Category: chapter 13

Posted on

Don’t Panic!

Just a word or two of warning. I am seeing lots of people who are in a panic. They are in the process of losing their homes or jobs or both. The daily news offers little or no comfort. All the “bailout” talk doesn’t include any concrete help for individuals that I can see. This state of mind increases the probability of being in a serious accident or incident. Or such is my personal observation.

I mentioned this in passing while meeting with clients recently. The next time they came in they greeted me as “Nostradamus” – comparing me to the Sixteenth Century prophet or wizard. The type of thing I was talking about had happened to one of them. Sorry about being vague as to exactly what happened, but I need to not break confidentiality. I expressed the hope that it had not been the power of suggestion – the result of an idea that had been planted by me. They were sure it was not.

I bring this up here because I really want to say that I believe we all need to keep the events of the past year or two in perspective. The Romans had a saying – THIS TOO SHALL PASS. It’s a universal truth, and I’m convinced that it certainly applies to our present economic climate. Panic and anxiety always just makes any problem worse. The harder and more difficult times are, the more important it is to take care or yourself. One of my favorite slogans – prominent in a lot of the self-help literature – is abbreviated as “HALT” – don’t let yourself get too Hungry, Angry, Lonely or Tired. A good concept to keep in mind when going through a bankruptcy or any other crisis.

On several of my web pages I talk about how easy it is go get ahold of me. I wrote most of that a couple of years ago. It has become untrue over the past few months, for which I apologize. Between the clients and the creditors of clients, my voice mail box often fills up. My goal has always been to return my calls within 24 hours. I have of late been unable to be that prompt. If you need me and don’t get me right away, keep trying please. I am around and I do want to talk with you; it’s just that things are really busy right now. I would say that it’s more busy than it was in 2005 right before the new bankruptcy law went into effect.

Posted on

Consumer Bankruptcy Up 48% in July

A few weeks ago I bookmarked an article posted on Twin Cities Daily Planet which indicated that bankrupty filings in Minnesota are up almost 30% for May and June of 2008 as compared to May and June of 2007. I thought it has seemed to be pretty busy around here, but I still thought the percentage was surprisingly high. Had someone told me in January of 2006, right after the “reform” legislation had gone into effect that this was going to happen, I don’t think I would have believed it. The standard wisdom at that time was that bankruptcy lawyers might be about out of business. In fact, many lawyers quit practicing bankruptcy law at that time. The new law was called BAPCPA (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act). In my opinion, the only abuse that was going on was that perpetrated by the credit industry, and the only protection provided was for them and not consumers.

Earlier this week I received a copy of Consumer Bankruptcy News, one of those old fashioned publications that is still printed on paper. In the lower right corner of page 7 was an item stating that nation-wide bankruptcy filings were up 48% in July 2008 as compared to July 2007. There were 94,124 consumer filings in July and 82,770 in June this year. That would be as if everybody in Bloomington, Minnesota and in Duluth Minnesota combined had filed for bankruptcy in June or July. If that keeps up, I would assume that for August it would be as if everybody in Rochester, Minnesota had filed for bankruptcy.

If you should feel a need to come see me to talk bankruptcy, there’s sure no reason to feel alone.

Posted on

Creeping Debt and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Debt Limits

Not long ago it seemed that $20,000 of credit card debt was a lot. I would file a bankruptcy for a person who had that without giving it a second thought. Now, however, as things go in my world, that’s not a lot of debt for most people. Unless the debtor is sick, disabled or hopelessly low income, I would be reluctant to file for someone with such a small debt.

What’s happening is that I rarely see anyone who’s not more than $50,000 in debt, and over $100,000 of consumer credit card debt is common. Once the total of the debt tops $100,000 I tend to ignore how much higher it goes, as my software keeps a running tally of the total. The fact is that for me, and I’m afraid for the whole country, the amount of credit card debt that seems normal is creeping steadily upward.

So the other day when I was reading my mail on a bankruptcy lawyer listserve, I had a bit of a start. One of the emails reminded me that for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, there is a limit as to how much debt one is allowed to have. I quickly pulled out the most recent Chapter 13 I had filed and checked the balances of the debts, to make sure we had not exceeded the legal limit. Up until that moment it never occurred to me that one day someone will probably walk into my office with consumer debts in excess of the Chapter 13 limits. All of a sudden, those limits don’t seem as high to me as they used to. A lawyer who files a case where the limits are exceeded is subject to sanctions. If I did that it could cost me thousands of dollars. I must start paying more attention to those limits.

In order to qualify for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the person’s secured debt must not exceed $1,010,650 and the unsecured debt must not exceed $336,900. The way things are going right now, I would not be surprised to meet someone within the next week whose debts are over those limits. From my perspective the current economic downturn has been frightening and unbelievable.

I don’t mean to imply that I have never met a person with debts that high. Back in the early 1980s, during a serious recession we had in those years, I did a Chapter 7 bankruptcy for a real estate developer who had gone out of business and who had millions of dollars in debt. There’s no limit to the amount of debt you can run through a Chapter 7. I have also done Chapter 7 work for small business owners who’s debts would have exeeded the Chapter 13 limits.

But now people I see with consumer debt are actually starting to push those Chapter 13 limits, and that is something I have never seen before.

Posted on

Debtor Audits in Bankruptcy Cases Resume Today

My email today brought me a notice that the U.S. Trustee’s office is resuming debtor audits as of today. They stopped in January because Congress didn’t fund it.

An audit in this context involves the U.S. Trustee’s office hiring an outside accounting firm to go over the debtor’s records. Previously the policy was that one in 250 cases would randomly be audited. Now the policy is one in a thousand will be audited. That’s a 400% improvement, but I’m still sad to see this stuff starting again.

Posted on

Minnesota Bankruptcy: The Income Limits

Since the passage of the “new law” in October of 2005, there have been rules based on level of income about who can file a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Unless you are at or below the median income for the State of Minnesota based upon your family size, you can only file a Chapter 7 if you pass the so-called means test. The means test is a whole other topic, which I will have to deal with some other time. For now, however, here’s a video I posted recently on Youtube where I discuss the median income levels for Minnesota by household size.

The numbers are subject to change every few months, but I have them posted on my site on my Chapter 7 page under the subheading of “Qualifying for Chapter 7 in Minnesota.”

David J. Kelly, Attorney
Kelly Law Office
11900 Wayzata Blvd. #116E
Minnetonka, MN 55305
952-544-6356
http://www.mn-bankruptcy.com/

Posted on

Bankruptcy Update Part III – Spring 2008

Here’s another clip in the series that I have been working on. In this one I talk about how the Senate has eliminated a section of the pending mortgage relief legislation which would have allowed a bankruptcy judge to reduce the balance owing on a mortgage. The idea was that in those situations where the mortgage is more than the value of the property, the bankruptcy judge could reduce the balance of the mortgage to be equal to the value of the house. The rest of the balance of the mortgage would be discharged in the bankruptcy. Sounds like a wonderful idea to me. But the Senate committee didn’t think so. Too much lobbying by the banking industry.

So for the time being there is no provision in the bankruptcy law for an option to discharge the part of the mortgage that exceeds the value of the house, while allowing the balance of the mortgage to be a lien on the house. I feel as if I may be doing a bad job at explaining this. It’s the kind of thing that many non-lawyers might not understand. As a result, the Senate gets away with not passing a really beneficial piece of legislation, because nobody quite understands what it is they didn’t pass.

Posted on

Senate to Vote Next Week on New Mortgage Relief Bill

I’m sitting here looking at an email I have received from the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Lawyers, of which I am a member. The Association has been pushing for legislation which would allow a bankruptcy court to order modifications in mortgage loans, something which would currently be entirely off limits. The bill is S. 2636, and the section of the bill with the mortgage modification provisions is Title IV. There is fear that before the bill is passed that this section will be removed. Now would be a good time to call or write your US Senator if you would like to see them do something about the current mortgage foreclosure crisis.

You can find the text of the bill here. I’m not sure I fully understand all the language, but it looks as if it would give the bankruptcy court authority to lower interest rates and extend the term of the loan to 30 years. I just met today with a gentleman whose mortgage balloons in less than two years. At that time he may have to just walk away from the house. If the term could be extended under the terms of this bill, the effect would be to save this guy’s house. Links to both of Minnesota’s senators can be found here, including info on how to contact them.

Posted on

Executive Office of U.S. Trustee Suspends Debtor Audits

About a week ago BankruptcyLawNetwork.com reported that the Executive Office of the U.S. Trustee has suspended auditing of debtors filing for bankruptcy because Congress did not fund the audits in the 2008 appropiration. This is good news. Under the 2005 changes to the bankruptcy law, the U.S. Trustee could engage the services of outside accounting firms to audit the records of bankrupt debtors. At least until they find some funding somewhere, and they are looking for alternative sources, this auditing activity will come to a stop.

This does not mean that the Trustees themselves cannot continue requesting detailed information, documents and records from bankrupt debtors; and going over it with a fine tooth comb. It just means that they can’t hire outside accounting help to do it. When these audits were in progress, they only involved a very small percentage of the bankruptcy cases being filed. A much higher percentage of cases were investigated directly by U. S. Trustee personnel without outside help.

It is my hope that the failure to appropriate funds represents the beginning of a backlash against the so-called Bankruptcy Reform Act.

Posted on

Don’t Sell Yourself Short

I am now receiving calls from people who have done what is called a “short sale” of their home to avoid a foreclosure. The typical situation is one where the value of the house has fallen below what is owed on the mortgage or mortgages, since often there is more than one. Meanwhile, the homeowners are falling behind in their payments. There are many possible reasons why they are behind in paying, but the most common is that one or more of the mortgages is an ARM, and the payments have jumped sky high The assumption may have been at the time of taking out the ARM that by the time the payments went up, they would be able to refinance again with a new and more reasonable mortgage. Now in this market that plan is pretty much out the window.

All the homeowners can think of it that they must avoid foreclosure. So they list the home for sale with a realtor. By and by the realtor finds a buyer, but it’s for a price that’s below the balance owing on the mortgages. This of course is no big surprise and is exactly what the homeowners figured was their best hope. The realtor contacts the mortgage lender or lenders, and the lenders agree to the sale. Specifically they will release their mortgage on the property in exchange for less than full payment. This can be a wise move from the point of view of the lender, because they were going to lose time and money in the event of a foreclosure anyway. The homeowners are relieved, go through with the sale, and move into a rented apartment.

The story does not have a happy ending. They do not live happily ever after. They neglected one thing. That release from the mortgage company just released the property, not them. There is an unpaid balance on the mortgage or mortgages, and the bill collectors start calling and threatening.

The amount they owe is way beyond any ability to pay they might have had; and so they call me about a bankruptcy. In my opinion, they would have been WAY better off to have just let the lenders foreclose. Ordinarily, foreclosure is done in such a way that the mortgage holder only gets the house and doesn’t get a right to go after the former homeowner personally. There may very well have been a possibility of living in the house rent free for a year or so and then walking away with no further debt.

Another possibility may have been that the first mortgage would foreclose and take the house. the second mortgage holder would not foreclose, let the house go, and then go after the former homeowners personally. That’s not such a good result, but it still includes the rent-free year or so.

Yet another possibility is that the release from the lender in the short sale DOES include a personal release. The former homeowners think all is well as they enjoy their new apartment. Then a 1099 arrives from the lender. The debt that was forgiven is reported as income to the IRS, and they may owe a tax on it.

My suggestion is that it is almost always best in the foregoing circumstances to just stay in the house and ride out the foreclosure. Don’t move out until the foreclosure is done, the redemption period has run out, and the lender starts an eviction action. If there is only one mortgage, you may come out of the process rather debt free and not need me. If there is more than one mortgage, you may have debt but at least no 1099. There may be circumstances where a short sale could be a good idea, but it is hard for me to think of one.

The idea that a short sale is the best thing for one’s credit seems to me to be an illusion. By the time the whole scenario is run, the credit report won’t look so good no matter what you do.

Posted on

Bankruptcy "Abuse" Wasn’t There; Today’s Falling Stock Market

I am looking this afternoon at an October 15th article in the Duluth News Tribune. A bankruptcy lawyer I know has posted it on a local bankruptcy list serve to which I subscribe. The headline, “Bankruptcy filings are on the rise” is not really news to me. But one of the sub-headings in the article really caught my eye: “ABUSE WASN’T THERE”

The article rehashes how the credit and banking industry had lobbied for passage of the 2005 new legislation on the theory that a large number of people had been “abusing” the bankruptcy system. But then it takes a closer look at the filings under the new law, especially the ratio between Chapter 7s – which is where most of the abuse was supposed to have been happening – and Chapter 13s – which are preferred by the banking industry. They note that the ratio between 7s and 13s is the same now as it was in 1999. That ratio together with quotes from a credit counselor at Lutheran Social Services seems to support the proposition that the perceived “abuse” never actually existed.

In fact, judging by the whipping that some of the banks and credit card companies seem to be taking in the stock market today, it seems clear to me that a great deal of irresponsible behavior – abuse if you want to call it that – was engaged in by the bankers and lenders themselves. At the time of this writing, the Dow is down 192 points; and it’s been dropping for several days in a row. It is my hope that our economy can absorb the shock that is being expressed in today’s market, but I’m not at all sure that we won’t wind up in a recession. If it happens, I don’t think it will be the consumers who will be to blame.

Proudly powered by WordPress
close
Facebook IconYouTube IconTwitter Icon