Tom Scott Law Indy

Bankruptcy Attorneys in Indianapolis Since 1980

Non-Dischargable Debt

Holiday Season and End of Year Preparations if You Have Financial Problems

by

Holiday Season and End of Year Preparations if You Have Financial ProblemsThe holiday season is a time of celebration, but for many people it’s a time of year that brings added financial pressure while they struggle to keep up with payments on their existing debt. If you use credit cards to buy Christmas gifts, with the expectation of filing for bankruptcy to get rid of those holiday season debts, those purchases may lead to creditors to accuse you of fraud and those debts could be declared nondischargeable. In that situation, the timing of a bankruptcy filing needs to be carefully considered.
We recently discussed several aspects of bankruptcy with Christopher Holmes and Jess M. Smith, III, partners at Tom Scott & Associates, P.C. The discussion focused on how buying gifts with credit cards and other expenses during the holiday season can contribute to financial problems after the New Year begins. Other topics covered in the conversation include the impact of previous tax liabilities on a bankruptcy filing; federal tax refunds in relation to Indiana law and the IRS Code; the tax filing status of married couples who are separated and have children; and how filing for unemployment benefits or your immigration status might effect your bankruptcy filing.

The simplified explanations in this conversation cannot be taken as legal advise, because every situation is different and complicated. Each case is very fact-sensitive and there is no one-size-fits-all explanation of how a tax liability relates to a specific bankruptcy case.
Q: As the end of the year approaches, what advice can you offer to someone who is struggling financially and researching the possibility of declaring bankruptcy?
CH: Typically, we have a lot of clients who come to see us after Christmas and after they have incurred too much debt purchasing gifts for family members and friends. As a result, when those bills come due in January, February, and March, our clients come to the realization that those accumulated bills are unmanageable and those clients seek our assistance in alleviating the financial problems caused by their inadvertent overspending.
Also, we have had a few clients who have used their credit cards for the purchase of Christmas gifts with the expectation of filing bankruptcy to get rid of those debts. In such cases, the creditors may scrutinize the use – or in their opinion misuse – of credit cards right before the filing of a bankruptcy. As a result, those creditors can use a provision in the bankruptcy code that provides that debts of a certain amount incurred in a certain period of time shortly before the filing of a bankruptcy case are presumed to be a fraudulent and, as a further result, nondischargeable. In those rare cases, we must advise our clients accordingly and we must be more careful regarding the timing of the filing of those cases.
Q: In other words, if you know you’re in financial trouble, it’s not a good idea to think you can “go out with a bang” with one last buying binge right before declaring bankruptcy, because that might be declared a fraudulent act. Don’t make matters worse just because it’s the holiday season.
CH: Yes. Section 523 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code which is entitled “Exceptions to Discharge” and which sets forth the different kinds of debts that are NOT dischargeable in a bankruptcy includes a section that pertains to consumer debts of a certain amount for luxury goods or services that are incurred within 90 days of when a bankruptcy case is filed, as well as cash advances of a certain amount that are incurred within 70 days of when a bankruptcy case is filed, are presumed to be nondischargeable.
Although the presumptive periods are 90 days and 70 days respectively, creditors will often look for suspicious usage in the 3 to 12 months before a bankruptcy case is filed in order to determine whether a compelling allegation can be made that a reasonable debtor must have known or should have known when they incurred those debts that those debts would never be repaid. If so, then the creditor can assert that those debts were incurred under false pretenses and, as a result, they are not dischargeable.
Q: Are there any end-of-year financial loose ends you can tie up to prepare for a bankruptcy filing after the first of the new year? What should someone take care of first to make filing for bankruptcy as smooth and easy a process as possible?
CH: First and foremost, we meet with some people who have significant income tax liabilities for prior tax years. Although we ask all of our clients about income tax liabilities, we need to know about taxes owed not only for prior tax years, but we need to be aware of income taxes that might be due and owing for the current tax year for which the tax returns are due in the next calendar year. If so, then we must defer the filing of their bankruptcy case until after January 1, so the taxes can be included in the Chapter 13 plan and then paid back without penalty or interest; otherwise, they are deemed to be a post-filing debt that is not included in their Chapter 13 Plan.
JS: I have a similar situation now with a Chapter 26 (i.e., back-to-back filings of two Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases), in which a debtor is coming out of Chapter 13 and he has just paid a bunch of taxes, but still owes much more. We’re also going to delay filing for bankruptcy until 2019, so we can include his 2018 taxes in the plan.
Q: Should someone in a deep financial hole start the process of contacting a bankruptcy attorney as soon as possible, even if they might not file a case until next year?
CH: We’ve learned that some people have never filed some of their tax returns, and those unfiled tax returns must be filed before we file their bankruptcy case. And we will urge those individuals to prepare and file those unfiled tax returns as soon as possible, so we know if income taxes are owed, how much is owed, and for which tax years they are owed, in order to properly advise them regarding whether a Chapter 7 or a Chapter 13 case is more appropriate to resolve their income tax problems. Also, the U.S. Bankruptcy Code includes a provision that requires that all unfiled income tax returns must be filed and copies provided to the Trustee; otherwise, the bankruptcy case can be dismissed.
Q: So, the first tip is you shouldn’t make your debt worse by spending a lot of money on holiday gifts. The second tip is to get your tax filing situation as clean as possible before filing for bankruptcy. Should the approaching end of the year be considered with regard to the sale of real estate or other assets?
