing the debtor’s conduct. Johnson, op. and order (Feb. 26, 2016). The judge’s reasoning offers an idea of the concerns that courts address in Chapter 7 cases.

A key difference between the Johnson case and a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 case is that the bankruptcy estate had no independent trustee. The debtor was acting as trustee when he moved for conversion to Chapter 7. In Chapter 11 cases, a trustee is only appointed if requested by a party in interest or the U.S. Trustee’s Office. 11 U.S.C. § 1104. If no trustee is appointed, the debtor serves in the capacity of trustee, with all the same fiduciary duties towards creditors and others. Under Chapters 7 and 13, the Bankruptcy Code states unconditionally that a trustee “shall” be appointed. 11 U.S.C. §§ 701, 1302.

Debtors are typically allowed to convert their case from one chapter to another if they meet various criteria established in the Bankruptcy Code. A Chapter 11 debtor can convert their case to Chapter 7, with several exceptions. A bankruptcy court may not convert a case to Chapter 7 if it finds that appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee would be in the estate’s and the creditors’ best interest, or if it “identifies unusual circumstances” indicating that conversion would not be in their best interest. 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b). A Chapter 7 debtor can convert their case to Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 with the court’s permission, after establishing cause. 11 U.S.C. § 707. A Chapter 13 debtor is far less constrained in converting a case to Chapter 7. 11 U.S.C. § 1307.
Continue reading

Published on:

By SPUI [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsIndividuals and families may file for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7, which focuses on liquidating assets and paying down debts in a short period of time. Or they may use Chapter 13, which allows debtors to pay down large portions of their debts over a period of several years and avoid unsecured debts. Deciding which to choose depends on each debtor’s individual circumstances. Some, but definitely not all, courts allow debtors to file a Chapter 7 case in order to pay down their debts and obtain a discharge of unsecured debts, followed shortly afterwards by a Chapter 13 case, which the debtor uses to “strip” one or more liens from their home. This process is informally known as a “Chapter 20” case.

What Is Lien Stripping?

Chapter 13 may be an appealing option for a debtor with an “underwater” second mortgage, meaning a mortgage with a principal balance that exceeds the debtor’s equity in their home, or the amount not covered by a first-priority mortgage. A debtor may be able to use Chapter 13 to avoid an underwater mortgage, a procedure known as “lien stripping.”

By law, a secured creditor’s claim is only “secured” to the extent that the amount owed is equal to or lesser than the collateral’s value—meaning that any amount over that value is considered unsecured debt. 11 U.S.C. §§ 506(a)(1), (d). A Chapter 13 plan may avoid unsecured debts. 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2). The U.S. Supreme Court held earlier this year, however, that lien stripping is not permitted in Chapter 7 cases. Bank of America v. Caulkett, 575 U.S. ___ (2015).

Continue reading