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

Friends, Family, and the Debt Dilemma

When faced with bankruptcy, people hate to turn away from family that have helped them. The natural and common thing to do is try to repay those family members instead of other debts or to protect family assets by giving them away. This very human reaction may be understandable, but under the law it is not forgivable. Such transfers can create real problems for yourself and for the family you were trying to help.

The bankruptcy code provides for a trustee over a Chapter 7 estate to go after assets transferred prior to the filing of a Chapter 7. These transfers can take the form of favorable repayment of one (or some) debts over others or in the form of a gift. A favorable repayment may constitute a “preference” and a gift may qualify as a “fraudulent conveyance (or transfer)”. When the person receiving the preferential payment or the gift is a family member, the bankruptcy code is especially tough. The trustee can go after preferences made up to a year prior to the filing of the bankruptcy if made to an “insider”. Family members are insiders by definition.

Trustees can go after fraudulent transfers (gifts) to insiders made two years prior to filing under the bankruptcy code. However, one cannot rely on that two-year period because the bankruptcy code also has a “strong arm” provision that allows trustees to use state law to go after preferences and fraudulent transfers. In Kentucky preferences are treated the same, but the reach back period for fraudulent conveyances to insiders is five (5) years prior to the filing date.

Two situations recently came to me that point out the need for caution. In the first situation, a person borrowed from a close relative to put into a business. They intended to pay this relative back in a lump sum from a retirement account, but then it began looking like a Chapter 7 might be imminent. This would have created a double impact: first, exempt fundsthat would have ridden through the bankruptcy would have been converted to non-exempt funds and second, the trustee would have pulled that large lump sum payment back into the estate from the relative. From those reclaimed funds, the trustee would pay himself a percentage and the rest would have gone to unsecured creditors. This is a good example of a preferential payment within a year of bankruptcy to an insider. The retirement would be gone and the relative would remain largely unpaid (they would be treated the same as any other unsecured creditor and recieve cents on the dollar).

The second situation involved a person who had racked up considerable unsecured debt and had their personal residence secured to the hilt, but they owned several acres in another state free and clear of any lien. It was important to this person to retain the out-of-state land because it contained a family cemetery. They wanted to give the land to someone else to keep it in the family. Unfortunately, this would have been a fraudulent conveyance and the land would be taken and sold by the trustee with proceeds going to unsecured creditors. The cemetery itself would likely be protected and the family could still access it, but ownership of it and all the surrounding acreage would leave the family.

With a five (5) year reach back in Kentucky anyone would be hard pressed to plan for hard financial times well enough to preserve such an asset, but this example highlights the importance of sitting down with a bankruptcy practitioner who will help devise a comprehensive plan. In this scenario and with other factors beyond the limits of this posting (such as the age and health of the debtor), delaying bankruptcy by using this land as collateral to obtain enough funds to live on would be a wise alternative.

October 17, 2014 Posted by | Bankruptcy, Chapter 7, Discharge | , , , , | 2 Comments

The danger of short term loans on your house

You home is an incredible source of collateral for loans when there is equity (value minus debt secured against it), but there is also danger in using your home this way. There are still lenders who will do rather large, short-term loans secured against a private residence. These loans can be tempting because they often will provide for relatively low-interest loans. However, they can be dangerous. especially when they are balloon loans. Such loans are seductive because they have low monthly payments with a final huge payment due at the end.

I have seen these often used by people trying to get a business venture off the ground. However, people sign up for them for many reasons. The business folks are essentially betting on having a solid and very profitable business going in three to five years. I admire their confidence, but most businesses that survive take three years just to start making a modest return. And so, many find their balloon payment looming without adequate resources to cover the debt. Sometimes banks will roll it into a new loan, but there is no guarantee of this. Therefore, it is wise to talk to a lawyer who knows about bankruptcy prior to that maturity date.

