Kentucky Bankruptcy Law

Counsel with Care

Chapter 13 lasts awhile, but stay in touch

Chapter 13s last either three (3) years or five (5) years depending on a households income at the inception. That is quite a long time and it can be easy to let it fade into the background of one’s mind after settling into the rhythm of monthly payments to a Chapter 13 trustee. A debtor in a Chapter 13 likely had considerable contact with their attorney at the very beginning of the case, but this becomes less and less frequent after the plan is confirmed and all the claims have come in. After a couple of years, some old habits can creep back in, and the debtor may never think to contact their lawyer when faced with certain financial decisions.

Many of my Chapter 13 clients come to me to help save their home from foreclosure. A Chapter 13 is a grand tool for just such a thing. Most of these clients got to the point of facing a foreclosure action in State court because they made choices between paying a house payment and getting needed car repairs or paying for a necessary medical procedure. That first time of missing the payment, they likely started getting some calls, but nothing earth shattering happened. Next thing they knew, several missed payments have racked up, they are served with a civil summons, and the only way to catch them up is through a five-year Chapter 13.

Then Christmas rolls around that second year into the Chapter 13 and the belt-tightening budget worked out with the trustee really only left room for macrame’ gifts for the children or perhaps a Chia pet or two. It is heartbreaking for a parent when their children’s friends are getting the newest iPhone or PlayStation 4. Perhaps the car broke down again or the refrigerator they had been nursing along for an extra 10 year lifespan finally goes out. Well, that old pattern kicks in and it seems pretty harmless to miss a house payment. After all, nothing bad happened before until a good six months down the line. Well, bankruptcy is a different world.

Most home loan creditors will file a motion for relief from the automatic stay (the law that precludes them from going ahead with the foreclosure once bankruptcy is filed) with just one or two missed payments post-petition. Being in Chapter 13 basically puts them on high alert and they are much quicker to pull the trigger.

This is not the end of the world – yet. Their attorney can object to the motion and almost always work out an Agreed Order to get caught back up again in about six (6) months. However, there is a hefty price to be paid. The creditor will add in their own attorney fees and they will also likely insist on a drop-dead provision where if those payments do not roll in on time, the stay will be lifted without filing another motion and they can then proceed with the foreclosure.

The better course of action is to call one’s bankruptcy attorney to do some problem solving when an unforeseen expense comes about. In the Eastern District of Kentucky, the Chapter 13 Trustee typically does not oppose a motion to suspend plan payments for a month or three if there is a good reason. That is often enough to get past some unexpected expense and get back on track making up the payments. The upside to this is that the debtor will not get hit with hundreds more in attorney fees or end up on a probation sort of situation. So, even if it has been a long time since you talked to your bankruptcy attorney, if things go awry, call them first and get help.

January 15, 2015 Posted by | Additional Debt, Automatic Stay, Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Disposable Income / Budget, Foreclosure, Plan, Plan payments, Planning, Pre-filing planning, Secured loan arrears | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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.

May 28, 2014 Posted by | Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Disposable Income / Budget, Plan, Plan payments | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Creative Can One Get?

Since I do not focus on a volume practice in bankruptcy and because I have become known as someone who is able and willing to tackle some unusual situations, I get to consult with debtors that have really tough circumstances. A recent case led me down a path of seeing just how creative I could be in a bankruptcy situation to forestall and ultimately pay their home loan lender. Anyone who has talked to me or read many of my posts know that I am quite fond of Chapter 13 bankruptcies. This is partly due to the flexibility afforded by them to accomplish many things, such as saving one’s house from foreclosure. So, I fully expected to find that a Chapter 13 would be the best vehicle to solving this client’s issue where they were nigh on losing their home.

In the scenario presented to me, the debtor had a sizable asset they had not been able to touch which was in trust but not much in ongoing income. The trust was not a spendthrift trust, or else we would not even venture far down this path. However, the debtor hoped that in bankruptcy, the trust assets could be obtained in order to pay their debts – likely at 100%. There are many twists and turns to this matter which I simply cannot go into here. Negotiating this one particular twist will just bring us to another turn and so the analysis is far more complicated than I am putting forth. Other issues involve the couple being unmarried and looking at who actually owns what. There are issues related to the automatic stay when a foreclosure has already been granted, but on appeal. And, just how tight the trust actually is will determine much. However, this particular issue I am focusing on may be helpful to others. In theory, the debtor’s notion of satisfying their debts with this currently unattainable asset is appealing.

We must look at 11 USC Sect. 1322(b)(8) to start the analysis. This section allows the plan proposed by the debtor to provide for payment of all or part of a claim from their property or property of the estate (let’s not worry about that distinction too much – it is often one and the same, but not always). The debtor can do this, in part, because under 11 USC Sect. 1306(b), the debtor remains in possession of all property of the estate. In other words, if you have property you cannot cover with exemption and you really want to keep that property, the way to be assured of that and file bankruptcy is in a Chapter 13. In a Chapter 7, what you cannot exempt is subject to being liquidated.

So far, so good – the debtor keeps the trust assets and keeps the house. Oh, but then we have to look at other provisions of the code. Next, we turn to 11 USC Sect. 1325 which requires that they are able to make payments. If my debtor’s only means to make payments on the plan is accessing their trust, then we run into a problem because there is no reasonable certainty that they will get into that trust in bankruptcy. After all, they were unsuccessful before considering bankruptcy. Because of this uncertainty and the absence of regular income, the plan may not get confirmed. The second barricade the debtor hits is the dreaded “adequate protection” called for in 11 USC Sect. 361. If they cannot protect the secured creditor’s interest in the Chapter 13, then they have no right to keep the asset securing the debt. In essence, this is a carve out of the Section 1306 provision.

Oh, but the secured property is land which typically increases in value; it does not decrease in value. However, in our situation, the amount owed on the property is far more than the value of the land under current market conditions. Still, we may be able to show adequate protection if we show that the value of the land is increasing faster that the debt is accruing interest and other allowed charges. Let us leave this one alone then, since it is driven by things I do not wish to get mired in.

The real problem I find myself up against is caused by the very provision that usually helps people out so much in a Chapter 13: Section 1306. When we combine the fact that the debtor keeps possession of their assets with the other nicety of Chapter 13s: the debtor has an absolute right to convert to a Chapter 7 or dismiss their Chapter 13 case, that is where get to the rub. My debtor cannot show that she can and will make payments to unsecured creditors as required by Section 1325 when she could dismiss the case as soon as she gets hold of the trust assets. Such a plan is unlikely to get confirmed.

Only if her income could pay an amount equal to the non-exempt asset could she get confirmed because there is one other hurdle not yet mentioned. The final hurdle is back in Section 1325 which basically says that creditors have to come out at least as well as or better than if the debtor filed a Chapter 7. This is the creditor’s “best interest” test that balances out the debtor’s benefits in Chapter 13s. In our case, if the debtor filed a Chapter 7 which cannot be converted dismissed without permission and where the assets of the estate go into the trustee’s hands, my debtor cannot pass this test.

Oddly enough, given many facts that I did not go into, this case is actually one where Chapter 7 gives a better likelihood of saving the house. The trustee would be vested with the ability to crack open that trust and has more resources with which to do it than the debtor in a Chapter 7. And, if successful, the home loan would still likely be paid in full even after the commission and other expenses.

January 13, 2014 Posted by | Adequate protection, Assets, Automatic Stay, Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Chapter 7, Conversion, Discharge, Disposable Income, Disposable Income / Budget, Exemptions, Foreclosure, Plan | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Getting the Whole Picture

For the second time in as many days a person I was speaking to highlighted the importance of getting the whole picture when looking at a bankruptcy matter. I accepted the compliment today when the potential client said that, after over a decade of trying to resolve certain debt issues and getting help from various professionals, I was the first person to sit and listen to the whole story. Actually, this is also true of family law cases such as custody or divorce. That may be why I am involved in both of these kinds of cases – because I naturally want to look at the whole picture to find a global resolution when possible.

Yesterday the issue was being served with a foreclosure notice on a house where the person was never named of the deed to the house. After a few more inquiries, it became clear that the person had a potential dower or curtesy (yes, that is spelled correctly) interest in the property as a result of being married to the owner at the time it was purchased. However, that was not the end of the story. I explained that we needed to look closer at the underlying documents. If the foreclosure was only extinguishing a dower or curtesy interest, then the person had nothing to lose. But, if they had ever signed a promissory note, even without ownership in the house, they could be hit with a deficiency debt. It is dangerous in law to stop at the simplest or most obvious answer; you gotta look at the whole picture.

