Tom Scott Law Indy

Bankruptcy Attorneys in Indianapolis Since 1980

Chapter 13

COVID-19 Update: How Will the CARES Act Affect a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy?

by

CARES Act Will Temporarily Change Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Rules

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) legislation being developed by Congress, to provide emergency assistance and health care response for individuals, families, and businesses affected by the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, also provides temporary changes to Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The changes are as follows:

  • For purposes of calculating a debtor’s income to determine his or her eligibility for Chapter 7 and Chapter 13, coronavirus-related payments from the federal government are excluded from the analysis.
     
  • Similarly, coronavirus-related payments are not considered in determining a debtor’s disposable income for a Chapter 13 plan of reorganization.
     
  • Lastly, the CARES Act allows Chapter 13 debtors who have already confirmed a plan to modify the plan based on a material financial hardship caused by the pandemic, including extending their payments for seven years after their initial plan payment was due.

The changes apply in pending Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases and will be applicable for one year from the effective date of the CARES Act.
For more information about how this affects your situation, please contact us.

U.S. Congress Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act)

  1. PDF provides a complete and accurate display of the text.
  2. Web page with links to each section of the bill’s text.

How Bankruptcy Affects Student Loan Debt and Car Loan Interest Rates

by

How Bankruptcy Affects Car Loan Interest Rates

As a result of the recent rise of the prime rate, vehicle loans included in Chapter 13 bankruptcy plans can have a higher interest rate than in the past few years. Despite the resurgent economy, single mothers are still vulnerable to financial difficulties. Student loans cannot be eliminated by filing for bankruptcy, but one of several strategies can be used in conjunction with a Chapter 13 plan to pay them back.

We recently discussed several aspects of bankruptcy with Christopher Holmes and Jess M. Smith, III, partners at Tom Scott & Associates, P.C. The discussion covered several topics, including: how the recent rise of the prime rate has affected bankruptcy cases; which group of people are currently at risk of financial hardship; how student loan debt is treated in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case; misconceptions about bankruptcy; and the ability of the Indiana Department of Revenue to implement an administrative garnishment.

Q: How has the recent rise of the prime rate affected bankruptcy cases?

Jess Smith, III: It has affected the interest rate on cars. There was a case years ago, which originated out of Kokomo, Indiana, that involved the interest rate a non-mortgage secured creditor would get on an asset being paid through a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan. The local court came up with a ruling that was basically sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004 (Till v. SCS Credit Corp.), which stated the creditor would receive the prime interest rate plus a risk factor of 1% to 3%.

If the creditors become astute to the recent rise of the prime rate, it could affect bankruptcy plan agreements. Many of the car loans we see in bankruptcy cases may have had an interest rate of 19% to 23% when the contract was signed. The Till case that was decided by the Supreme Court involved a loan for a used pick-up truck that had a 21% interest rate.

For the past couple of years, I’ve been offering secured creditors or lenders 4.5% interest on their car notes. However, I recently saw a local case being handled by another attorney in which the creditor objected to a similar rate offered in the proposed plan for the debtor. The creditor demanded a 5.75% interest rate and the trustee seemed to think that rate was appropriate, based on the higher prime rate now in place.

Q: The economy has rebounded since the recession of a few years ago, which has caused a decrease in the number of bankruptcy filings. Is there still a particular group of people who are currently at risk of financial hardship and in need of relief through the bankruptcy court?

Chris Holmes: Unfortunately, single mothers who must raise one or more kids without receiving child support payments. If they are sued and are facing the garnishment of 25% of their take-home pay, then they’re unable to pay their rent or their car note, so they really have no choice but to file for relief through the bankruptcy court, to prevent the garnishment of their wages and to wipe the slate clean.

Q: When people come to see you for a free consultation, is there a common misconception about filing for bankruptcy, the benefits of bankruptcy protection, or the types of services you can provide?

CH: Sometimes people think they can’t get rid of a certain debt after they’ve been sued and there’s a judgment—or if a garnishment has already been implemented. They feel like it’s too late and they can’t stop those actions. But you can.

Q: Are there any types of debts that filing for bankruptcy won’t discharge?

CH: The big one is student loans. Occasionally we speak with people who have up to $100,000 worth of student loan debt. I recently spoke with someone who said they saw on the Internet that student loans are now going to be dischargeable, but that’s not true.

JS: I’ve spoken with other attorneys who also stated they’ve had people counting on that.

Q: If a student loan debt is not dischargeable, can it be rolled into a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan?

JS: Yes.

CH: Let’s say a debtor can’t afford to make any payments. A student loan lender is the only lender that can leapfrog a legal process and go directly to a payroll department to garnish wages.

JS: The Indiana Department of Revenue can also do that, but obviously they’re not a lender. They can do what’s called an administrative garnishment and get 15% of your salary without a court order.

CH: Right. But a regular creditor must (1) file a lawsuit; obtain a judgment; (2) file a Motion for Proceedings Supplemental to Judgment; (3) have the court conduct a hearing; (4) determine if there is gainful employment; and (5) serve the employer with a Final Order in Garnishment. If your net pay is more than $217.50 per week, the creditor can garnish your wages. However, the maximum garnishment is 25% of your net income, which is your gross income minus taxes.

JS: I currently have a client in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan who makes about $80,000 a year, but who owes about $70,000 in student loans. The student loan lender was garnishing about 15% of his salary. We included the student loan debt in the plan to stop the garnishment, so he could take care of paying for his car and taxes, while keeping that loan on hold.

Q: When the Chapter 13 bankruptcy is filed, is that student loan debt treated like any other type of debt?

CH: Yes and no. Yes, it can receive a pro rata distribution along with the other general unsecured creditors. No, in that the amount that remains unpaid upon the conclusion of the case will not be discharged. Accordingly, I forewarn debtors that the total amount the student loan lender receives through the plan may not exceed the interest that’s accumulating while the case is pending. As a result, the total owed on the student loan may actually be bigger than when the debtor filed for bankruptcy because of the additional interest that accrued. However, it is often a cost worth bearing so the debtor need not make unaffordable monthly payments directly to the lender for the 3 to 5 years they are under the protection of the court.

JS: It’s just a temporary band-aid, not a cure for student loan debt.

CH: But that band-aid allows a debtor to resolve other debts and then, after the Chapter 13 plan is successfully completed, the debtor can focus his or her attention on paying back the student loan.

Q: If, during the bankruptcy plan, the debtor is in a position to pay back additional money on the student loan, is that possible?

JS: Generally, in this district, if you want to propose to make your regular payments on the student loan directly to the lender, you can propose to do that.

Q: Can a debtor make additional payments to a student loan lender, on top of the monthly payments included in the plan, or is the debtor’s choice one or the other?

CH: It’s either the regular monthly amount paid directly to the lender or the amount paid through the plan.

Q: Is that situation similar to a car loan, in that you might advise a debtor to pay off the car loan outside of the plan, if the debtor can afford to do that?

CH: If a debtor can afford the original monthly payment to the student loan lender outside of the plan, it’s preferable to pay that directly to the lender, rather than having that money paid through the plan for the benefit of all of the creditors. As a result, the debtor gets more “bang for the buck” by having that payment go toward eliminating the student loan instead of distributing that amount amongst all creditors in the plan.

Q: What would happen if a debtor decided to try and pay off the student loan outside of the bankruptcy plan, but for some reason is not able to keep up with the full monthly payments? If the debtor only pays a portion of the monthly payment, or none of it, can the student loan lender then go back to the debtor’s employer to begin wage garnishment?

JS: The lender can’t go back to the employer, but a long time ago I did see a case in which the debtor was going to pay $350 a month directly to a student loan lender. A couple of years into the plan, the debtor stopped paying the lender. The student loan provider then moved to dismiss the debtor’s case for being in default of the bankruptcy plan.

I’ve seen a case in which the lender notified the trustee about missed student loan payments. The trustee demanded that if the debtor stopped direct payments for the student loan, then the amount due to the lender would be added to the monthly bankruptcy plan payment. Remember, a plan payment is based on projected income minus projected expenses. Therefore, if the debtor is not paying the amount due to the lender each month, then the debtor’s monthly living expenses are that much less, which means there is that much more to add to the Chapter 13 Plan payment.

Q: So, if a debtor falls into that type of situation, the trustee won’t adjust the plan so the debtor can pay only a portion of the monthly loan payment?

JS: Correct, but I did have a previous case in which the debtor was actually a married couple with two incomes and two student loans. When the plan began, one spouse was under-employed, so we parked the student loans in the plan along with all of the couple’s other debts. Two years into the plan, the under-employed spouse obtained a new job with a much higher salary. Instead of giving all of those additional earnings to the trustee, we amended the plan to start directly paying back the student loans, directly to the lenders, outside of the bankruptcy plan.

Q: And the trustee agreed to that amended plan?

JS: Yes. Every case is different.

CH: Here is another misconception about bankruptcy. I’ve spoken with a debtor who wanted to include a student loan in the bankruptcy plan, to hold off the lender for the duration of the plan. The debtor assumed the student loan would not bear interest while the plan was in place, which is not true. The automatic stay does not prevent interest from accumulating on the student loan.

JS: Whatever interest is allowable in the loan contract continues to accumulate on top of the loan amount during the three to five years of the bankruptcy.

Q: Here in Indiana, would the closing of ITT Technical Institute in September 2016 be an example of when a closed school discharge could be used to eliminate a student loan debt?

CH: Yes. If some of your money went to ITT and your circumstance meets the criteria established by the U.S. Department of Education, you can contact the lender and initiate an administrative procedure to apply a closed school discharge to that student loan debt.

Q: What would be an example of an undue hardship that could cause a student loan to be discharged?

JS: It’s a very high level of hardship. You basically need to show the court that you’re going to perpetually live below poverty level.

CH: Someone who is disabled or who is on Social Security, who has only enough money to pay their necessities, and who has no money left over for the benefit of a student loan lender.

JS: And no reasonable expectation of any of those circumstances changing. There has been litigation in other districts—in which people have made good faith efforts to pay back the student loan and they demonstrated what they could afford to pay—where some courts have discharged part of the debt. In our district, there has not been much reported litigation like that. It’s expensive to undertake that type of litigation.

Bankruptcy and Personal Injury Claims / Modifying a Chapter 13 Plan / Joint and Several Liability

by

Bankruptcy and Personal Injury Claims

If you have a pending personal injury claim when you file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you relinquish to your trustee all control of the settlement of the case, but you retain some control with a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. In rare Chapter 13 cases, the cram-down method of reducing debt for an automobile can be used to reduce the first mortgage payments on a house.

We recently discussed several aspects of bankruptcy with Christopher Holmes and Jess M. Smith, III, partners at Tom Scott & Associates, P.C. The discussion covered several topics, including how a debtor’s pending personal injury claim affects a bankruptcy case; how the cram-down method of debt reduction can be used for a mortgage in rare instances; the willingness of bankruptcy trustees to modify a Chapter 13 payment plan; how the Rash decision affects a debtor’s ability to surrender a car in the middle of a Chapter 13 plan; and the circumstances during a bankruptcy in which divorced spouses can both be held jointly and severally liable for debt incurred during their marriage.

Q: How does a debtor’s pending personal injury claim affect a bankruptcy case?

Jess Smith, III: If a debtor files for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, he or she loses all rights and control over that personal injury action. The Chapter 7 Trustee has complete authority to prosecute it, settle it, or abandon it. Also, the Chapter 7 Trustee will, in all likelihood, take all of the net proceeds and distribute them amongst those creditors who file a claim against the Debtor. In other words, none of the net proceeds will be turned over to the Debtor unless those net proceeds exceed the total amount of the claims filed against the Debtor.

With a Chapter 13 filing, the debtor maintains some control over the personal injury claim regarding settling it or taking it to trial. If money is paid to the debtor as a result of a trial or settlement, then there is a negotiation between the debtor and the trustee as to how much goes to the debtor’s creditors and how much the debtor is allowed to keep for his efforts to acquire that money. That is why sometimes a debtor will choose to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy versus a Chapter 7.

Typically, a Chapter 13 trustee will allow a debtor to keep one-third (1/3) of the net proceeds, with the remaining two-thirds (2/3) of the net proceeds going to the creditors.

Q: Have you recently handled any bankruptcies that included a personal injury claim settlement?

JS: Yes. In a current Chapter 13 case, the trustee is allowing the debtor to keep 50% of the net proceeds, because his bankruptcy plan is paying all of his creditors in full; therefore, I was able to acquire a little extra money for my client.

Q: If there is an existing Chapter 13 plan in place, which pays back all of the debt to the creditors, and all of the creditors had already agreed to that plan, why does the trustee want 50% of that personal injury claim?

JS: Because it gives the creditors some money right away, in the event the plan fails down the road. For some unforeseen reason, the debtor might run out of money and won’t be able to pay the creditors according to the plan. The trustee has a duty to at least get some of that personal injury money and disperse it now, as opposed to waiting on the debtor’s good promise and good intentions to pay it.

Q: If the debtor maintains the payment schedule, does that shorten the length of the plan?

JS: Yes, in a full-repayment plan it will shorten the length of the bankruptcy. If the debtor is not in a 100% repayment plan, the money received from the personal injury claim, usually two-thirds (2/3) of the net amount, is extra money for the creditors of the debtor.

Q: What are some of the more common circumstances you encounter in which a debtor does not meet the original payment schedule obligation of the plan to pay back creditors?

JS: Job loss or significant decrease in income after approval of the plan. Also, the divorce or separation of joint debtors can cause a plan to fail. Also, any other significant change in circumstances that causes an interruption in income.

Q: If that occurs, what happens to the filing of the bankruptcy?

JS: The case is dismissed, the Chapter 13 case is converted to a Chapter 7 case, or the Chapter 13 plan is modified and the plan payments are changed to redress the problems caused by a change in disposable monthly income.

Q: Let’s expand upon those options. If a debtor is not able to meet the obligations of a bankruptcy plan, why would that case be dismissed?

JS: Because the creditors are not receiving what they are entitled to receive.

Q: If the bankruptcy case is dismissed, what happens to the debts?

JS: It is as if the bankruptcy proceeding never happened and the creditors can resume their non-bankruptcy actions to try to collect on the debts.

Chris Holmes: It usually is a situation in which the debtor is unable to make their bankruptcy plan payments and they are not eligible for a conversion to a Chapter 7 case. As a result, the case is dismissed and their creditors are free to resume their efforts to collect on the debts. The primary reason a debtor would not be eligible to convert a Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 would be if they filed the Chapter 13 within eight (8) years of the filing of a prior Chapter 7 case. As a result, the only option is to allow the case to be dismissed and the debtor may be able to refile under Chapter 7 if it has been more than eight years since the filing of the previous Chapter 7 case.

Q: In most cases, if you’ve never filed for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and you’re having trouble meeting the obligations of a Chapter 13 plan, then that option to convert to a Chapter 7 still exists?

CH: Yes, provided the debtor qualifies for relief under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the debtor has no nonexempt assets that can be confiscated and liquidated by the Chapter 7 Trustee, and the debtor is prepared to deal with certain secured creditors or nondischargeable debts outside the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

Q: Have you had any extraordinary situations arise that are resolved more effectively by a Chapter 13 case rather than a Chapter 7 case?

CH: Recently, I had a very rare situation in which a woman owned a home that is worth less than the balance due on her first mortgage and, as a result, her second mortgage was wholly unsecured. As a further result, Chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code allows us to, as we say, “strip off” or avoid a wholly-unsecured second mortgage because there is no equity in the home to which that second mortgage can effectively attach.

JS: In other words, the debtor can change a secured debt into an unsecured debt and, as a result, we can treat that debt just like we would treat credit card debt or a medical bill.

CH: What made this particular case extraordinary, however, was how we treated the partially secured first mortgage in the debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan. First, I asked the debtor: “Do you really want to pay off a mortgage that, with interest, totals more than twice the current value of the home?” Given her home is located in a neighborhood in which the value of homes is depressed, and her home is in a state of disrepair, we concluded that it was unlikely that the creditor would want to foreclose on its mortgage and take possession of a home that will be impossible to sell for more than what the debtor owes on the mortgage. Also, the home would be expensive to maintain until it is sold. As a result, the debtor offered to pay the holder of the first mortgage only the current value of the home, plus a reasonable rate of interest, through the plan, and treat the balance of the mortgage as an unsecured debt. (If you recall, we do something comparable with certain auto loans—what we refer to as a “cram-down.” When an auto loan is more than two-and-a-half years old and the payoff exceeds the retail value of the car, the debtor can force the creditor to accept only the retail value of the auto plus a reasonable rate of interest, and then treat the balance of loan and any unpaid interest as an unsecured debt to be discharged.)

Legally, we can’t force the creditor to accept a “cram-down” on residential real estate; however, the debtor decided to give it a chance in the hope that the creditor preferred to accept what she offered rather than assume the risk of a worse outcome if it took possession of the property…and the creditor accepted! And given the debtor’s plan payment is roughly equivalent to her first mortgage payment, she will be able to resolve all of her debts using the money the debtor would have otherwise used for only the first mortgage. And should she successfully complete her plan, the balance due and owing on her other debts will be discharged and the debtor will own her home free-and-clear.

Q: In regards to debtors who do not successfully complete their Chapter 13 plans, what circumstances do you encounter most frequently as the cause?

CH: The primary reasons why Chapter 13 Plans fail: The debtor fails to make regular monthly plan payments due to a reduction in income caused by a job loss, or the debtor must use the money earmarked for their plan payments to pay some unforeseen, extraordinary expense such as car repairs or uninsured medical bills that arise after the filing of the case.

Q: Are there situations in which you adjust the plan payment to make it easier for the debtor to continue to make their payments on time?

JS: Yes, sometimes. If the debtor’s disposable monthly income decreases, then we can reduce the monthly plan payments accordingly.

CH: Also, if the debtor fails to make a few plan payments, then we can ask the Judge to modify or amend the debtor’s plan. For example, if the plan life is shorter than 60 months, then we can extend the life of the plan by the number of months in which plan payments were missed, in order to make up for the shortfall.

Q: What would happen if the debtor’s plan is already set at 60 months?

JS: I’ve just been in communication with a debtor who has a motion to dismiss. Her current plan payment is $1000 per month and she is behind by two months. What we’ve agreed to do is tack on an additional $100 per month for the next 20 months to catch up on the total amount due. This will place her in kind of a probationary status. If she misses another payment, the trustee can then choose a quicker route to get the case dismissed.

Q: How willing are trustees to negotiate to modify plans?

JS: The longer you’ve been in the plan, and the trustee sees your making a sincere genuine effort, the more likely the trustee will be to work with you. For example, I have a married couple as a client and they have a plan that is supposed to be 60 months long. For most of the plan, the debtors were having a portion of the trustee payment deducted from their wages, but one them lost their job, so they fell slightly behind in their plan payments.

At the end of the 60 months, the trustee stated the payments were two months short of the total amount due and filed a motion to dismiss. I objected, because payments were still being made to the trustee. The hearing is now set in about month 63. As long as that money is still coming in, the trustee will agree to just continue the hearing on the motion to dismiss until all of the money due has been paid.

Q: Does the trustee need to go back to the creditors to get them to agree to the extended period of time it will take to fully pay the amount due?

JS: No, it’s within the trustee’s discretion. If a creditor wanted to show up at the hearing and voice their own displeasure, they could. But most of the time the unsecured creditors rely upon the trustee to have the more intimate knowledge of what’s going on with the case and the debtor’s situation.

Q: So in any circumstance where you try to go back and renegotiate the terms of the plan, is it strictly up to the trustee to accept the proposal?

CH: No, the creditors can object if the modification of the plan negatively impacts them. For example, if the debtor’s plan base (i.e., the total of all plan payments) is reduced and, as a result, the amount of money to be distributed amongst the creditors is decreased, then the creditors must be notified and given an opportunity to object if the creditor believes the modification will be unreasonable or unfair.

Q: Is it like you’re going back to the beginning of the bankruptcy filing process?

JS: Yes, if you’re reducing the plan base. There is some interesting case law out there, which fortunately doesn’t come up much in our district.

For example, let’s say a debtor had a $15,000 car that they were going to pay for through the plan. The debtor gets the benefit of driving the car while the trustee is giving the creditor who made the car loan a few dollars every month towards the car payment. Three years into the plan, the car breaks down and the debtor says, “I don’t want the car anymore. I’m going to change the plan, reduce the amount owed on the car by cutting it out of the plan, and have the lender come pick up this piece of junk.”

Most of the time, in this district, the creditor will not object. But there is case law in other circuits outside of Indiana, such as the Rash decision (In the Matter of Elray and Jean RASH; United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.; Decided: July 30, 1996), which deals with this type of situation. The Rash decision is a widely-followed decision that states if a bankruptcy case is approved and a secured creditor is to receive a specified amount for a car, the creditor can object to a plan modification that surrenders the car back to them, because the debtor is the person who drove the car into the ground, not the creditor.

Those are some issues in limited circumstances—where you try to give back a secured asset after it breaks—in which a creditor will sometimes object. And if the creditor would push it, they would probably win. At that point, the debtor would have to decide to either (A) give the creditor the money they’re entitled to and fix the asset, or (B) to convert to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, if otherwise eligible, or (C) to let the case be dismissed and start all over. Those are all options, but fortunately we’re fairly lucky in this district that we don’t have a lot of secured creditors object when we try to surrender an asset after the plan has been approved.

CH: I can’t remember the last time a creditor objected to the surrender of a car midway through the plan.

JS: I’ve seen a few instances with certain lawyers based in Kentucky who cite the Rash decision.

CH: In our previous conversation we talked about a debtor who owed his ex-wife a property settlement debt based on their divorce agreement. Because the debtor filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, that property settlement debt was dischargeable; whereas, it would not have been dischargeable in a Chapter 7 case.

I had a similar situation recently in which our client told me she had a car loan from the marriage that both her ex-husband and she had co-signed. In the divorce decree, the judge ordered our client to pay that debt and to hold her ex-husband harmless (that is, to protect the ex-husband from any liability thereon).

As it turned out, our client couldn’t make the loan payments, the car was repossessed, and the car was sold for less than the unpaid principal balance on the loan. As a result, there is a deficiency balance—the unpaid portion of the debt—for which both her ex-husband and she are jointly and severally liable.

In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, her obligation to hold him harmless is a nondischargeable debt. That means the ex-husband could ask the divorce court judge to hold our client in contempt for not holding him harmless, should that car creditor sue him for that deficiency balance. According to Chapter 13 of the U. S. Bankruptcy Code, our client can list her obligation to the ex-spouse—to hold him harmless on that debt—as a debt to be discharged, which is another compelling reason why some people opt for a Chapter 13 case rather than a Chapter 7 case. As a consequence, our client will be able to discharge her personal liability on this $12,000 deficiency balance, and her ex-husband will not be able to go to ask the divorce court judge to hold our client in contempt for not holding him harmless on the underlying debt.

Q: It sounds like the husband thought he was going to be protected, but ended up not being protected. Did he make some sort of a mistake in his negotiation of their divorce agreement?

CH: Sometimes divorce lawyers will insert language into a property settlement agreement that asserts that such obligations are in the nature of alimony or maintenance and, therefore, nondischargeable. Whether such a provision is enforceable is a matter for the Judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to resolve.

Car Loan Payments in a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

by

If you will be filing for bankruptcy protection, you have a few options regarding the best way to pay off a car loan or to buy a new vehicle before or during the period of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

How Much?
    FEES    

Our Locations?
3 INDY OFFICES

Need Help?
CONTACT US

Key Points of This Article:

  • If your vehicle loan is over two-and-a-half years old and the remaining loan balance is greater than the car or truck’s current value, Chapter 13 could provide an opportunity to lower the remaining loan amount and interest rate, and then pay the loan off as part of your approved bankruptcy plan monthly payment. The amount you ultimately pay for your vehicle could then be significantly less than your current total loan amount—and you would own the car or truck outright when the case is successfully discharged.
  • If your vehicle loan is less than two-and-a-half years old and the interest rate is already 5% or less, to keep the car or truck you would need to continue to pay off the loan on your vehicle outside of a bankruptcy plan.
  • A sudden need to acquire a new vehicle during an approved bankruptcy plan presents a potential need to submit a request to modify the plan. The trustee of the plan would need to approve that new additional debt as part of your monthly plan payments.
  • A bankruptcy plan trustee’s job is to retrieve money for creditors, so they may consider a monthly vehicle loan payment above a certain amount inappropriate as part of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan. If you file for bankruptcy, you may need to switch from an expensive luxury vehicle to a model with lower monthly payments.
  • In addition to your transportation costs, a Chapter 13 trustee will use established federal standards to determine what they consider as your reasonable monthly “cost of living” expenses, including housing, utilities, food, clothing, and out-of-pocket health care expenses.

We recently discussed some aspects of bankruptcy with Christopher Holmes and Jess M. Smith, III, partners at Tom Scott & Associates, P.C. The discussion covered several topics, including the affect of paying off a car loan during a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, buying a new vehicle before or during a bankruptcy, what is a “cram-down,” modifying a bankruptcy payment plan, and means testing. Below is the transcript of that conversation.

 

Q: Does the fact that a debtor who is planning on filing for bankruptcy protection is currently making car loan payments, but the loan will be paid off within a year or two, affect the plan you propose to the bankruptcy court?
Chris Holmes: When I meet with clients in that situation, in a Chapter 13 case where the plan life is anywhere from 3 to 5 years, we weigh the pros and the cons of them either paying for the car directly outside the bankruptcy court versus throwing it into the plan and paying for it over the life of the plan. What we’ll look at is how old is the vehicle loan. If a car loan is more than two-and-a-half years old on the day of filing, and if the payoff on that loan exceeds the fair-market value of the vehicle by a significant amount, then we do this thing we call a “cram-down.” We take the higher payoff and reduce it—cram it down—to what the vehicle is worth. The debtor pays that amount, saving all of that extra principal. Often times, these loans have a very high rate of interest, so we can effectively cram that interest rate down, within the plan, from the high rate to the prime rate plus 1.5%.
As an example, if someone owes $20,000 on a car only worth $15,000, and that loan is supposed to be paid at 21% interest, what we say to the car creditor is that we’re only going to pay the value, $15,000, at perhaps 5% interest through the plan, saving the extra principal and extra interest on that loan. That’s a clear win for the debtor.
If the car loan is less than two-and-a-half years old. we can’t cram the payoff down in value. In that situation, the only thing we can do is reduce the interest rate, so a debtor would payoff the loan through the plan at perhaps 5% interest, to save a considerable amount of interest.
If the loan is less than two-and-a-half years old and the interest rate is already 5% or less, there’s no real advantage to paying it off through the plan, so then we would make arrangements for that debtor to continue to pay on that vehicle outside of the bankruptcy court.
If the bankruptcy plan life is 60 months, but the car loan is going to be paid off in, for example, 36 months, that scenario creates a potential problem. Previously, we would tell the trustee that, when the car was paid in full, the car loan payment would be used to purchase a replacement for that car or maybe a second car for the debtors. The trustees used to accept that at face value, but evidently they have recently learned of too many circumstances, after the car loan was paid in full, in which debtors weren’t using that monthly car payment for the purchase of a replacement or second vehicle. Now trustees don’t trust debtors anymore, so we’re compelled to sign agreements whereby the monthly bankruptcy plan payments increase, for the remaining months of the plan, by the amount that was being paid monthly for the car loan.
In those types of cases, we will go back to the bankruptcy court and ask the judge to allow the debtor to renege on that pledge when the debtor presents to the judge a tentative car loan for a replacement or needed second vehicle. We have the burden to go back into court to request permission to modify the plan back to what we intended, so we can use that extra money for the purchase of another vehicle.
Q: What happens to an individual who has (1) already filed bankruptcy, (2) set-up a plan, (3) their income is such that they are just able to take care of their current bills and monthly payment to the trustee, (4) they haven’t had a car payment during the plan, and then (5) all of a sudden their car breaks down beyond repair and they need to buy a replacement vehicle? Can you modify their bankruptcy plan mid-stream to account for their need to take on a new monthly car payment they did not have before the plan started?
CH: That creates another dilemma, because when we filed the case we submitted a budget that showed all of the debtor’s different monthly living expenses. If the debtor doesn’t have any money allocated for a regular monthly car payment at the start of the plan, the trustee will not approve a loan for that car unless we amend their budget to show the debtor now has the money available for the vehicle loan payment.
What we might have to do is go through the other budgetary items to determine if possibly the debtor is no longer paying so much for child care or perhaps their rent went down. We try to find cuts in their budget. Sometimes, if we don’t find cuts in their monthly budget that equal the amount of the proposed monthly vehicle loan payment, we’ll look at their paycheck to see if they’ve received a cost-of-living adjustment or maybe the withholding for medical insurance has gone down a little bit.
Between a little more disposable monthly income and a few less monthly expenses we night find the extra income needed to pay for the car loan. We’ll then put that amount in an amended budget, submit that to the court along with a copy to the trustee. Then, when the debtor goes to the trustee for permission to the car, the trustee can look at the amended schedule, see that the necessary funds are available each month to pay for the vehicle, and approve the loan.
Q: Would it be in the best interest of someone who was planning on filing for bankruptcy to buy a new car or reliable used car before filing.
Jess Smith III: The bankruptcy code states that we cannot counsel a client to incur new debt on the eve of bankruptcy.
Q: What period of time constitutes “the eve of bankruptcy?” In other words, how much time does someone need to wait between buying a new vehicle and filing for bankruptcy?
CH: I don’t advise clients about that type of activity. What I tell people is that I’ll put $350 in the monthly budget, even though they’re not currently spending that for a car loan, but that they’ll have to go out immediately after filing the case and start shopping around for a vehicle. If the trustee doesn’t receive that request he or she is going to want that $350 each month to give to the creditors.
JS: I told a client to dump his big fancy truck and its $750-a-month payment, which the trustee would think is excessive, and to go get a $350-per-month replacement. The trustee is now demanding proof of that $350 monthly payment, otherwise he is going to want that money for the creditors. We recently met with the creditors, who asked if my client had bought the replacement truck yet. The client said, “No, I need to save my previous monthly payments to accumulate enough money for a down-payment on a replacement.” The creditors stated that unless he does that by the claim bar date, they’re going to ask for that money to go into the plan.
CH: The trustee’s job is to squeeze as much money out of a debtor as possible for the benefit of the creditors.  That’s why they look at projected income and projected expenses. Sometimes they will scrutinize the budget and find there’s some “fat” in it. Maybe we put too much money in there for food or clothes or some other expense—and the trustee will say that’s excessive. We then have to reduce that number to free up some money for the plan payment, which will increase by the amount of “fat” we cut out.
Q: Is there a schedule or chart published by the State of Indiana that shows the average household expenses for a single person, a married couple, and families of different sizes?
JS: There are federal standards (Dept. of Justice Means Testing) that are loosely based on if the IRS is considering going into an installment arrangement with you to pay federal taxes. The IRS publishes amounts they consider to be reasonable for the cost of housing, utilities, transportation, food, clothing, and out-of-pocket health care expenses. The trustees have adopted those figures, but on occasion they’ll take a harder line on a case-by-case basis.
CH: The computer program we use to determine a client’s budget has those regular monthly living expenses built right into it.
Q: Is the IRS standard different for each state?
JS: There are housing allowances listed for each county in every state. For median incomes, the allowances are listed state-by-state, and there are national allowances for food, clothing, transportation, etc.

 

Protecting Your House From Liquidation in a Bankruptcy

by

If you own a home, Indiana law allows you to protect a portion of the equity in that home. A liquidation analysis determines what would be available for creditors after you deduct the cost of sale and other expenses.
We recently discussed several aspects of bankruptcy with Christopher Holmes and Jess M. Smith, III, partners at Tom Scott & Associates, P.C. The discussion covered several topics, including being “judgment proof,” protecting your house from liquidation in a bankruptcy, home equity exemptions, some benefits of filing a Chapter 13 “100% plan,” common reasons people file for bankruptcy, a deficiency balance on a debt, an example of how an ex-spouse can impact a bankruptcy, and conduit mortgage payments. Below is Part 1 of 2 of the transcript of that conversation.

Q: In regard to a person’s financial situation, what does it mean to be “judgment proof?”
Chris Holmes: Some people have too much debt and maybe they’re on Social Security or they have no income. Those individuals are what we call “judgment proof” because creditors can’t make them pay if they don’t have wages to garnish. A person’s take-home pay must exceed $217.50 per week before they can be garnished. In addition, some sources of income, like Social Security and veteran’s benefits, are exempt—off-limits—from garnishment. If those individuals don’t have any real estate or they have less than $10,250 in tangible personal property, there’s nothing a creditor can take from them to liquidate, to pay on the debt. Sometimes I tell people that they don’t even need me, if they have a strong enough stomach to withstand the calls, the letters, and being dragged into court periodically.
Jess Smith, III: On the other hand, I had a woman come in to see me recently and she hardly has any income, but her name is on the deed of an ex-boyfriend’s piece of lien-free real estate that is worth $90,000. Therefore, she had to pay 100% of her debts to protect that property. She said, “Well, I better go out and find a job first.” She was behind on her residence and thought she could get rid of her other debt and just keep her residence, but she found out her name is on this other piece of property.
CH: Sometimes people come to us, creditors are hounding them, and they don’t have the ability to pay them back. Most people would prefer to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and just wipe the slate clean, but we have to evaluate their home and compare it to what’s owed on it. If you own a house in your name only, Indiana law allows you to protect $19,300 of equity in that home. So let’s say you have an $80,000 house and you only owe $30,000 on it, so there’s $50,000 of equity. You can only protect $19,300, which leaves just under $30,700 of non-exempt equity. In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the trustee has the power to take that house, sell that house, pay the commission for the sale, give you your $19,300 equitable interest that’s protected, and use what’s left over to pay back some of your debt.
Q: So how do you avoid that?
CH: For those people, if they want to protect their house, I ask them if they have a rich relative or a retirement account or some resources to tap. We do what’s called a liquidation analysis to determine what would really be leftover for the creditors once you factor in the cost of sale and some other things. I had a case where a woman couldn’t afford to come up with money herself, but she had a rich uncle who stepped in and gave her a sum of money equivalent to what the trustee wanted to prevent him from taking and selling her house. Otherwise, what most people have to do is file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan to pay back to their creditors, over a three- to five-year period, as much or more money than they would have received had the house been taken and liquidated.
Q: Are they paying the full amount of the equity or a certain percentage on the dollar?
CH: What we can do is factor in not only the mortgage and the exemption, along with the cost of sale. We figure out how much would the trustee in a Chapter 7 have received for doing all of that work and liquidating—the trustee gets a percentage of every dollar they collect for the creditors—so we can subtract that amount out. What’s left over is a reduced amount that has to be paid or distributed amongst all of the creditors during that three- to five-year period.
Q: Are those all of the factors that go into the liquidation assessment?
CH: Sometimes there are some other things, like certain taxes that have to be paid first in a Chapter 7, so we factor that in, which reduces the amount even further that somebody would have to pay to protect their home from liquidation.
Q: In a general sense, would you say it’s better to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and keep your house rather than to file a Chapter 7 and lose your house?
CH: It depends on the debtor. Maybe they don’t even care. They might live in a terrible neighborhood and don’t like their neighbors, or they’re tired of raking the leaves and mowing the grass. It’s rare, but I’ve had a client who said, “Fine. Mr. Trustee, take my house, sell my house, and give me a check for my equity amount.”
Q: Tell me a little more of the specifics about this woman who had her name on the deed of her ex-boyfriend’s house.
JS: Her first issue is that, because she is between jobs, she is behind on the regular mortgage payments for her residence. She owned her own home and had a half-interest on this other house, so she was going to have to file a Chapter 13 to catch up on the overdue payments on her home. Then, when she lost her job, her car got repossessed, because she couldn’t pay for it. I don’t know which came first, the job loss or the repossession, but she just had the car repossessed and she thought she had a citable deficiency of about $15,000. In other words, after the car was repossessed and sold, they’re coming after her for that $15,000. I explained to her that because of the equity she has in the non-residential real estate, she would likely have to pay the deficiency on the car she just lost. So she said, “I understand that and I knew that, so I’ve got to get a job to make this all work.”
Q: Who owns the other half of that non-residential property?
JS: An ex-boyfriend that put her name and his name on the deed about 20 years ago when she had loaned him some money.
Q: So your recommendation to her was to not file for bankruptcy?
JS: Not until she has some cash flow that can fund a Chapter 13.
Q: Why did she want to protect the ex-boyfriend?
JS: I’m not sure, but she was very adamant that he should not lose that real estate because of her.
Q: Could she have taken a different, less-friendly approach regarding that other property?
JS: She could have filed a Chapter 7, but it wouldn’t help her cure the arrearage on her residence. We’ve agreed she’s going to eventually file a Chapter 13.
Q: Would you have to meet the best-interest-of-the-creditors test if she didn’t care if that other property was taken and sold?
JS: Yes, because a Chapter 13 trustee is not going to liquidate it. I have the same issue in another case I have in which a woman is in what’s called a “100% plan.” She has to pay everyone back, because she has $50,000 to $60,000 equity in a residence. In addition to that equity, she was also try to cure the arrears on it, because she had one health issue after another after another. The ongoing mortgage payments were being paid by the trustee, but she wasn’t making enough to do that and pay for the car she wanted to drive. She had visions that she was going to refinance the mortgage outside of the bankruptcy. So, I filed an amended plan that says we surrender our interest in the house, but we now want to pay for the car and pay the balance of the attorney fees, and chop the payment way down from about $1500 a month to $400 a month. I now have an objection from the trustee saying we haven’t met the liquidation test on the equity of the house.
Q: Even though she’s surrendering the house?
JS: We haven’t fought it out yet, but it drew an objection.
Q: What is the objection based on?
JS: Because she could sell her real estate and pay off the mortgage and there would still be money for other creditors creditors. That’s what the trustee said. At least on paper, there’s a ton of equity here. She has a son and his fiancé who’ve said they want to refinance it, but the trustee wants money for the creditors.
Q: For clarification, what exactly is a 100% plan?
JS: Every creditor that files a claim will get paid in full.
CH: So, in that Chapter 7 liquidation, there would have been enough money to pay back every single penny of all of the debt. In a Chapter 13, to prevent the sale of the house, you have to make sure that every single penny of that debt gets paid, to protect the equitable interest in the real estate. The benefit of the Chapter 13 then could be—because I’ve had people ask, “What benefit is it for me to file Chapter 13 bankruptcy if I have to pay back everybody in full?”—first of all, once they’re under the protection of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy creditors can’t call, can’t write, can’t sue, can’t garnish. Also, as soon as we file the case, no more interest can accumulate, no more late charges can be imposed or attorney fees assessed. And, those creditors have a window of opportunity—about four months from the date of the filing of the case—to file what’s called a Proof of Claim. So if somebody wants to get paid, they have to file a claim with the bankruptcy court before what’s called the bankruptcy Bar Date. If they don’t file a claim by that date, they don’t get any money.
Q: So, it puts the onus on the creditors to do something to get paid?
CH: Right. We had an extraordinary Chapter 13 case not too long in which we had a high-income dentist making enough money to pay everyone in-full. The total of her unsecured debt to be paid through the plan was around $106,000. So we came up with a plan payment that over 60 months she would pay every single penny of that debt, without any interest or late charges. But—and it’s the only time I’ve ever seen it happen—not one single creditor filed a claim. So, whereas she would have had to pay the entire $106,000 through this plan, she got out of the plan with a discharge on all $106,000 of debt and didn’t have to pay one penny on any of that debt, because not one of those creditors was on-the-ball enough or smart enough to file a claim.
Q: If there were no payments to be made, did the discharge come immediately?
JS: Actually, after payment of attorney fees and trustee fees; after the claims deadline.
CH: I had a Chapter 7 case in which the trustee decided the debtor had an asset that legally could not be protected, so the trustee wanted to take and liquidate it. The trustee sent out a notice to all of the creditors to file a claim, because there would be money available for them. Not one single creditor filed a claim, so the trustee sent out a second notice that said, “I’m going to have money for you if you file a claim.” Again, not a singular creditor filed a claim, so the trustee had no one for whom to collect some money, so he could not and did not take the property that had been subject to liquidation. The debtor got to keep the property, because for whatever reason, creditors did not file a claim. Those are anomalies, but when you do as many cases as we do, you see more and more of those kinds of unusual situations.
Part 2 of Conversation: Common Reasons People File for Bankruptcy

Common Reasons People File for Bankruptcy

by

Uninsured medical bills resulting in lawsuits and threats of legal action or garnishment are common reasons for bankruptcy these days. Divorce is also a reason for many bankruptcies—a high percentage of the people who file for bankruptcy protection are single mothers. In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, a conduit case refers to making mortgage payments through the trustee.

We recently discussed several aspects of bankruptcy with Christopher Holmes and Jess M. Smith, III, partners at Tom Scott & Associates, P.C. The discussion covered several topics, including being "judgment proof," protecting your house from liquidation in a bankruptcy, home equity exemptions, some benefits of filing a Chapter 13 “100% plan,” common reasons people file for bankruptcy, a deficiency balance on a debt, an example of how an ex-spouse can impact a bankruptcy, and conduit mortgage payments. Below is Part 2 of 2 of the transcript of that conversation.

Q: With the economy turning around and the rate of bankruptcies dropping, what are the most common reasons people file for bankruptcy these days? Why are people getting into financial trouble?

Chris Holmes: It’s still uninsured medical bills resulting in lawsuits and threats of legal action or garnishment. The biggest percentage of people I see these days are single mothers on a limited income with children to support. They’re on a razor-thin budget and threatened with garnishment, while they’re barely getting by on 100% of their take-home pay, They can’t afford to lose 25% of their take-home pay through a garnishment, so they come in and seek protection from creditors through the bankruptcy court.

Q: Is credit card debt what’s causing their problems?

CH: I would say uninsured medical issues or an old cell phone bill or maybe a car got repossessed and there is a deficiency balance that the creditor is suing them for. Maybe the economy is better in the sense that the unemployment rate is relatively low, but all the jobs people are getting are such low-paying jobs that they aren’t being paid a living wage to really make ends meet. Then they’re on that razor-thin line with a budget that is just barely enough to survive on. If something unexpected happens there’s a threat of garnishment. If they let the garnishment happen, maybe they’ll be evicted or lose their car and can’t get to work. They’re just desperate to file bankruptcy.

Q: So it’s mostly people in a single-income-with-kids situation?

CH: It seems that way in many cases. Of course, divorce is always a big reason that people file for bankruptcy. People go their separate ways and somebody has been ordered to pay certain marital debt, but they can’t afford to do that, so they have to seek refuge in the bankruptcy court. Job loss is still a big cause of financial problems. I’m sure there are going to be some bankruptcies on the horizon when all of those Carrier employees get laid off.

Q: Have you seen any unusual circumstances in recent cases?

Jess Smith, III: I have a nasty hearing coming up soon. A woman received an offer to sell real estate. She had a divorce decree in which she owned the real estate only in her name and only her name was on the mortgage. But the divorce decree stated that if she were to sell the house, she would keep the first $60,000 and anything over and above that first $60,000 would be split between her and the ex-husband. In the interim, she filed for bankruptcy because she had other debt. He hasn’t paid child support to her in months. The house goes into foreclosure. I hire a Realtor and get permission to sell it—and we get an offer. By the way, we listed the ex-husband as a creditor in the bankruptcy, which basically states, “Speak up or forever hold your peace.” He never filed a claim. Instead, he hired a couple of lawyers and eventually his objection to the bankruptcy plan is overruled. He said, “If we get anything over and above $60,000, you can have that,” knowing that we’re not going to get there. So we had an offer to buy the house. The debtor would get to keep her exemption of $17,600 and as things stand there is presently around $15,000 that would go to the creditors who filed a claim. We had a motion out to approve the sale, but the ex-husband has objected to the sale—even though his name is not on the mortgage and he didn’t file a claim. I have to go before the judge next week.

CH: And the sale will not bear proceeds big enough for him to even get a half.

JS: Right. His objection is, “You should list the house for more money," even though there is a foreclosure pending and he is not current with his child support. I don’t know what kind of patience the judge will have for this gentleman, but I’ve got to bring the debtor into court and also have the Realtor state there will need to be $10,000 thrown into the house, to deal with radon and other things, and that this is the best offer we’re going to get. In the meantime, the foreclosure is actively proceeding to Sheriff’s sale.

CH: So, the payoff on the mortgage is constantly getting bigger.

JS: If we wait, it’s going to take money out of the hands of the other creditors who filed claims.

Q: Have you thought about throwing some his way to make his objection go away?

JS: Our client is an attorney, so when the case originally started we contemplated amending the divorce decree to bump up his position; to give him $5000 or $10,000, but her ex-husband wanted nothing of it. So, he started first with attorney John W. I call John, whom he never paid to file an appearance, but we had discussions and I said, “We’ll move you up the ladder and give you a secured position and give you some money. It wouldn’t be a lot, but it would be something as opposed to nothing.” He never paid John W. a retainer. Then, after we filed our second plan, the ex-husband hired attorney Jim Y. and after a couple of hearings I amended the plan and said, “We’ll give you one-half of anything over $60,000.” He didn’t pay Jim Y., but now on the day of the objection on the motion to sell, he paid attorney Eric R. some money and Eric filed an objection and handed off the files to attorney Keith G. So now I’m dealing with Keith. Then, my client, who is mad as heck, sent me an email saying that her ex-husband was at the house having someone service the air conditioner—and he doesn’t even own the house or have his name on the mortgage or deed. And she still lives there.

Q: He’s paying someone to service the air conditioner at her house?

JS: Yes. And then he asked, through Keith G., for permission to show the house to other people—despite the fact that I have a Realtor with an exclusive listing and a sale pending.

CH: So, he seems to think that she accepted a low-ball offer to move the property and deny him his fair share of the net proceeds.

JS: Yet, he hasn’t paid child support for seven months.

Q: What is the assessed value of the property compared to the sale price? Is it in the ballpark?

JS: The price offered is about $30,000 less than the assessed value, but here’s where it starts to get tricky: When the case started, they had a rental property. In addition, she fell behind in the mortgage payments on their house, because the husband moved out. I explained to her that if she didn’t get current on the mortgage payments for the house, it would have to be a conduit case. In the interim, the rental property went into foreclosure and a judgment lien was placed on that. So, we had to value the rental property low to get the lien avoided—and we got that lien avoided. But now the sale price is higher than what I initially scheduled the value of the property for, which is neither here nor there because the judgment lien holder from the rental property had their opportunity to object and they disclaimed any interest in the real estate and the foreclosure.

Q: You used the phrase “conduit.” Can you explain what that is in relation to a mortgage and bankruptcy?

JS: Conduit means if you file a Chapter 13 and you want to keep your house, and you’re behind on the mortgage payments when you file the case, the ongoing future mortgage payments get made through the trustee, who then disperses it to the mortgage company. Not only the ongoing payments, but the pre-filing arrearage also goes through the trustee.

CH: In the past, you would just cure the arrearage on the mortgage in the plan, then people would resume their regular mortgage payments outside of the plan, directly to the creditor, starting the month after the date of filing. But now the judges have decided that if the debtor is more than one month behind, then they have to make those regular monthly mortgage payments through the Chapter 13 trustee, which debtors and debtors’ counsel don’t really like.

JS: The reason for that is because for years we used to have arguments with the mortgage company about ongoing mortgage payments and whether they were made on time or not. Huge amounts of time were spent accounting and keeping track of payments. I guess the theory is that if the debtor is more than one month behind then they were going to miss some payments along the way.

CH: At the end of the old plan, invariably the mortgage companies would say, “You didn’t pay every single penny and you’re not current on the mortgage.” Now there is either a hearing or the trustee files a notice stating that a debtor is current, which gives the mortgage company an opportunity to say, “Yes, they’re current,” or “No, they’re not current.” The judge would then decide whether or not they really are behind, based on all of those payments that should have been made through the plan.

JS: Typically, the trustee, as the neutral party, has a record of dispersing three to five years of payments to the mortgage company.

CH: With variable interest rates, or the changes in taxes and escrow, those mortgage payments are fluctuating. Every six months, or 12 months, debtors receive an escrow analysis stating that the property owner’s taxes went up, so the mortgage company would have to bump up the mortgage payments a little bit to make up for that additional that would have to be paid in taxes. Or the homeowner’s insurance rate goes up and the mortgage company would have to escrow a little bit more for that increased insurance premium. We don’t see variable or adjustable interest rates much anymore.

Part 1 of Conversation: Protecting Your House From Liquidation in a Bankruptcy

Means Test Helps Determine Filing For Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

by

The bankruptcy means test was established by congress as a standard method of calculating the disposable monthly income of a debtor, to help determine the amount paid to the trustee of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan.

We recently discussed several aspects of bankruptcy with Christopher Holmes and Jess M. Smith, III, partners at Tom Scott & Associates, P.C. The discussion covered several topics, including the means test, the differences between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13, how divorce and child support can affect bankruptcy, and the discharge process. Below is Part 1 of 4 of the transcript of that conversation.

Q: In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, how is a debtor’s monthly plan payment amount determined?

Chris Holmes: In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, the general rule would be that the debtor must pay to the Chapter 13 trustee all of their disposable monthly income. So, we craft their budget to show how much their projected monthly income will be—gross income minus taxes—and then we calculate what they pay for rent, utilities, food, clothing and all of their living expenses. So, income minus expenses, whatever that difference is, that’s the primary way of determining the monthly plan payment. The bankruptcy code says a debtor must turn over all of their disposable income to the Chapter 13 trustee for the benefit of their creditors. And then, as long as they’re not already paying off 100 cents on the dollar, that’s what they have to pay.

Q: How do factors such as everyday expenses figure into determining what a debtor’s disposable income ends up being?

CH: Whatever their real expenses are or there are some IRS standards that we use on occasion. Obviously, a family of eight has expenses that are greater than a family of three. Jess and I have been doing this for so long, we understand, after putting thousands of budgets together, how far you can push the envelope on a food budget, for example, for a family of four. We know that if we go beyond a certain amount—a sort of comfort zone—that the trustee gives us some pushback and says, “Wait a minute. $1200 a month for two people?” So, for example, they can’t be going out to St. Elmo’s Steakhouse every night for dinner. They have to be reasonable in their budget. We’ve learned over time what a reasonable budget is, based on the household size.

The general rule of whatever is left over goes to the trustee was thrown out the window in a recent case we handled, because the husband had a job and the wife was disabled. She received Social Security benefits. Their combined income, including those Social Security disability benefits, exceeded their living expenses by $660 per month. Before the bankruptcy code changed back in 2005, and really up until just recently, their plan payment would have been $660 a month. However, in this case, our associate attorney Andrew DeYoung said we are only going to offer $250 per month. The concern was that the trustee would ask, “What about the other $410?” However, Andrew understood that there is an area of the law developing where judges have decided that because Social Security benefits are exempt—off limits to creditors—and that they don’t count in the means test that determines household income.

Q: So, Andrew was subtracting the disability payments from the means test equation?

CH: The wife collected about $1600 a month in Social Security benefits. Andrew was just arguing that not all of the couple’s disposable income should be turned over to the trustee, because the disability benefits are intended to provide the wife with a safety net, in case her health deteriorates or an unexpected medical situation arises.

Q: In this case, had both the husband and wife declared bankruptcy?

CH: Yes, it was a joint case. When the trustee asked why I only offered a $250 monthly payment, I stated there is some existing case law that suggests creditors cannot claim bad faith or abuse when debtors do not turn over all of their disposal income, because some of it—not all of it; just the disability benefits—is exempt from creditors. The trustee stated she was also familiar with that case law, so she dropped that disability income from the plan and, to our clients’ pleasure, accepted the $250 per month offered. I asked her if any Indiana judges had ruled on this type of situation or if there are any related 7th Circuit Court of Appeals cases. She stated not to her knowledge. The precedent for this is from some other jurisdiction where crafty bankruptcy lawyers have made this argument and evidently those judges have agreed, so she’s basically taken a position that maybe it isn’t money that she can demand from the debtors.

Q: You mentioned a family of four, which obviously includes children, and a related comfort zone of credible monthly expenses. Is there any entertainment budget that you can justify as not part of that family’s disposable income?

CH: There’s two things. There’s the means test, which looks at average monthly income over the past six months before filing. There’s also certain IRS standards for housing and food and whatever. If I refer to the computer program we use, I can look at how much is deemed to be reasonable for a four-person household. So sometimes when my clients don’t do a really good job on their budget, I’ll go to the means test and use the IRS standards to fill in a blank. Also, if a debtor shows too much money left over, and I know they really don’t have it, I’m going to find some place to use up that money, so they’re not too rich for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. There are standards for what you can put into the different slots within a monthly household budget.

Q: Where do you find the means test you mentioned?

CH: It’s something that congress established, but our computer program provides all of this information, which is periodically updated. In Indiana, there’s currently a medium income for a one-person household of $43,422.

Jess Smith, III: The medium income varies from state to state.

CH: That’s the starting point. So if I have a family of four and their household gross income per year was less than $74,584, they immediately pass this test. The test is designed to determine if someone has an ability to pay back a significant percentage of their debt through a Chapter 13 plan.

Q: What happens if they fail the test?

CH: They’re ineligible perhaps for a Chapter 7, so we tell them that if they want relief from the bankruptcy code, they’ve got to file a Chapter 13 and offer this disposable income to their creditors.

Q: What happens if that disposable income figure turns out to be zero or just a couple of dollars?

CH: They really wouldn’t flunk the means test in that case. There’s an algorithm in the computer program that looks at what’s left over at the end of the month and what their debt is, and it figures out if you have an ability to pay back a certain percentage of that debt. The program indicates whether they’ve flunked or passed the test; it shows if you’re eligible for a Chapter 7. Sometime you can get around that, because we’re looking at income over the past six months. If the debtor has just lost a job and no longer has that income, we can override the test in a way, or at least show this special circumstance—they’re now destitute and don’t have any money—they’re not required to pay back some of this debt when clearly they don’t have an ability to do that.

Q: So that inability to pay back the debt determines whether you file for Chapter 7 or Chapter 13?

CH: Right. Most people will file for Chapter 7, wipe the slate clean, not make any monthly payments, and be done in three to four months. In Chapter 13, it’s three to five years where they’re making this monthly payment to a Chapter 13 trustee who then divvies up the money amongst the creditors in a certain way. Some people do Chapter 13 because they need it to save a house, to pay taxes, or do some other creative things, but there’s a small percentage of people who are required to file Chapter 13 because they are too rich to just wipe the slate clean. It’s not fair; it’s consider an abuse of the bankruptcy code for somebody who makes $100,000 to just get rid of all their debt.

Q: So that medium income is the number that determines whether you makes too much money?

CH: Right. It’s a starting point. If they’re below that number, they pass automatically. If they’re above that number, then we have to do this more-comprehensive test that looks at not just gross income, but where all of that money goes. Taxes, insurance, rent, food, utilities, car payments, student loans—all of those things. Then, after you plug in all of these numbers, the program shows a green happy face if you pass or a yellow unhappy face if you fail.

Bankruptcy Means Test

There’s a case we filed in which we received the green happy face. We filled in the debtor’s average monthly income and then on the next page it totals it up to $62,580. The median income for a family of this size is $62,431. So, because their combined income was a little bit above the median income, I had to go through the program and fill in additional fields, for example car payments and mortgage payments. There are certain standards, for example for a two-person household with two cars it’s $424 per month for gas, oil, and routine maintenance on a vehicle. At the very bottom of this test, in this particular case, we come up with this number for Disposable Monthly Income, which we call “DMI” and here it’s “minus $371.” So, clearly in this case they don’t have any money left over. That’s why the program gives us the green happy face, because it concluded that even though their income is above median income, because of all of their expenses, there is no money left over for the creditors. So they qualify for Chapter 7. Now if this had been a yellow unhappy face, and the DMI had been a significant positive number, then we would have to say to the debtor that the case would get thrown out or threatened with dismissal, so we just know that we have to file as a Chapter 13. Then they’re in this plan for 60 months, five years, to pay back as much of their debt as possible.

JS: And there are certain things that are not deductible on a Chapter 7 means test that are deductible on a Chapter 13 means test.

Q: Such as?

JS: Such as retirement account contributions or 401(k) loan repayments. Going back to the Social Security issue, the code says that, if you have a habit of making retirement contributions, you’re supposed to be able to continue those under this means test. Then you put your budget together going forward. Our associate Andrew DeYoung had a case where he tried to schedule the ongoing contributions, because she had done them within the six months. But he received a creditor objection and Judge Graham said, “I’m not going to allow you to keep socking away this kind of money while paying very little on your debt.

CH: Even though they’re in a Chapter 13, they get credit for it.

JS: Correct. She had a very low Disposable Monthly Income number under the means test, but when it came before the judge, the judge said this doesn’t pass the smell test. If the client were to appeal, maybe the client would have won, but the client didn’t have the resources to appeal.

Q: Was it because the IRA contribution was too high?

JS: It was substantial. Plus, evidence came out that the debtor worked for a university. If she contributed some phenomenal amount of money, her employer would match it with about 20% of the contribution. So this woman was trying to put away $9000 to $10,000 a year, hoping to get another $3000 to $4000 match. It was not the trustee who objected, it was an individual creditor who had loaned the debtor money and who spent enormous resources objecting to the proposed plan. I don’t know that every judge would have sided with the creditor, but this particular one did.

Q: So the judge threw out the IRA contribution entirely or forced her to lower the payment?

JS: She was in a Chapter 13, so the plan Andrew offered met the means test. But the creditor started objecting with old law—pre-2005 case law—and Andrew and I did not believe the creditor could win because it was such old case law.

CH: But it was an extraordinary amount of her income that she was contributing.

JS: Yes, it was about 15%, so a substantial portion of her income was being deferred.

CH: I’ve told people that if their contribution is 4%, or 6%, or even 8%, that no one is going to squawk. But if it’s 10% or more, that’s probably where it wouldn’t pass the smell test.

JS: In this case, the debtor was trying to only pay about $7000 on over $100,000 debt, so the judge said, “You’re not going to walk out of here with a fat 401(k).”

CH: This case illustrates the situation where you go to law school and think the law is black and white. You’re going to learn how to solve problems and there are definite rules. But the law is actually shades of gray. It’s almost never black and white. One judge might say, “That seems reasonable,” and another judge might say “It’s unreasonable.” It’s unpredictable, especially in state court law, where you go to one county and have one judge rule one way, then you go to another county, with the exact same facts, and another judge might rule a different way. Clients always ask, “Can you predict the results?” But that’s next to impossible, because you just don’t know how that judge on that day is going to interpret those facts in light of the law. Sometimes I’ve had judges where it was not what they knew that I was afraid of, it was what they knew that just wasn’t so. They thought that they knew the law, but they didn’t and they interpreted the law improperly. But you can’t go to the judge and imply they’re wrong. The only way you can do that is to appeal and most people we represent don’t have the financial ability or resources to appeal a decision, because that’s really expensive and time-consuming. The case mentioned earlier is a good example of the gray shades of the law and it’s fluidity, because by offering a plan with only a $250 monthly payment, instead of $660 a month, Andrew saved our client $24,600 over the life of the five-year plan.

Part 2 of Conversation: Differences Between Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

Part 3 of Conversation: Divorce and Child Support Can Impact a Bankruptcy

Part 4 of Conversation: Being Discharged From Bankruptcy

Differences Between Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

by

The primary difference between a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is that a Chapter 7 bankruptcy can eliminate debt in a period of three to four months compared to the three to five years it takes to complete a Chapter 13 plan. Under certain circumstances, a Chapter 13 bankruptcy can be converted into a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

We recently discussed several aspects of bankruptcy with Christopher Holmes and Jess M. Smith, III, partners at Tom Scott & Associates, P.C. The discussion covered several topics, including the means test, the differences between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13, how divorce and child support can affect bankruptcy, and the discharge process. Below is Part 2 of 4 of the transcript of that conversation.

Q: For a debtor, in terms of moving forward with your life after you declare bankruptcy, what are the differences between between Chapter 7 versus Chapter 13? How does that affect your credit score or your standing in the financial world?

Jess Smith, III: In the short-term, a Chapter 7 is probably more advantageous, because when you’re in a Chapter 13 there’s always the risk that you won’t complete the plan and you’ll become eligible to convert it to a Chapter 7. Therefore, you can add debt to your bankruptcy that accrue from the time you file your Chapter 13 to when you convert to your Chapter 7. That makes lenders nervous about extending credit to you while the Chapter 13 is open, because they could take a hit.

Chris Holmes: I always tell people you’re in a case for three to four months under Chapter 7. Your done and you can do whatever you want. In a Chapter 13, you can’t borrow money without permission of the trustee or the judge. As Jess pointed out, debts that are incurred after the filing of the case, if they change their mind and switch to a Chapter 7, they can be thrown into the mix for discharge.

Q: So what would be the circumstance in which someone could switch from a Chapter 13 to a Chapter 7?

JS: A loss of income is the primary one.

CH: People start out and maybe they’re too rich. they make $100,000 a year and can pay back some of the debt. Then their job goes overseas and they’re making $10 an hour; income plummets; no money left over for the creditors; case is no longer feasible. And so we switch to a Chapter 7, dispense with the monthly payments, and just wipe out the rest of the debt.

JS: Another reason someone might want to start as a Chapter 13 and contemplate having the option of a Chapter 7 later is that you have people with substantial medical issues. Perhaps they have a few creditors coming after them now, where they need that protection. But they don’t want to file Chapter 7 now, because they know they’ve got medical issues within the next eight years that are going to crop up. Some of them will go into a Chapter 13, to establish a payment plan with those existing creditors, knowing that if a medical calamity happens before the Chapter 13 is done they can convert to a Chapter 7 and add those debts.

CH: It’s kind of a way to insure against uninsured events over this three- to five-year period, so if something terrible happens—they run up $50,000 of uninsured medical debt and they can’t afford to pay it—the law says we can switch from a Chapter 13 to a Chapter 7 and move those debts. Generally speaking, when you file the case, you’re going to list the debts prior to that date. In a Chapter 13 or a 7, you can’t add debts thereafter. Unless you switch it from a Chapter 13 to a Chapter 7, so that deadline before which debts can be added moves up to the date of conversion to a Chapter 7. So, all of those debts incurred in-between, that otherwise a debtor would have been stuck with, are added to the list.

Q: It seems as if wiping out debts completely under Chapter 7 is a more drastic financial transaction. Does that affect your credit score more negatively than filing a Chapter 13?

CH: You would think that someone filing under Chapter 13 who is paying back some of the debt would get some kind of credit for that. But my understanding is that a bankruptcy is a bankruptcy is a bankruptcy to most creditors, whether it’s a Chapter 13 or a Chapter 7. People don’t get credit, in a sense, for paying back some of their debt through a Chapter 13 plan.

JS: Not until the Chapter 13 discharge, but while you’re in it you get no positive benefit from it.

CH: No one is going to pat you on the back and say, “You’re paying back some of your debt, here I’ll give you more money.”

JS: At the end, if it shows you paid your mortgage on time and you paid your car off in full, you’ll get credit for those things. But your not going to get a boost for running into a Chapter 13 as opposed to a Chapter 7. Not in the short-term, no.

Q: But in the long-term?

JS: Potentially, yes.

CH: I tell people that supposedly debts stay on your credit reports seven to 10 years.

JS: Usually from petition date.

CH: So being in a Chapter 13 for three to five years, as opposed to a Chapter 7 for three to four months, won’t stay on your record any longer.

JS: A Chapter 13 will actually come off the credit report sooner. A Chapter 7 will be up there for up to 10 years; a Chapter 13 for about seven years.

Q: So an advantage to completing a Chapter 13, in the long-term, is that it will help you establish better credit sooner?

JS: Potentially. But in the short-term it’s the same.

CH: People always ask, “What’s a bankruptcy going to do to my credit rating?” Well, if you’ve got $50,000 of credit card debt, $30,000 of medical bills, and people are suing and garnishing and hounding you, your credit worthiness is already shot. In a weird sort of way, when you get a discharge in bankruptcy, you wipe that slate clean. You can’t file another bankruptcy for eight years, but if you have decent income and no debt, I would imagine that one’s credit worthiness is going to be enhanced by wiping the slate clean. We have debtors who tell us that just weeks later they start getting inundated with car loan applications, even though they’re in a bankruptcy. I assume that’s because the creditors are sophisticated enough to know they can’t file another bankruptcy and they can’t add any post-filing debt to the bankruptcy. So, any car loan after the filing can’t be added; they can’t file another Chapter 7 for eight years, and they’ve got decent income and they know all of this debt is going to be wiped out, a new loan can’t be discharged. I assume that’s why they are aggressively marketing to those people.

Q: So, you can’t file another Chapter 7 for eight years after having filed a Chapter 7?

CH: Date of filing plus eight years.

Q: How about if you file for Chapter 13, then complete that 60-month plan and the bankruptcy is discharged?

JS: If you file a Chapter 13 first and complete it, you can file a Chapter 7 six years after your Chapter 13 filing date, under certain circumstances. If you file a Chapter 7 first and then you file a Chapter 13, it has to be four years after your Chapter 7 filing to be eligible for a discharge. We have people who file them so close together they’re not eligible for any discharges. They complete an umbrella, so they can get their things sorted out. With an umbrella, the creditors are told to stay, while the debtor makes some sort of a payment plan. We have people complete those payment plans and then they still have to deal with the debt, because it wasn’t discharged. But, in the interim, that period of the five-year window, they’re able to live their lives and try to get their affairs in order.

CH: Or we put them in one of these bankruptcies just long enough until finally it’s been long enough to file a bankruptcy from which they can get a discharge. So, we let the case be dismissed and then re-file when it’s been long enough.

JS: I just placed someone into a Chapter 13 where basically the primary purpose was that her main debt was student loans. She made about $70,000 salary and, based on her household size, she could file a Chapter 7. But the student loan creditor said, “You owe us over $100,000, so we’re going to administratively garnish 15% of your wages. And she said, “No you’re not. I’m going to file a Chapter 13 and I’m going to pay you $500 a month for the next five years, so I can get my kids out of the house.” Otherwise she knew that 15% was going to have her end up being evicted, because it was too much of her income.

CH: Another reason we do Chapter 13 filings is because student loans are nondischargeable. If, for example, the debtor has other problems and the student loans is just too burdensome, we put them in a Chapter 13, so they can keep the student loan creditor at bay for five years. Meanwhile they can resolve some other cash issues or save their house or do whatever they need to do. But then, of course, because it’s nondischargeable, down the road that student loan is still there. Chances are that what was paid to the student loan through the five year plan won’t cover the interest that accumulates, so that student loan is probably going to be bigger. But at least they can get rid of all their other financial problems and then they can focus on the student loan at the end of five years. Hopefully at that time the money that was in the plan to solve other problems will be there to solve the student loan five years down the road.

JS: We refer to that as a Chapter 26. That’s when you get through your first Chapter 13 and shed everything but the student loan, and then if you’ve got all of the kids out of the house, maybe you’re in another Chapter 13 where your student loan is your only creditor and you try to knock it out during the second five-year plan.

Q: So, regardless of whether you file Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, student loans are not dischargeable?

JS: Correct. By and large, with rare exceptions.

Q: And that’s the same for federal taxes?

CH: Well, no. Taxes are a little different, although that gets complicated, too. But, generally speaking, if the taxes are less than three years old, you’ve got to pay them back. Taxes more than three years old may be dischargeable, but then you have to worry about whether there is a federal tax lien. Some of the tax might have to be paid back. I’m about to file a case for a debtor who had some taxes owed for 2012. The clock didn’t start ticking until April 15, 2013, because taxes are always due by April 15 the following year. So, I said to her, “Look, you’ve got all of these taxes owed for 2012; we don’t have to file your bankruptcy sooner than later. Let’s wait until after April 15, 2016, so they’ll be more than three years old and then maybe those 2012 taxes will be treated just like a credit card or medical bill, and be totally wiped out.” The threat was that in the interim, unbeknownst to me, the IRS filed a tax lien, which would make some of the tax payable. The hope is that the tax is going to fall off as a dischargeable debt.

Part 1 of Conversation: Means Test Helps Determine Filing For Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

Part 3 of Conversation: Divorce and Child Support Can Impact a Bankruptcy

Part 4 of Conversation: Being Discharged From Bankruptcy