Banks like loans against your personal residence because the revisions to the bankruptcy code back in 2005 gave special treatment to loans secured solely against one’s residence. Basically, 11 USC Section 1322(b)(2) prevents such loans from being modified in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Therefore, the only thing one can do is cure the arrears through the bankruptcy, but the underlying agreement remains intact. There is a nice little exception, though, found in 11 USC Section 1322(c)(2) for loans that come due DURING the Chapter 13. So, if one times things right and files a Chapter 13 BEFORE the last payment on your short-term loan is due, a Debtor CAN modify that loan to some extent.

The most likely use for this exception is to move the maturity date of the loan out for the duration of the Chapter 13 plan and thus provide for the cure of arrears on that loan. The Debtor still has to show that the lender is adequately protected, but that hurdle is usually overcome easily with real estate that is either holding its value or increasing in value. This is NOT a complete remedy, but it can buy more time for a Debtor to either find alternative financing that has no balloon payment or make those profits they hoped for that would cover the debt.

September 9, 2014 Posted by | Additional Debt, Adequate protection, Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Financing, Foreclosure, Home Loan Modification, Home loan modifications, Plan, Plan payments, Planning, Pre-filing planning, Secured loan arrears, Security interests | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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.

May 28, 2014 Posted by | attorney fees, Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Plan | , , , , , , , , , , | 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

Car Cares and the Chapter 13 Dilemma

While I often extol the virtues of Chapter 13 bankruptcy, there is one issue in them that can be most vexing to a Debtor in need of help. Nearly every Chapter 13 Debtor owns a car with a secured debt attached to it when they file. Previously I have talked about the benefit of being able to reduce the interest rate on high interest car loans through the Chapter 13 and even, when the debt is old enough, cram down the principal owed to the actual value of the car. These all remain true. However, there is a hidden danger to having a car loan in Chapter 13.

The danger lies in 11 USC Sect. 1235(a). This provision lists a number of things that must be true about a Chapter 13 plan for it to be confirmed. Conversely, if all the requirements of 1325 are met, the court must confirm the plan. Shaw v. Aurgroup Financial Credit Union, 552 F.3d 447 (6th Cir., 2009). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued case law based on this code provision that severely restricts the flexibility of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in this one area of car loans. Those decisions are In re Adkins, 425 F.3d 296, 300 (6th Cir.2005) and In re Nolan, 232 F.3d 528 (6th Cir.2000).

Essentially, these two court opinions determine that once a plan is confirmed and the car lender’s claim is allowed, then it shall always be a secured claim. This may not sound formidable, but here is how the scenario plays out: Debtor has a car worth $7,000.00 which is working okay at the start of the plan. The plan gets approved and the secured claim is filed by the lender for $7,000.00. Perhaps there is another claim for excess debt on the car that is treated unsecured, but that does not matter in this situation. A couple of years into the plan, the car starts messing up and it becomes more costly to fix than the car is now worth. The Debtor, who is paying all their disposable income into their Chapter 13 cannot get the car fixed. So, they seek to modify the plan, surrender the car, and purchase a more roadworthy vehicle. They can only manage this if they can reduce their plan payment. They can only reduce their plan payment if the deficiency of the car loan, what’s left after the car is surrendered and auctioned, is unsecured debt. However, In re Adkins and In re Nolan preclude this.

That $7,000.00 cannot be re-characterized as unsecured. Let’s say the loan after two years of payments through the Chapter 13 plan is now $6,000.00 but the car auctions only for $1,000.00. That leaves a $5,000.00 deficiency. That $5,000.00 remains a secured debt that MUST be paid in full during the remainder of the Chapter 13 plan. The Debtor still must pay the exact same amount in plan payments and thus cannot afford to buy another vehicle. Now they have no car but they still must pay for their surrendered car in full.

The Sixth Circuit used solid statutory construction and policy considerations in coming to this result. They wanted to keep a Debtor from being able to enjoy a car for a while and then shift the depreciation value to the creditor. However, because the creditor knows they will be paid in full regardless of what they do, they have no incentive to realize the actual fair mark value of the car that was surrendered. The Debtor cannot sell the car due to the lien in place and the because of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy so they are stuck. They might as well keep the car and make do for the life of the Chapter 13.

The main point in all of this is to do a careful assessment of one’s vehicles and car loans prior to filing. Going into a Chapter 13 with high value cars that also have a high debt load can leave one with almost no wiggle room for the life of the Chapter 13. It would be best surrender such vehicles prior to confirmation of the plan and obtain an inexpensive used car prior to filing. And, if they have cars with debt, the Debtor needs to have some comfort that the car will actually last the life of the bankruptcy.

March 3, 2014 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , | 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

Taxes & Bankruptcy

I write about this every year because it is a recurring issue for people facing bankruptcy. Taxes have a bearing on bankruptcy whether you are owed a refund or whether you owe the IRS. Therefore, they must always be taken into account, but it is especially important during this first handful of months each year.

The first thing to remember is that if you are owed a refund at the time of filing, that refund is an asset of the estate and must be reported in Schedule B and hopefully exempted in Schedule C. If you owe taxes, they are reported on either Schedule F or E depending on whether they are priority debts or not. Your attorney can help sort that out. Tax debt and tax refunds arise on December 31st each year. So, if you file a bankruptcy on January 1st, then you must account for the tax situation that arose from just the day before. So, even if you do not file your tax return until April 15th (or October if you file an extension) you either owe taxes for the year that just ended or you are getting a refund (rare indeed is the person who lands right at zero, but I suppose it happens).

If you owe taxes for the preceding year, they will be considered a “priority” debt and a debt that cannot be discharged. In a Chapter 7, the IRS and any state agency you owe taxes to will begin collection activity after your Chapter 7 is closed. In a Chapter 13, you will have to make sure you pay enough into the plan for those taxes to be paid in full over the life of the Chapter 13 along with 4% interest for federal income taxes and 5% interest on Kentucky income taxes.

If you are owed a refund, you need to report the refund as accurately as possible in your schedules of assets. This means you will likely have to run at least a rough draft of your tax return to get a good faith estimate of what is due back to you. Then, you will attempt to cover the entire amount in “wild card” exemptions. If you cannot exempt the entire amount, you will need to make a determination with help from your attorney as to whether you should wait until you receive the refund or press on.

If you decide to wait until you receive the refund, then the smart thing to do would be to pay for the bankruptcy and spend the money on necessities, such as food or needed repairs to you car. Do NOT use it to pay unsecured debt, especially not to relatives. Your attorney can help you know how much you can hold onto and exempt.

Your attorney can also help you determine if older income tax debts, such as those that arose a few years prior to the bankruptcy, will be discharged in your Chapter 7 or 13. All of this is acceptable pre-petition planning to make the most of the fresh start bankruptcy allows.

December 27, 2013 Posted by | attorney fees, Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Chapter 7, Plan, Tax Debts, Tax refund, The estate | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Scoop on the $71.00 Bankruptcy

I saw a TV ad yesterday afternoon by a law firm that does a high volume of bankruptcy filings. I had just finished a five-hour evidentiary hearing and so I took off a little early to refuel. Those evidentiary hearings require tremendous and sustained concentration.  Anyway, this ad surprised me. The attorneys at the firm stated in the commercial that they knew how tight people’s budgets were so they would “get started with your bankruptcy for only $71.00.” I got out my calculator and started crunching numbers to see how they could stay in business.

You see, that law firm has a high overhead. They spend thousands and thousands every month in television commercials and billboards. They also utilize paralegals and support staff to prepare petitions and other necessary documents to file a bankruptcy. They have a nice, decent sized building in a strategic main thoroughfare. And, of course the attorneys want to make a decent living also. All that adds up to high overhead costs that have to be covered somewhere.

In my situation, I do all the work myself and so I have no support staff. My partner and I have a reasonable lease on a 200-year-old “mansion” (a.k.a. farmhouse) in the middle of a subdivision. Our advertising budget… well, this is it. You are looking at it. Sure, I also want to make a decent living, but still this all adds up to very low overhead and this gets passed on to you.

So, basic math dictates that the big law firm must make much more money than the small law firm. They are either charging more for each case than I do, they are cutting costs somewhere, or both. I cannot say anything more specifically about that law firm because I do not know more. I can say that, in general, businesses that do volume business build in costs reduction by standardizing everything. Think McDonald’s.

So, how can they advertise this $71.00 deal? Go back to McDonald’s and think dollar menu. The dollar menu offers a very low-cost option that is small and bare bones. But, that still does not explain it all. True, they are likely basing that $71.00 on their most basic services in the simplest of Chapter 7s. And, that still cannot possibly be done for $71.00. So, the key is in the phrase “get started for….” Lawyers know to listen for such phrases, but the general population over skips over them. This is how marketing is so effective.

Easy enough. I do free consults already and then I typically ask for $200.00 to be paid into escrow before I actually am “retained”. This means that I will then take creditor calls when necessary, you can tell creditors to leave you alone and contact me, and I will complete the means test. I suspect that for $71.00, they will only have their paralegal gather paper work and perhaps even do a rudimentary means test, but then they will work out a payment plan for the rest. Well, I will match that. I will even beat it. For $70.00 I would also be willing to gather your paper work and do a means test. Then, we can make a plan for the rest, but I will not be able to deal with creditors for you. Just mention this blog post for this special offer.

Do not be fooled, though – the $71.00 (or my $70.00 offer), will NOT get you a bankruptcy. It just gets things started. You will have to come up with several hundred dollars prior to filing for attorney fees whether you come to me or go to the firm with the advertising. Fees not paid prior to filing a Chapter 7 would be a debt owed in the bankruptcy and discharged just like every other debt. The difference to consider: my partner and I actually do all the work ourselves and ensure high quality of work.

December 11, 2013 Posted by | attorney fees, Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Planning | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Consolidation loan conundrum

I had a consult scheduled with a potential client recently who did not make it in. No worries, I just reached out to her to see if she wanted to reschedule. She declined because she had initiated a consolidation loan process to pull together all her outstanding unsecured debts under one, lower interest rate. She was getting this consolidation loan by refinancing her house and using up any equity in the house to secure the loan. I still offered to meet with her – for free even though I likely would see no business result from the meeting. I did not want to talk her out of this plan; I simply wanted to make sure she had full knowledge of all the ramifications. This is because I know people who have done this successfully and avoided bankruptcy. I have known others who did this and it ended up putting their home at risk.

Essentially, a consolidation loan like the own my potential client was wrangling does not reduce debt principal. It usually does reduce interest costs over the lifetime but, to be sure of this, one must factor in the closing costs and fees associated with an equity loan secured by your house. What does happen is that unsecured debt gets converted into secured debt. Secured loans offer lower interest rates because the risk of total loss on the loan is mitigated by the value of the property securing the loan. In other words, if you do not pay they take your house.

A bankruptcy, whether Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, shreds off most or all unsecured debt. So, in a bankruptcy situation, unsecured debt is good debt to have because you will not have it long. Secured debt does not pass away so quietly. You can sever the personal obligation to repay the debt, but there are only very narrow avenues by which the secured obligation – the liability on the property – can be done away with. An equity line on a house can only be completely discharged in a Chapter 13 IF there is absolutely zero equity to which the loan actually adheres.

So, if my potential client does follow through with this secured consolidation loan, then she has closed off the possibility of shedding that debt unless she sheds the house as well. This may be a great strategy. She may have enough income that is reliable enough to make that extra house payment and still meet her living expenses. I just want her to know that doing so commits her to that one way out of debt and to make that decision with as full knowledge as she can get. And, if it works out, I am glad for her. If it does not work out, well – perhaps I can still help her save the home with a Chapter 13.

December 3, 2013 Posted by | Alternate Debt Relief, Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Chapter 7, Consolidation loan, Discharge, Planning, Pre-filing planning, Security interests | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment