Kentucky Bankruptcy Law

Counsel with Care

Domestic Support Obligation and Bankruptcy (or No Discharge for the Durango Debt)

The Kentucky Court of Appeals just issued a decision directly related to family law and bankruptcy that shows why knowledge of both fields can be so important. In Howard v Howard, 2008-CA-001059-MR (June 12, 2009)(to be published) the Court addressed two important issues regarding domestic support obligations.

A domestic support obligation has a very broad definition under the bankruptcy code (11 USC 101(14A)) encompassing any debt owed to or recoverable by “a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor or such child’s parent, legal guardian, or responsible relative” including a “government unit”. This includes alimony (maintenance), child support, or other obligations arising out of a divorce or separation. The debt can be established through a separation agreement, decree or other order of the court. 11 USC 523(a)(15). For Kentucky Courts, it also includes a Dodge Durango debt.

In this case, Mr. Roy Shane Howard divorced his wife, but he agreed to, and was later ordered in the decree, to pay towards a deficiency judgment arising from the repossession of their Durango. The case does not say, but that repossession may have been the final straw that broke the back of their marriage. Some folks really love their Durangos.

Anyway, after the divorce, he listed this deficiency judgment as a debt in his bankruptcy and his ex-wife did not object to its discharge so he figured he no longer owed that debt. However, little did he realize that Kentucky Courts share jurisdiction with Federal courts to determine whether an obligation is discharged and the Court of Appeals wasn’t buying the argument that she had to object in the bankruptcy case. After all, the bankruptcy code declares such debts as non-discharged and spells out no special action required by the creditor.

This Court determined that Roy’s obligation in the divorce to pay part of the Durango deficiency was a domestic support obligation. While the bankruptcy discharged the debt as to the original lender, it did not disturb his responsibility for the debt to Sondra, his ex-wife. In other words, the original creditor could not come after Roy for the debt any longer, but they could go after Sondra and Sondra could bring it right back around and get Roy for contempt in the divorce court. And that is exactly what happened.

So, if debts are an issue in a divorce proceeding, it is wise to plan carefully what will happen to those debts. Often, it is best for the each person to set aside the anger and honestly analyze if they can pay those debts once the one set of living expenses becomes two separate households. If not, and they otherwise qualify for bankruptcy, then a joint bankruptcy may be the best option.

I said there were two important domestic support obligation issues. suffice it to say that this sort of deficiency debt could have been discharged in a Chapter 13 instead of the Chapter 7 he filed.

March 22, 2013 Posted by | Bankruptcy, Divorce, Family Law, Marital Assets | , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS: Backed into a corner

The economic situation we face has hit small business owners broadside and many are scrambling to figure out how to get relief. Developers who specialize in building upscale homes were particularly troubled by the recession. Although home sales in the Lexington and Bluegrass area remain more stable than much of the country, folks appear to be shying away from building those half-million to million dollar abodes. These builders are proving especially vulnerable to what I describe below because they rely so heavily on secured loans. However, other small businesses are finding themselves in the same circumstances. The vulnerability of which I write is having one’s personal residence secured against primarily business loans.

Here is the general scenario which appears over and over again: Small Business Owner (SBO) goes to the bank to get a loan to either purchase a business or purchase a new asset, such as land to develop. The bank is glad to lend money to SBO after looking over the business proposal and sets up a time to close the deal. SBO drops by the bank and is told, by the way, granting this loan is contingent upon SBO giving their personal guaranty on the loan AND granting a security interest against their personal residence for the full value of the loan. Now, not all banks wait until closing to announce this, but a few persons I have talked with stated they had no idea they would have to put their own house up until they showed up at the bank. At that point, the whole business deal was dependent on getting that loan soon. Due to time constraints, SBO acquiesces to the security interest. “After all,” they think “the debt is primarily secured by the land owned by the business which will increase in value.” And there is the kicker.

Land values decreased and only now are increasing slightly. So, many of the loans are “under water”; that is, the land providing the primary security interest end up bringing less than the amount of the loan. The SBO faces having any excess debt of that business loan remain against their personal property. As the banks know, now the SBO cannot simply let their business fail while remaining safe in their home; they must navigate the personal debt gauntlet as well. Has their income been low enough to file a Chapter 7? Do they have sufficient income to even qualify for a Chapter 13, and if so, could they fund a plan? Could they afford a Chapter 11 and would it bring the relief they need personally? Throughout all those considerations the main question is: can I keep the home that I have worked so hard for so that my family has a home?

Unfortunately, there is often no clear course where I can confidently tell them that, “yes, you will keep your home.” If they have a primary debt that secures the home close to the allowed homestead exemption (currently over $21,600.00 per person; over $43,200.00 for a married couple), and their income is low enough, then they may be able to reaffirm on that home purchase loan and strip off the business debt. It is a different analysis if the business debt is secured first against the developed lot and secondarily by the builder’s personal residence which would otherwise have over $100k in equity. That means they have far too much equity for a Trustee to ignore when the debt securing so much of it is contingent. In other words, depending on the value of that developed lot, they may have $100k in equity or they may have zero equity and anything in between. Those details often do not become defined until after the bankruptcy has been initiated. They could attempt a Chapter 13, but their plan must still show that the unsecured creditors would do just as well or better than in a Chapter 7.

There are a few points I wish to highlight with the scenario I have briefly outlined: 1) Do your best, if you are a SBO, to avoid letting your personal residence secure a business loan; 2) If you do not have the clout or leverage to avoid using your residence as collateral entirely, negotiate limiting the amount of the personal guaranty to a manageable level if your business did fold; 3) Consult with an attorney, preferrably one familar with bankruptcy law, before signing on the dotted line any deal that directly involves the assets of your family; 4) Remember that bankruptcy can be far more complicated for a Small Business Owner, so if you find yourself facing a debt crisis, seek out an attorney that will meet with you personally and discuss all aspects of your financial and family situation. Pre-deal planning with an attorney is so much more cost efficient than bringing one in after the crisis.

March 8, 2013 Posted by | Bankruptcy, Marital Assets | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Family Law Planning and Bankruptcy

As I have suggested in other posts, there is a significant intersection between family law and bankruptcy law. One example of this link comes in the form of the homestead exemption. Kentucky now allows for debtors seeking bankruptcy to use the Federal exemptions. This greatly increased the homestead exemption from the low and static Kentucky exemption of $5,000.00 to the Federal exemption that is tied to inflation. Currently, an individual can claim over $21,625.00 of the equity of their residence as exempt property. For a married couple, that means they can claim over $43,250.00 equity in their residence as exempt. In other words, if you are married, have a home that is valued at $200,000.00 dollars and you owe $160,000.00 on the home that is secured by a mortgage, then you can reaffirm the debt of $160,00.00 and still keep your home in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

This knowledge is priceless if you are either contemplating divorce or in the midst of a divorce action. Saving a home in the face of a bankruptcy can benefit your family regardless of whether the divorce occurs or not (though hopefully, as I stated in my last post, the divorce could be avoided). Knowing the exemption and interplay of bankruptcy and family law can allow for wise planning on the timing of the filing or bankruptcy, how marital assets are divided, and where monies might come from to satisfy domestic obligations.

February 25, 2013 Posted by | Bankruptcy, Divorce, Family Law, Marital Assets, property allocation | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Domestic Support Obligations: child support, alimony, and equitable distributions

There are two different sorts of domestic support obligations defined in the bankruptcy code.  The first kind of domestic support obligation encompasses things such as child support payments and alimony (called maintenance in Kentucky).  The second sort comes from an equitable distribution of property subsequent to a divorce. The term “domestic support obligation” first appears in 11 USC Sect. 101(14A), but these two different kinds of domestic support obligations only become apparent when one looks at how they are treated in terms of discharge of debt.

At first glance at 11 USC 523(a)(5) & (15) it looks like these two types of domestic support obligations are treated the same. That is to say, neither child support and alimony type obligations nor equitable distribution of property appear to be discharged in bankruptcy. This is true when it comes to Chapter 7 liquidation type bankruptcy. However, it is a different story in Chapter 13, but one has to look at the bankruptcy code carefully to discern this difference.

So, now we have to turn to 11 USC Sect 1328(a)(2) to see the rest of the story. This oddly written statute basically says that all debts except for certain ones get discharged once all the plan payments are made. The specific provision mentioned includes 11 USC Sect 523(a)(5) as an exception that does NOT get discharged. However, that provision conspicuously leaves our 11 USC Sect. 523(a)(15). This latter provision, 523(a)(15) pertains to equitable distribution of assets subsequent to a divorce.

Bottom line: if you agree to let your soon to be ex-spouse pay you later for your share of equity in the marital residence, then you may end up losing out if he or she ends up in a Chapter 13. That chunk of equity may well end up being treated as a general unsecured debt receiving only pennies on the dollar. However, child support and alimony (maintenance) will not be discharged in a Chapter 7 or a Chapter 13.

July 16, 2012 Posted by | Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Chapter 7, child support, Divorce, Family Law, Marital Assets, Pre-filing planning | , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Here I am dead and my ex-wife (ex-husband) got all of my retirement!?

It is common for a Separation and Property Settlement Agreement to be reached in a divorce situation where retirement benefits are divided up. When one spouse’s retirement is split up and a portion is given to the other spouse, family law practitioner’s know that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) is required in addition to the agreement document. However, due to off-setting of funds, one spouse generally has a retirement account that remains unmolested and sometimes each spouse keep their retirement wholly as their own through negotiations. In this latter situation, a QDRO is not required and so they are rarely prepared and entered with the court and the plan administrator. A recent Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) decsion, KENNEDY, executrix of the ESTATE OF KENNEDY, DECEASED v. PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR DuPONT SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN et al., Decided January 26, 2009(available here at Findlaw) points out the danger assuming the divorce’s settlement agreement wraps up loose ends regarding retirement accounts.

In the Estate of Kennedy case, Husband and Wife entered into an agreement where Wife gave up her interest in Husband’s savings and investment plan (“SIP”) that was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The divorce was granted and the settlement was accepted by the courts. Husband’s attorney did not see the need for a QDRO and Husband assumed that was that and never changed his designation of beneficiary with the SIP administrator. When Husband died, the SIP administrator disbursed the remaining funds to ex-Wife. Everybody else got a bit peeved over this and sued in Federal District Court because it involved a question of federal law under ERISA.

Without getting too far into the analysis, SCOTUS decided to keep things simple and straightforward for plan administrators: either you do a QDRO or you change your beneficiary. The plan administrator is to look to the documents of the plan under ERISA to determine where the money goes avoiding complicated inquiries into a person’s intent. While a QDRO is an exception to this that could require the administrator to look outside of the plan documents, such an inquiry would be limited.

The lesson here is that if your are able to keep your retirement accounts intact through a divorce, you cannot rely on the divorce settlement agreement to direct those funds upon your death. You must either change your designated beneficiary, or have a QDRO entered – changing your beneficiary is by far the simplest and least costly of those options. Family lawyers need to provide their clients with follow-up directions at the end of a divorce to tie up loose ends such as changing beneficiaries for retirement accounts.

January 31, 2009 Posted by | Divorce, Estate Planning, Family Law, Marital Assets, property allocation | 1 Comment

Income in divorce is not the same as with the IRS

People typically think of income in terms of how the IRS defines income, even when it comes to divorce. This makes sense because we deal with income and IRS on an annual basis (except certain notable celebrities) while we deal with divorce, if at all, only once (again with certain celebrities excepted). However, they are not defined exactly the same.

In the recently released Kentucky Supreme Court case, Gripshover v. Gripshover, (2005-SC-000729-DG & 2006-SC-000258-DG)(Feb. 21, 2008)(to be published), , one particular difference is illuminated. The IRS provides for certain business expenses to be fully depreciated (expensed) in the year of the expense rather than depreciated over time. 26 USC Sec. 179. The Gripshover Court held that KRS 403.212 provides only for straight line depreciation. This means that the IRS reported income will often be lower than the income used for determining child support in divorce cases where a business owner is one of the spouses.

It also means that the days of relying on a business owner’s 1040 with the various self-employment schedules to show income is gone. CPA’s will be needed who understand the difference definition of income in divorce in order to determine child support.

February 23, 2008 Posted by | child support, Divorce, Family Law, Marital Assets, property allocation | , , , | 1 Comment