Actually, that was more of a slice of the whole picture, but today’s story was more compelling on looking at the everything. To minimize wordiness, I will not explain the whole picture. This tale involved going back to 2003 and recounting several key events, tragedies, and attempts at resolving debt. What I learned was that nearly $100k of tax debt might be discharged except that there was a time they would have been “tolled”. I knew I had to get tax account transcripts to determine this. Also, there were events and circumstances that might actually allow for the rare discharge of student loan debt. However, it was clear that if I could help with the tax debt, then there might be enough relief that the student loans would not be so onerous. If I had not taken the hour plus to hear all the ins and outs of this families circumstances, I may have missed a key piece of the puzzle and blundered ahead making things worse rather than better.

The end result was that by looking at the whole picture, rather than just the immediate concern of the student loan debt, the potential client left with a sense of hope. I could not promise that the student loans could be discharged, but by coming at it from a different angle, relief was still at hand.

 

January 9, 2014 Posted by | Assets, Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Discharge, Disposable Income / Budget, Priority debt, Property (exempt | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What’s with these Chapter 13 attorney fees?

I was wrapping up final preparations on a Chapter 13 petition and proposed plan today for filing next week. As I ran through the plan and made provisions for the adequate protection payments (in this region they are typically 1% of the value of depreciating assets), I realized it would be some time before I began getting paid for my work. You see, in a Chapter 13, one can put much of the attorney fees into the plan to be paid as administrative costs. This is a priority class of creditors that can be paid in full through the course of the plan. As a priority class, that also means they can be paid ahead of many other kinds of debt.

However, they do not get paid ahead of adequate protection payments. I had been very diligent in this person’s plan to make their budget workable so they could keep their family running while still saving their house and paying off the family car. That car, a family vehicle worth over $10k, meant that adequate protection payments would be over $100 per month right out of the gate. However, due to repaying some retirement plan debts (allowed to avoid tax penalties) their first several months of plan payments would not be much more than the adequate protection amount.

I breathed a sigh and reassured myself that it was just a matter of time and I would be compensated for the post-petition work. I felt good that I was helping the family and that they would be able to cover the arrears on their house and stave off foreclosure. And, I made a mental note that in the future I needed to be mindful of high value cars and tight budgets so that I asked for a smidgen more in up front fees on such matters.

This is a round about way to explain why, in discussing a Chapter 13 with your attorney, she or he may seem to waffle a little on the attorney fees. There is a $3,500.00 “no-look” fee in the Eastern District of Kentucky. This does not mean that is a set, required fee. Rather, if your attorney charges that much or less, the court is not going to ask your lawyer to prove up the time she or he spent as an attorney. If more is charged, then an application detailing the work must be produced. Most attorneys will charge the $3,500.00. Where the waffle comes in is how much will be required to be paid up front prior to filing. I tend to go on the low-end because I know things are so tight for people and I make it as affordable as a Chapter 7, but I have to off-set that with the demand of my own expenses.

December 7, 2013 Posted by | Adequate protection, attorney fees, Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Disposable Income, Disposable Income / Budget, Plan, Plan payments, Secured loan arrears | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Chapter 13 Planning: Purchasing a car prior to filing part 2

Last post explained some of the issues the debtor had to be aware of in purchasing a car prior to filing a Chapter 13. Today I want to complete that discussion with two other considerations. The first is really a concern for the creditor who sells the car. Timing matters in the perfection of the lien on the title of the car to make the car debt a secured one.  Under 11 USC Sect. 547(e)(2)(C)(ii), the seller of the car has up to 30 days after the filing of the bankruptcy to perfect their lien. Perfecting a lien means that they get notice of the lien on the title of the car. A lien must be perfected to be enforceable or not avoided. The reason this matters mainly for the creditor is that if the creditor fails to perfect the lien within 30 days of filing the bankruptcy then they cannot get paid in full AND yet they cannot repossess the car. Essentially, they become unsecured creditors only and they only get pennies on the dollar.

Although that impairs the creditor, the of ways this impacts the debtor, though, is that extra litigation is practically guaranteed to get the lien removed from the title later on. Despite this extra work, the debtor would still have to pay the same plan payment whether that car debt is secured or not. So, it is just cleaner to allow plenty of time (at least 30 days) for the creditor to get that lien perfected.

The second way it impacts debtors for a lien to go past this deadline to be perfected has to do with exemptions. Suddenly, if the lien is not properly perfected, then the whole value of the car must either be exempted or the non-exempt part may increase what has to be paid into the Chapter 13 plan. A Chapter 13 plan must propose at least an equal amount of payments that go to unsecured creditors exists in non-exempt assets. So, when “wild car” exemption plus the vehicle exemption fall short, the plan payment might have to be increased.

September 30, 2013 Posted by | Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Disposable Income / Budget, Plan payments, Planning, Pre-filing planning, Security interests | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Chapter 13 Planning: Purchasing a car prior to filing part 1

Often, when approaching a Chapter 13, a legitimate concern that the potential debtor faces is having reliable transportation during the Chapter 13. The debtor may have fallen behind and had a car repossessed just prior to the bankruptcy filing. Or, more commonly, they are driving a junker of a car that is on its last legs (or wheels). Considering that most Chapter 13 bankruptcies are for five years (some people qualify for a three-year Chapter 13), having a junker car at the start is problematic.

First, it is very hard to predict how much one will have to expend to keep a junker car running for five years. Second, although debtors can apply to the court to incur additional debt during a Chapter 13, it is a tad more complicated to buy a car during the Chapter 13. So, it is entirely legitimate planning to buy a car prior to filing the Chapter 13. If there is sufficient disposable income, buying a dependable car before a Chapter 13 can direct some of that income away from paying unsecured debts towards paying for a legitimate need of reliable transportation. After all, transportation allows for employment and having regular income is necessary for a Chapter 13.

If, after talking to your lawyer about it prior to Chapter 13, you decide to buy a car then there are some things to be careful about. Foremost, you want to buy a car that is reasonable. Forget the Rolls Royce or Jaguar and look for the Corolla or Focus. In other words, do not get a luxury vehicle but get one that is functional. Now, it does not have to literally be a Corolla or a Focus, but the idea is to minimize fuel and repair costs while having enough car to meet your families needs.

Second, you need to be aware of the timing of the purchase. Under 11 USC Sect. 546(c)(1), the seller of goods appears to be allowed to have a right to reclaim the car within 45 days (or 20 days of the petition date if within that 45 days). There appear to be no cases in the Sixth Circuit addressing this issue, but it has come up elsewhere. In one case from Alabama I reviewed, the seller of the car claimed 546(c)(1) gave them the right to take the car back and moved the court to lift the stay to do so. Ultimately the court ruled in favor of the debtor because they found no exception for reclamation in the automatic stay of bankruptcy for the seller, but who wants to go through the hassle of unnecessary litigation.  So, if possible, it is best to make the purchase 45 days prior to filing the bankruptcy.

September 27, 2013 Posted by | Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Disposable Income, Disposable Income / Budget, Fraud, Plan, Plan payments, Planning, Pre-filing planning | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Things to be aware of if facing bankruptcy 2

I am continuing a series of posts on “don’ts” to be aware of if you are facing bankruptcy. This “don’t” is particular to filing a Chapter 7. Do not file a Chapter 7 if your income significantly exceeds your expenses. This takes a little explaining.

The means test determines whether you can file a Chapter 7 or not. However, it is not the end of the story. Because the means test is focused on the income of the six month preceding the month in which you file bankruptcy, it is somewhat arbitrary. Your current income on Schedule I is presumed to be the same as the average of those six months UNLESS there is something definite and quantifiable that is going to be different going forward.

For example, you may have just started or about to start a new job that pays MUCH better than what you had been making. That should be reported in your Schedule I. And, it may cause your disposable income (income minus reasonable living expenses) to be too high.

In my experience, I prefer a debtor going into Chapter 7 to have a disposable income of $150.00 or less per month on their Schedule I and J, but there is some wiggle room there. However, the worst case scenario if your disposable income is much higher than that is to either convert to a Chapter 13 or get dismissed from bankruptcy which causes greater legal expenses.

September 20, 2013 Posted by | Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Chapter 7, Discharge, Disposable Income / Budget, Means test | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment