Is a husband responsible for the bad acts of his wife, including the wife's theft of more than $300,000 from an ex-employer. Read below to find out.
In the case of In re Rodenbaugh, 431 B.R. 473 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2010), the bankruptcy court addressed whether a husband would be denied a bankruptcy discharge because of his ambivalence to the family finances while his wife was engaging in willful and malicious conduct. In Rodenbaugh, the wife and husband filed a joint bankruptcy case attempting to discharge debts relating to the wife’s felonious theft of $314,327 from her ex-employer. The husband did not participate in the wife’s theft.
The wife deposited the stolen funds into a joint bank account shared with her husband. The husband admitted that he benefited from the wife’s theft in that some of the stolen funds were used to pay family expenses. The husband also admits that he had spent some of the stolen funds; however, he did so without any knowledge of the preceding crimes. The husband maintained that he became aware of the wife’s crime only after her termination from the wife’s employer. Finally, the husband testified at the trial that he had never noticed any superfluous funds in the joint bank account because he allowed the wife to pay the bills and was ambivalent to the family finances.
The wife’s ex-employer objected to the husband’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6) claiming that the financial obligation to repay the stolen funds should be excepted from discharge. The employer argued that the debt should be excepted from discharge as to the husband too because the husband knew of, or was willfully blind to the wife’s theft and therefore the husband’s actions were willful an malicious towards the ex-employer. The ex-employer argued that at the very least, the husband’s actions were reckless and as such any debt excepted from the wife’s discharge should be imputed to him as well.
The husband opposed the exception to discharge. The husband argued that the standard of willful and malicious conduct cannot be attributed to the husband because at all relevant times, the husband was not aware of the wife’s criminal actions and did not conspire, condone, contribute or encourage said criminal actions.
The court ruled in favor of the husband. The court began its analysis by noting that debts arising from willful and malicious injury by a debtor are excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6). Wilfulness and maliciousness are two distinct elements of §523(a)(6). To prove willfulness, the creditor must show by a preponderance of the evidence that debtor intended the injury, not just a deliberate or intentional act leading to injury. Debts arising from recklessly or negligently inflicted injuries do not fall within the compass of §523(a)(6). But, the court did recognize that acts intrinsically meriting nondischargeability under §523(a) can be attributed to a debtor who did not perform them, if the debtor was a “knowing active participant” in a scheme or conspiracy through which a third-party malefactor performed the acts.
Apply the law to the facts, the Rodenbaugh court held that to prove willfulness under Section 523(a)(6), the wife’s ex-employer was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence either that the husband desired for the ex-employer to be harmed and thus conspired with the wife to this end OR that the husband knew of the wife’s crimes and schemed with her to this end despite substantial certainty that the ex-employer would suffer harm as a result of the wife’s actions.
Finally, the court rejected the ex-employer’s complaint objecting to the husband’s bankruptcy discharge. The court believed that the facts did not support a conclusion that the husband acted willfully. The court found that while the husband’s ambivalence to the family finances was likely reckless, there was insufficient facts to conclude that the husband’s actions rouse to the level of willful and maliciousness or that he conspired with his wife. Therefore, the husband was granted his bankruptcy discharge.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor
Blog By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities. You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at Bankruptcy Law to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you. Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer. I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; adversary defense blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Student Loan Debtors Can Seek Student Loan Discharge Determination Prior to Completion of Chapter 13 Plan Payments.
Cassim v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 594 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2010). A chapter 13 debtor filed an adversary complaint seeking a determination that because of debtor’s disability debtor was entitled to an “undue hardship” discharge of debtor’s student loans. Debtor asserted that debtor’s student loan debts should be discharged when the bankruptcy court enters the general discharge order following completion of the chapter 13 repayment plan.
The student loan creditor sought to dismiss the adversary complaint on constitutional ripeness grounds. Creditor argued that the student loan debtor would have to wait for the entry of the chapter 13 discharge order before the debtor could file the adversary proceeding. Creditor believed a ruling prior to discharge was simply premature.
The Sixth Circuit framed the issue as whether a bankruptcy court ruling on the undue hardship discharge issue was constitutionally ripe for adjudication prior to the entry of a chapter 13 general discharge that would be entered years later, if ever, and only at the conclusion of the chapter 13 repayment plan. The Circuit Courts are split on this issue and are without Supreme Court guidance.
The Sixth Circuit found that the question of whether debtor’s student loan debt is dischargeable was constitutionally ripe for review by the bankruptcy court despite the fact that debtor had not yet received a chapter 13 general discharge under Section 1328. The court noted that debtor sought to discharge her student loan obligations under Section 523(a)(8) and creditor sought to prevent debtor from obtaining such relief. If debtor prevailed, the student loan creditor stood to lose some or all of its claim. The court therefore believed that the dispute involved a specifically-defined debt and a statutorily-based claim for relief that debtor was entitled to pursue. Consequently, the court found that the collision of these opposing interests produced a definite and substantial controversy between the parties that was currently ripe for adjudication, and not merely an abstract disagreement.
Warmest Regards,
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities. Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting. For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you. NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer. I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
The student loan creditor sought to dismiss the adversary complaint on constitutional ripeness grounds. Creditor argued that the student loan debtor would have to wait for the entry of the chapter 13 discharge order before the debtor could file the adversary proceeding. Creditor believed a ruling prior to discharge was simply premature.
The Sixth Circuit framed the issue as whether a bankruptcy court ruling on the undue hardship discharge issue was constitutionally ripe for adjudication prior to the entry of a chapter 13 general discharge that would be entered years later, if ever, and only at the conclusion of the chapter 13 repayment plan. The Circuit Courts are split on this issue and are without Supreme Court guidance.
The Sixth Circuit found that the question of whether debtor’s student loan debt is dischargeable was constitutionally ripe for review by the bankruptcy court despite the fact that debtor had not yet received a chapter 13 general discharge under Section 1328. The court noted that debtor sought to discharge her student loan obligations under Section 523(a)(8) and creditor sought to prevent debtor from obtaining such relief. If debtor prevailed, the student loan creditor stood to lose some or all of its claim. The court therefore believed that the dispute involved a specifically-defined debt and a statutorily-based claim for relief that debtor was entitled to pursue. Consequently, the court found that the collision of these opposing interests produced a definite and substantial controversy between the parties that was currently ripe for adjudication, and not merely an abstract disagreement.
Warmest Regards,
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities. Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting. For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you. NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer. I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Student Loan Discharge Denied Because Circumstances Causing Undue Hardship Occurred After Discharge Was Entered
Student loan dischargeability is a hot issue. A court recently addressed the issue of whether the circumstances causing "undue hardship" must occur prior to the underlying chapter 7 discharge.
In Zygarewicz v. Educational Credit Management, 423 B.R. 909 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2010), a chapter 7 debtor filed bankruptcy and received a discharge of all dischargeable debts. However, one of the debts not discharged was debtor’s student loan debt. The student loan debt was not discharged because debtor could not demonstrate that repayment of the student loans would cause an undue hardship.
Two years later debtor’s situation changed for the worst. Debtor suffered a severe injury in a vehicle accident. Debtor then believed debtor would be able to prove that repayment of the student loans would cause an undue hardship. Debtor reopened the bankruptcy case and filed an adversary proceeding against the student loan creditor seeking a ruling that the student loan debt is discharged.
The student loan creditor objected to the discharge because the event causing debtor’s hardship arose years AFTER the discharge order had been entered. The bankruptcy court agreed and entered judgment in favor of the creditor. The court concluded that the circumstances causing a chapter 7 debtor’s financial hardship must arise PRIOR to the entry of the discharge order. Here, the court believed that debtor’s circumstances could not form the basis of a determination that repayment of the student loan would be an undue hardship since the circumstances causing debtor’s hardship (the vehicle accident) arose after the entry of the discharge.
Debtor should consider refiling a new bankruptcy case and attacking the student loan debt within the new bankruptcy case. Contact me if you have questions.
Robert V. Schaller
Warmest Regards, Bob Schaller Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities. Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting. For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you. NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer. I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
In Zygarewicz v. Educational Credit Management, 423 B.R. 909 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2010), a chapter 7 debtor filed bankruptcy and received a discharge of all dischargeable debts. However, one of the debts not discharged was debtor’s student loan debt. The student loan debt was not discharged because debtor could not demonstrate that repayment of the student loans would cause an undue hardship.
Two years later debtor’s situation changed for the worst. Debtor suffered a severe injury in a vehicle accident. Debtor then believed debtor would be able to prove that repayment of the student loans would cause an undue hardship. Debtor reopened the bankruptcy case and filed an adversary proceeding against the student loan creditor seeking a ruling that the student loan debt is discharged.
The student loan creditor objected to the discharge because the event causing debtor’s hardship arose years AFTER the discharge order had been entered. The bankruptcy court agreed and entered judgment in favor of the creditor. The court concluded that the circumstances causing a chapter 7 debtor’s financial hardship must arise PRIOR to the entry of the discharge order. Here, the court believed that debtor’s circumstances could not form the basis of a determination that repayment of the student loan would be an undue hardship since the circumstances causing debtor’s hardship (the vehicle accident) arose after the entry of the discharge.
Debtor should consider refiling a new bankruptcy case and attacking the student loan debt within the new bankruptcy case. Contact me if you have questions.
Robert V. Schaller
Warmest Regards, Bob Schaller Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities. Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting. For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you. NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer. I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Car Buyers Beware of Negative Equity if Contemplating Bankruptcy
Car buyers beware! The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that car buyers who file Chapter 13 bankruptcy cannot cram-down the negative equity financed when trading-in an older vehicle for a different car if the transaction occurred within 910 days of the bankruptcy filing date. That negative equity becomes part of the purchase money security interest and is subject to protection.
Howard v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, No.09-3181 (in re Aubrey Howard), (7th Cir. 3/1/10). In Howard, the Seventh Circuit addressed the issue of whether a Chapter 13 bankruptcy debtor can exercise the “cramdown” provisions of the Bankruptcy Code relative to the “negative equity” on a vehicle trade-in. Negative equity is the difference between the amount owed on a trade-in vehicle and the actual value of said vehicle. Vehicle owners frequently do not have sufficient cash reserves to satisfy the negative equity. So, dealers frequently add the negative equity to the cost of a new vehicle and provide financing for both.
Debtor did just that; signing an agreement to pay the negative equity and the cost of the new vehicle and provided the new vehicle as security for that obligation. Debtor later filed bankruptcy. In the Chapter 13, Debtor did not dispute that the cost of the new vehicle could not be crammed-down to the value of the new vehicle because said vehicle was purchased with 910 days of the bankruptcy filing date. However, debtor asserted that the negative equity portion of the new loan could be crammed-down because it was not a part of the purchase money security interest.
The Seventh Circuit disagreed with debtor and affirmed the bankruptcy court ruling. The Court held that negative equity can be part of a purchase money security interest and if thus secured is not subject to the cramdown power of the bankruptcy judge in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Howard v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, No.09-3181 (in re Aubrey Howard), (7th Cir. 3/1/10). In Howard, the Seventh Circuit addressed the issue of whether a Chapter 13 bankruptcy debtor can exercise the “cramdown” provisions of the Bankruptcy Code relative to the “negative equity” on a vehicle trade-in. Negative equity is the difference between the amount owed on a trade-in vehicle and the actual value of said vehicle. Vehicle owners frequently do not have sufficient cash reserves to satisfy the negative equity. So, dealers frequently add the negative equity to the cost of a new vehicle and provide financing for both.
Debtor did just that; signing an agreement to pay the negative equity and the cost of the new vehicle and provided the new vehicle as security for that obligation. Debtor later filed bankruptcy. In the Chapter 13, Debtor did not dispute that the cost of the new vehicle could not be crammed-down to the value of the new vehicle because said vehicle was purchased with 910 days of the bankruptcy filing date. However, debtor asserted that the negative equity portion of the new loan could be crammed-down because it was not a part of the purchase money security interest.
The Seventh Circuit disagreed with debtor and affirmed the bankruptcy court ruling. The Court held that negative equity can be part of a purchase money security interest and if thus secured is not subject to the cramdown power of the bankruptcy judge in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Means Test Allowed Deduction for Secured Property to be Surrendered in Chapter 7 Says Robert V. Schaller
In the case of In re Brady, 419 B.R. 479 (Bankr. M.D. FL. 2009), the court addressed a hotly debated issue as a result of the US Trustee filing a motion to dismiss the Chapter 7 case on “abuse” grounds. The trustee sought dismissal because the debtor took a means test deduction for secured payments relating to debtor’s principal residence that debtor intends to surrender postpetition.
The Court rejected the US Trustee’s position and allowed the debtor to take the deduction. The Court found that under the “snapshot” approach to interpreting the Means Test, a Chapter 7 debtor may deduct from current monthly income long-term secured debt payments that are allowed on the petition date, even If the debtor intends to surrender the property securing the debt.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
The Court rejected the US Trustee’s position and allowed the debtor to take the deduction. The Court found that under the “snapshot” approach to interpreting the Means Test, a Chapter 7 debtor may deduct from current monthly income long-term secured debt payments that are allowed on the petition date, even If the debtor intends to surrender the property securing the debt.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Wholly Unsecured Mortgage Included in Unsecured Debt Load for Section 109(e) Eligibility Analysis
In In re Russell & Joy Smith, 20 CBN 246 (Bankr. C.D.CA 2009), the court dismissed the debtors’ Chapter 13 case because debtors exceeded the unsecured debt limit after adding the junior mortgage lien balance to the other unsecured debt balance.
The Smith case presented the court with the issue of how secured residential mortgage debt should be treated in determining whether debtors qualify for Chapter 13 relief. The court found that wholly unsecured junior mortgages are counted as unsecured debt and partially secured senior mortgages are counted as secured debt for Section 109(e) purposes. The court based its determination on eligibility on the amount of debt and property values listed in debtors’ schedules --- because there were no allegations that the debtors acted in bad faith.
Debtors had wholly unsecured junior mortgages that, if treated as unsecured debt, would make them ineligible for Chapter 13 relief. The debtors argued that the junior mortgages were unliquidated because it was not yet known whether the debt would be determined to be secured. The court disagreed, ruling that the debts were liquidated because the court could determine whether they were secured at a simple hearing. In support, the Smith court cited Scovis v. Henrichsen (In re Scovis), 249 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2001), established how to treat wholly unsecured junior mortgages. In Scovis, the 9th Circuit held that completely undersecured liens must be counted as unsecured debt for purposes of Section 109(e).
The Smith court, however, found that the Scovis case did not apply to partially secured senior mortgages because Section 1322(b)(2) prohibits the modification of these mortgages. Thus, while the bankruptcy court may still value a debtor’s principal residence, the Code does not allow the court to modify an undersecured lien secured by debtors’ residence.
In sum, the court found that debt secured by a wholly unsecured junior trust deed must be counted as unsecured debt for Section 109(e) eligibility purposes where a debtor’s schedules show the senior deeds of trust exceed said debtor’s home value. However, trust deed debt will be counted as secured debt for Section 109(e) purposes where a trust deed is partially secured on a debtor’s primary residence.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
The Smith case presented the court with the issue of how secured residential mortgage debt should be treated in determining whether debtors qualify for Chapter 13 relief. The court found that wholly unsecured junior mortgages are counted as unsecured debt and partially secured senior mortgages are counted as secured debt for Section 109(e) purposes. The court based its determination on eligibility on the amount of debt and property values listed in debtors’ schedules --- because there were no allegations that the debtors acted in bad faith.
Debtors had wholly unsecured junior mortgages that, if treated as unsecured debt, would make them ineligible for Chapter 13 relief. The debtors argued that the junior mortgages were unliquidated because it was not yet known whether the debt would be determined to be secured. The court disagreed, ruling that the debts were liquidated because the court could determine whether they were secured at a simple hearing. In support, the Smith court cited Scovis v. Henrichsen (In re Scovis), 249 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2001), established how to treat wholly unsecured junior mortgages. In Scovis, the 9th Circuit held that completely undersecured liens must be counted as unsecured debt for purposes of Section 109(e).
The Smith court, however, found that the Scovis case did not apply to partially secured senior mortgages because Section 1322(b)(2) prohibits the modification of these mortgages. Thus, while the bankruptcy court may still value a debtor’s principal residence, the Code does not allow the court to modify an undersecured lien secured by debtors’ residence.
In sum, the court found that debt secured by a wholly unsecured junior trust deed must be counted as unsecured debt for Section 109(e) eligibility purposes where a debtor’s schedules show the senior deeds of trust exceed said debtor’s home value. However, trust deed debt will be counted as secured debt for Section 109(e) purposes where a trust deed is partially secured on a debtor’s primary residence.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Bankruptcy Court Should Not Inject Equitable Powers Into Lien Stripping Analysis
A Pennsylvania bankruptcy court held that it did not have the discretion to ignore a debtor’s valid lien stripping action by exercising the court’s general equitable powers. In Korbe v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (In re Korbe), 18 CBN 741 (Bankr. W.D.Pa 2008), HUD held a third mortgage on debtor's homestead. Given that there was no equity in the debtor's residence above the first mortgage, the debtor sought an order stripping off HUD's lien.
The court said that there was no unique facts that would allow HUD to prevent the loss of its junior lien. The fact that the lien was secured by debtor's home did not change the outcome according to the court because Section 1322(b)(2)'s anti-modification provision does not apply to wholly unsecured junior mortgages.
HUD argued that the court had discretion to exercise its equitable powers as to the avoidance of HUD's lien, but the court disagreed. The court found that nothing in Section 506 of the Bankruptcy Code authorized the court to ignore a debtor’s valid lien stripping action in the name of equity. Indeed, equity follows the law and the United States Supreme court has declared that the bankruptcy courts’ equitable powers are to be exercised within the confines of the Bankruptcy Code.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
The court said that there was no unique facts that would allow HUD to prevent the loss of its junior lien. The fact that the lien was secured by debtor's home did not change the outcome according to the court because Section 1322(b)(2)'s anti-modification provision does not apply to wholly unsecured junior mortgages.
HUD argued that the court had discretion to exercise its equitable powers as to the avoidance of HUD's lien, but the court disagreed. The court found that nothing in Section 506 of the Bankruptcy Code authorized the court to ignore a debtor’s valid lien stripping action in the name of equity. Indeed, equity follows the law and the United States Supreme court has declared that the bankruptcy courts’ equitable powers are to be exercised within the confines of the Bankruptcy Code.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Lien Stripping Order Vacated Due to Inadequate Notice
A lien stripping confirmation order was challenged because of inadequate notice in In re Stassi, 20 CBN 236 (Bankr. C.D.IL 2009). There, the court granted the junior mortgagee's motion for relief from the confirmation order that contained language stripping the junior mortgagee's lien. The court held that debtors who propose a strip off of wholly unsecured liens as part of a Chapter 13 confirmation process are responsible for ensuring that the creditor whose lien is to be stripped receives notice of the plan provisions, related motions, and the dates set for objections and hearings in a manner which fully complies with the Bankruptcy Rules.
In Stassi, the Chapter 13 debtors said their home was worth $270,000 and subject to two mortgages both held by United Community Bank. The debtors said they owed UCB $341,721 on the two mortgages, with the junior mortgage being wholly unsecured. The debtors’ plan proposed to void the junior lien and treat that claim as unsecured. The debtors’ plan was confirmed without objection.
More than two months after the plan was confirmed, the junior mortgagee asked for relief on the basis that it did not receive notice of the filing of the case or of the debtors’ proposed plan. The mortgagee said it learned of the bankruptcy filing only after the debtors defaulted on the payment of the second mortgage.
The junior mortgagee said the debtors informed it of the bankruptcy in response to the lender’s inquiry about the missing payment. The junior mortgagee’s request for relief was filed less than one week after learning of the bankruptcy filing. The lender asserted its belief that the debtor’s home was worth $380,000 and that both of its mortgages were fully secured.
The court said its practice is to allow debtors to strip off wholly unsecured mortgages through plan confirmation provided that service of the plan is made in the same manner as service of an adversary complaint.
The docket in this case indicated that service of the debtors’ plan was made on the junior mortgagee by regular mail at a bank branch located in Chatham, IL. The service was made by the clerk of court through the Bankruptcy Noticing Center. The mailing to the junior mortgagee was not directed to any officer or agent and was not made by certified mail. Although the debtors objected to granting the relief requested by the junior mortgagee, they provided no evidence that the mortgagee was served in accordance with the Rules, the court said.
The court granted the junior mortgage’s request for relief and declared that “Where notice to the creditor is inadequate, secured property will still vest in the debtor upon confirmation as provided by Section 1327(b), but will remain subject to the unavoided lien rather than vesting “free and clear” as permitted by Section 1327(c).”
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
In Stassi, the Chapter 13 debtors said their home was worth $270,000 and subject to two mortgages both held by United Community Bank. The debtors said they owed UCB $341,721 on the two mortgages, with the junior mortgage being wholly unsecured. The debtors’ plan proposed to void the junior lien and treat that claim as unsecured. The debtors’ plan was confirmed without objection.
More than two months after the plan was confirmed, the junior mortgagee asked for relief on the basis that it did not receive notice of the filing of the case or of the debtors’ proposed plan. The mortgagee said it learned of the bankruptcy filing only after the debtors defaulted on the payment of the second mortgage.
The junior mortgagee said the debtors informed it of the bankruptcy in response to the lender’s inquiry about the missing payment. The junior mortgagee’s request for relief was filed less than one week after learning of the bankruptcy filing. The lender asserted its belief that the debtor’s home was worth $380,000 and that both of its mortgages were fully secured.
The court said its practice is to allow debtors to strip off wholly unsecured mortgages through plan confirmation provided that service of the plan is made in the same manner as service of an adversary complaint.
The docket in this case indicated that service of the debtors’ plan was made on the junior mortgagee by regular mail at a bank branch located in Chatham, IL. The service was made by the clerk of court through the Bankruptcy Noticing Center. The mailing to the junior mortgagee was not directed to any officer or agent and was not made by certified mail. Although the debtors objected to granting the relief requested by the junior mortgagee, they provided no evidence that the mortgagee was served in accordance with the Rules, the court said.
The court granted the junior mortgage’s request for relief and declared that “Where notice to the creditor is inadequate, secured property will still vest in the debtor upon confirmation as provided by Section 1327(b), but will remain subject to the unavoided lien rather than vesting “free and clear” as permitted by Section 1327(c).”