CH: Yes, we always look at client’s income tax returns from prior tax years. Not only do we want to know if income taxes are owed, but we need to know if a client is expecting to receive a significant tax refund back from the IRS and/or from the State of Indiana because tax refunds are deemed to be an asset of their so-called bankruptcy estate.
If we file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case before the debtor receives and spends the tax refund, it’s likely, if the refunds total more than a $1,000, the Chapter 7 trustee assigned to the case will intercept – or take – the refunds and use the proceeds to pay as much as possible to the creditors who file claims for their fair share thereof. Accordingly, we advise people to refrain from filing their bankruptcy case until after they’ve prepared and filed their tax returns, and then they’ve received and spent their tax refunds in an appropriate way. As a result, they don’t run the risk of the trustee taking the money and giving it to their creditors.
By the way, in many situations, most of the refund is the result of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The good news: Indiana law includes a provision whereby the portion of the refund that results from the EITC is exempt – or off limits – from being taken by the trustee for the benefit of the creditors.
Also, we deal with many clients who have filed their tax returns improperly. For example, married taxpayers can file their income tax returns jointly, or as a married person filing separate from their spouse, or as a married person who files separately if they qualify as “Head of Household.” Unfortunately, we’ve seen many cases in which one of the married couple files as “Head of Household” without being qualified by law to do so, in order to receive a tax refund that is more than they would be entitled if they filed as “Married Filing Jointly” or “Married Filing Separately.”
The Internal Revenue Code has a provision that requires a taxpayer to be legally separated from their spouse for the last six months of a tax year before the taxpayer can claim “Head of Household” status, so we always ask our clients, “Were you living together at any time between July 1 and December 31?” If so, they’re ineligible for “Head of Household” status and the extra tax refund to which those taxpayers might be entitled.
As a consequence, we have people in Chapter 13 cases who get these bigger tax refunds who realize they have filed improperly – and the trustees also look at tax returns – and know they’ve received a refund to which they are not entitled, so they are forced to file amended tax returns with the correct status – “Married Filing Jointly” or “Married Filing Separately.”
Invariably, the refund to which they were legally entitled is less than what they received, and then they must repay the excess refund to which they weren’t entitled, and the Chapter 13 Plan must provide for the repayment of that ill-gotten excess tax refund money.
JS: I’ve just worked with a couple who were clever enough to say they were separated during the last six months of the year, but they both claimed the same child as a dependent on their tax returns. The husband claimed his tax status as “Married Filing Separately,” but the wife claimed “Head of Household,” so we had to have the husband amend his return to remove the child as a dependent for that tax year.
A few years ago I had a client who improperly claimed unemployment benefits, so he had to list the Indiana Department of Workforce Development as a creditor when he filed for bankruptcy. Depending on whether the amount of benefits the agency was paying was significant or not, it may object to discharge on grounds of fraud and have the debt declared nondischargeable.
I had that same type of situation with a different client about a month ago. This client was actually arrested, because a felony criminal charge of fraud had been filed. I know of two other attorneys with clients who have been arrested for the same type of fraud.
CH: I had a case recently in which the Indiana Department of Workforce Development filed its complaint to determine the dischargability of unemployment compensation paid to my client because my client received benefits to which she was not entitled because she received them despite being employed at the time those benefits were received. As a result, it was certain the Judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court would determine that those benefits were obtained as the result of my client’s fraudulent conduct and those benefits would be determined to be nondischargeable. As a result, I told my client, “You might as well agree it is a nondischargeable debt,” that passes through bankruptcy and must be repaid to avoid the additional time, effort and expense of fighting a losing battle.
Q: So the bottom line is that declaring bankruptcy does not allow a client to discharge an overpayments of unemployment compensation received due to the fraudulent conduct of the client.
CH: That is correct. We tell people, “If you’ve received benefits to which you weren’t entitled, because you were otherwise employed, the amount of those benefits becomes nondischargeable debt and it must be repaid.”
This type of situation reminds me that from time to time people who are in the country illegally come into our office to file for bankruptcy. Often times they have a fake Social Security number. We have to forewarn them, they do not have to be a citizen to file for bankruptcy in the U.S. but there is the possibility, if the bankruptcy trustee’s office researches their Social Security number and some other person’s name is listed, that will throw up a red flag. I don’t think people here illegally have to worry about the United States Trustee’s office giving that information to the Immigration authorities, and then being deported. But, I think they might be foolish to file for bankruptcy and run the risk of that situation being revealed, which might result in their deportation.
Q: As an attorney, do you have an attorney-client privilege relationship with your clients that legally prevents you from revealing a client’s criminal or immigration status?
CH: Yes.
Q: So, anyone consulting with you can reveal to you, without fear, any information that might impact their decision to file for bankruptcy, because you’re not allowed to repeat that information to anybody?
JS: But if they file for bankruptcy, we have to disclose it. There is no attorney-client privilege in bankruptcy.
Q: Okay. But, if you advise someone to not file for bankruptcy, you’re not going to then turn around and tell some legal agency about that person’s criminal or immigration status. When people come to your office for a free consultation, can they openly discuss their legal situation without having to worry about their personal information leaving your office?
CH: That is correct.

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.

Accruing Post-Petition Interest on Unpaid Federal Taxes (Interview Part 3 of 3)

by

Penalties for unpaid federal taxes are still dischargeable when filing for bankruptcy, but they will accrue post-petition interest that is owed to the IRS. Debt limit amounts have changed for Chapter 13 cases, as of April 1, 2016.

Editor: We recently discussed the changes in the bankruptcy laws with Christopher Holmes, Jess M. Smith, III, partners at Tom Scott & Associates, P.C., along with associate attorney Andrew DeYoung. Below is Part 3 of 3 of the transcript of the conversation.

Q. What else is new in bankruptcy law?

Chris Holmes: Some of our clients have received letters from the IRS. We thought certain taxes or certain penalties or certain interest on taxes were going to go away, upon discharge. But now the IRS is coming after people—after discharge—for non-dischargeable penalties and interest on taxes that were fully paid through the Chapter 13 plan. In the good old days we would tell people that once you’re done with that Chapter 13 plan, you’re done with the IRS; you’re done with the Indiana Department of Revenue; you have no more tax worries. Now we’re finding out that is not always true, depending upon when the tax returns were filed. So, in affect, the IRS is punishing people for not filing their tax returns in a timely fashion. So, if tax returns are not timely filed and they’re filed within two years of the filing of a bankruptcy case, those taxes are not dischargeable nor are the penalties and interest thereon. Previously, you would throw those taxes in the plan, pay them in full, and then the penalties and interest would be discharged.

Jess Smith, III: Now they’re boarding up the penalties, but accruing post-petition interest.

CH: So the penalties are still dischargeable; it’s just the interest that’s still accumulating, and will be there at the end of the road. So, now we get these calls from our clients saying, "Hey, what’s going on? I got this letter from the IRS," and we have to give them the sad news that when the law changed back in 2005, there was a provision in there that allows the IRS to collect these interest charges on debts that were otherwise fully-paid through the plan.

