The scoop on the $71.00 bankruptcy ad

I posted awhile ago about a neighboring high-volume bankruptcy firms TV advertisements to “get your bankruptcy started for just $71.00”. I speculated on how they did that, but I have since learned what the deal is from a client who went to them first. She clearly was a candidate for a Chapter 7: below median income, no secured debt arrears, no priority debt, and nothing else that would lend itself to Chapter 13. However, she could not come up with the attorney fees to do the Chapter 7 right then. So, they offered to put her into a Chapter 13 with just $71.00 up front.

This seems like an acceptable approach. Basically the attorney is using the ability to have their fees paid through the Chapter 13 as administrative expenses. The up side for the debtor is that they get the relief from creditors including garnishment right away. The downside is that this is a much more expensive and involved process than the Chapter 7. Debtors need to be made aware of how much more they would pay in the long run for the Chapter 13 as compared to the Chapter 7 – sort of fair credit act kind of disclosure. Perhaps my colleague is giving that kind of disclosure – I have no reason to doubt that they are. If so, then I give them props for giving another option for debtors that needs relief from debt right away, but whom cannot afford the attorney fees.

Trending in Chapter 13 in the Eastern District of Kentucky

The trustee’s office appears to be taking a closer look at expenses in Schedule J of Chapter 13 cases. Specifically, they appear to be pushing for decreasing recreational/entertainment expenses and miscellaneous expenses. Previously, this trustee’s office tended to utilize the standardized amounts provided for in the means test as a gauge. As a result, if a debtor reported a particular expense in excess of those amounts, I would encourage them to engage in “belt-tightening” in that area.

The interesting thing about those standardized expenses is people who make less money have lower expenses while people who make more money have higher expenses even when the family size is the same. In the prior approach, the trustee’s made some allowance for this dynamic. The trustee’s current approach seems to be to cram those relatively higher income families into the expense structure of the lower-income Chapter 13 families. Now, even if expenses fall within the standard allowance of the means test, the trustee is looking for deeper cuts.

On the surface, this seems fair – after all, why should richer people get to have higher expenses and still discharge their debts at the end? The problem comes down to human nature. Once people develop a set point of expenses, then it is extremely hard for them to do substantial cuts in those expenses. When one is talking about the extended timeframe of five years in a bankruptcy, well the likelihood of successfully maintaining extensive cuts drops dramatically.

So, what is the goal of Chapter 13? I suggest that we are best served when people successfully complete Chapter 13 plans. This will not happen when budgets are made so tight as to be unwieldy over time. Debtors will get into a tight spot with unexpected expenses and be unable to make their payments. This is not to suggest that people should get to engage in lavish lifestyles in a Chapter 13; rather, I suggest a balance between belt-tightening and sustainable budgets. Clothing makes for a good analogy: a really tight dress may look really trim and neat, but no one can wear it day in and day out. Rather, one needs slightly roomy clothes to go about their day-to-day business. Such an approach will increase Chapter 13 successful outcomes and, thus, increase the overall return to unsecured creditors.