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Mortgage Can't be Avoided by Bankruptcy Court After State Court Foreclsoure Default Order
In Calabria v. CIT Consumer Group (In re Calabria), 20 CBN 212 (Bankr. W.D.Pa 2009), the court dismissed the debtors' complaint to strip-off a mortgage because it found that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to do so. The court found that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded the bankruptcy court from considering whether a mortgage on the debtors’ home was invalid after a state court judgment of foreclosure had been granted on the mortgage.
The facts of the case showed that debtors executed two notes and mortgages on their principal home. The junior mortgage was assigned to a third party, which filed a foreclosure action against debtors after the debtors defaulted on the second loan. The junior mortgagee obtained a default judgment against debtors in the mortgage foreclosure case.
Shortly thereafter, debtors filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief. Debtors petitioned the court to avoid the mortgagee’s junior lien because the recorded mortgage referenced the wrong address or contained no legal description. Debtors argued that state law required that a valid mortgage describe the property sufficiently to enable it to be located and identified. If the mortgage was invalid, there could be no foreclosure.
Nevertheless, the bankruptcy court rejected debtors’ argument stating that any ruling that the mortgage instrument was defective would be tantamount to the bankruptcy court concluding that the state court foreclosure judgment was “erroneously entered.” After al, the debtors’ complaint expressly requested that the bankruptcy court strike the junior mortgagee’s secured claim and issue an order to the state court requesting that the state court strike the judgment in mortgage foreclosure.
The bankruptcy court found that if it were to grant the requested relief, then it clearly would have the effect of negating the state court judgment. Under those circumstances, the bankruptcy court concluded that the affirmative claim asserted in debtors’ complaint was “inextricably intertwined” with the state court judgment rendered against debtors. So, the bankruptcy court found that debtors were requesting that the bankruptcy court do precisely what Rooker-Feldman prohibited: to undo the effect of the state court judgment. The bankruptcy court refused to do so and dismissed the case.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
The facts of the case showed that debtors executed two notes and mortgages on their principal home. The junior mortgage was assigned to a third party, which filed a foreclosure action against debtors after the debtors defaulted on the second loan. The junior mortgagee obtained a default judgment against debtors in the mortgage foreclosure case.
Shortly thereafter, debtors filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief. Debtors petitioned the court to avoid the mortgagee’s junior lien because the recorded mortgage referenced the wrong address or contained no legal description. Debtors argued that state law required that a valid mortgage describe the property sufficiently to enable it to be located and identified. If the mortgage was invalid, there could be no foreclosure.
Nevertheless, the bankruptcy court rejected debtors’ argument stating that any ruling that the mortgage instrument was defective would be tantamount to the bankruptcy court concluding that the state court foreclosure judgment was “erroneously entered.” After al, the debtors’ complaint expressly requested that the bankruptcy court strike the junior mortgagee’s secured claim and issue an order to the state court requesting that the state court strike the judgment in mortgage foreclosure.
The bankruptcy court found that if it were to grant the requested relief, then it clearly would have the effect of negating the state court judgment. Under those circumstances, the bankruptcy court concluded that the affirmative claim asserted in debtors’ complaint was “inextricably intertwined” with the state court judgment rendered against debtors. So, the bankruptcy court found that debtors were requesting that the bankruptcy court do precisely what Rooker-Feldman prohibited: to undo the effect of the state court judgment. The bankruptcy court refused to do so and dismissed the case.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Student Loan Debtor Granted Trial
In the case of In re Coco, 335 Fed. Appx. 224 (3rd Cir. 2009), a chapter 7 debtor brought an adversary proceeding against the student loan creditor, seeking determination that her student loan debt was not excepted from discharge.
The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment against the student loan debtor, finding there were no material issues of fact and that the student loan creditor was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The bankruptcy court held that the debtor failed to establish undue hardship and was thus not entitled to a discharge of the student loan debt.
The student loan debtor appealed the bankruptcy court’s decision. The court of appeals held that factual issues as to whether debtor made good-faith efforts to repay her student loans precluded summary judgment for creditor. The bankruptcy court’s judgment was vacated.
The student loan debtor will get her trial to prove that she made good-faith efforts to repay her student loan.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment against the student loan debtor, finding there were no material issues of fact and that the student loan creditor was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The bankruptcy court held that the debtor failed to establish undue hardship and was thus not entitled to a discharge of the student loan debt.
The student loan debtor appealed the bankruptcy court’s decision. The court of appeals held that factual issues as to whether debtor made good-faith efforts to repay her student loans precluded summary judgment for creditor. The bankruptcy court’s judgment was vacated.
The student loan debtor will get her trial to prove that she made good-faith efforts to repay her student loan.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Bankruptcy Means Test Allows Deduction for Surrendered Home Mortgage
In the case of In re Phillips, 417 B.R. 30 (Bankr. W.D.OH 2009), Debtor filed chapter 7 bankruptcy in an effort to discharge debts. Debtor was required to satisfy the “means test” to qualify for the chapter 7 discharge because debtor’s income was above the median income level for debtor’s state. Debtor deducted from her current monthly income expenses related to real property vacated and surrendered prior to filing bankruptcy.
Debtor’s discharge was challenged by the US Trustee (UST). The UST maintained that debtor’s case should have been dismissed pursuant to §707 because debtor failed the means test that resulted in a presumption of abuse for above median income debtors when the debtor’s current monthly income was reduced by allowed deductions. Specifically, the UST asserted that it was improper for debtor to take deductions for payment of mortgages and taxes on a house that had been surrendered by debtor prior to debtor’s bankruptcy filing.
The issue before the Phillips court was whether the Bankruptcy Code’s “means test” allowed debtor to deduct from her current monthly income expenses related to real property vacated and surrendered prior to filing bankruptcy. The court noted that the majority view was that a debtor may deduct expenses on the means test for payments on secured debt even when the collateral was surrendered as long as the debtor’s continuing contractual obligations remained unextinguished on the date of the bankruptcy filing. Generally, these courts interpreted the plain language “scheduled as contractually due to secured creditors” to mean that a debtor may deduct secured debts that are contractually owed by the debtor to secured parties as of the petition date. The Phillips court believed that the majority courts essentially take a snapshot of the debtor’s schedules on the petition date to calculate the secured debt deduction on the means test form.
Finally, the Phillips court held that the means test allowed debtor to deduct from her current monthly income expenses related to real property vacated and surrendered prior to the date the bankruptcy case was filed. Consequently, the court found that a presumption of abuse did not arise under §707(b)(2).
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Debtor’s discharge was challenged by the US Trustee (UST). The UST maintained that debtor’s case should have been dismissed pursuant to §707 because debtor failed the means test that resulted in a presumption of abuse for above median income debtors when the debtor’s current monthly income was reduced by allowed deductions. Specifically, the UST asserted that it was improper for debtor to take deductions for payment of mortgages and taxes on a house that had been surrendered by debtor prior to debtor’s bankruptcy filing.
The issue before the Phillips court was whether the Bankruptcy Code’s “means test” allowed debtor to deduct from her current monthly income expenses related to real property vacated and surrendered prior to filing bankruptcy. The court noted that the majority view was that a debtor may deduct expenses on the means test for payments on secured debt even when the collateral was surrendered as long as the debtor’s continuing contractual obligations remained unextinguished on the date of the bankruptcy filing. Generally, these courts interpreted the plain language “scheduled as contractually due to secured creditors” to mean that a debtor may deduct secured debts that are contractually owed by the debtor to secured parties as of the petition date. The Phillips court believed that the majority courts essentially take a snapshot of the debtor’s schedules on the petition date to calculate the secured debt deduction on the means test form.
Finally, the Phillips court held that the means test allowed debtor to deduct from her current monthly income expenses related to real property vacated and surrendered prior to the date the bankruptcy case was filed. Consequently, the court found that a presumption of abuse did not arise under §707(b)(2).
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)