Andrew DeYoung: Starting April 1 of this year, and this only relates to Chapter 13 cases, the debt limits are going up. That means the amount of unsecured debt that you have is increasing about $10,000. Debtor’s going into bankruptcy are able to have another $10,000 owed out and still will qualify for a Chapter 13 case. It’s now $394,725, up from $383,175. For secured debt, the amount is now $1,184,200, up from $1,149,525. It changes every three years and it can be found in the Federal register if you use the code words "109(e)" or "Chapter 13 debt limit." 

CH: It’s pretty rare that someone would have debts of that amount.

AD: One case that we worked on the debtor had purchased some vacant real estate in Florida, when the market was doing very well. He purchased the property for roughly $300,000 to $350,000 per parcel. The value then went down to under $50,000 per parcel. We ran up against the debt limits on that issue. We were luckily able to negotiate with the creditor to work a solution in the Chapter 13, but if the creditor had not agreed to work with us we would not have been eligible for a discharge in Chapter 13 because the secured debt of the debtor was too high. In a case I’m working on now the problem is where the debtor has student loans totaling $370,000. The rest of their unsecured debt is not very high, but with the debt limits only around $390,000, absent an agreement with the Department of Education, we’re not eligible for a Chapter 13.

CH: The consequence would be that they have no choice but to resort to a Chapter 11, which is primarily designed for corporations and individuals with really, really complicated situations — and those cost a whole lot more for attorneys fees and court costs.

AD: In talking to the U.S. trustee, I was advised two days ago that you would be a fool to take a Chapter 11 for under $10,000 (as the attorney fee), which in comparison to our Chapter 13 fee would be a total fee over 60 months of $4000. $10,000 up front in one sum or $4000 over 60 months is quite a big difference.

CH: It’s rare, but once in a while you get a debtor who has that kind of debt, and then you have to really go into how much the really totals out to be. You think it might be a certain amount, but the hope is that it falls under those thresholds so you can just barely make it into a Chapter 13.

Part 1 of Interview: What’s New in Bankruptcy Law in Indiana

Part 2 of Interview: Property You Can Protect When You File for Bankruptcy

$20,000 Contempt Penalty Because Mother Hurt Father’s Credit Should Be Dischargeable In Bankruptcy

by

*Disclosure required by 11 U.S.C. § 528(a)(3): We, the law office of Tom Scott & Associates, P.C., are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
Q: A state court judge orders the mother to pay the father $20,000.00 following a contempt hearing as a penalty for actual costs of petitioner’s attorney fee. The award is a contempt penalty following the Judge’s determination that the mother has not been paying student loans in a timely manner thus harming the father’s credit and that the mother has not complied with a parenting time order. Is that penalty dischargeable in Bankruptcy?
A: Bankruptcy Code Section 523 provides a list of debts that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Specifically 523(a)(7) states: A bankruptcy discharge “does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt – … (7) to the extent that such debt is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit, and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss…”
Under section 523(a)(7), civil contempt sanctions are generally non-dischargeable where, they are imposed to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. For example see U.S. Sprint Communications Co. v. Buscher, 89 B.R. 154, 156 (D.Kan.1988); PRP Wine Int’l, Inc. v. Allison (In re Allison), 176 B.R. 60, 63-64 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1994). In these cases, the dischargeability of a prior fine was at issue in a subsequent bankruptcy.
A “debtor seeking to discharge a pre-petition sanction faces an uphill battle. While he has the ability under Bankruptcy Rule 4007 to seek a determination of the dischargeability of the sanction in that subsequent proceeding, the bankruptcy court will evaluate and adjudicate the prior debt’s dischargeability guided at least in part by § 523(a)(7). It is for this reason that a representative of a corporate debtor, like Mr. Hansbrough, is not free flatly to ignore the bankruptcy court’s orders, absorb any sanction the court can muster, and then simply file a personal bankruptcy petition before a different court and obtain a discharge as a matter of course.” In Re Hercules Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a JP’s Health Club, Debtor. James Hansbrough, Appellant, v. David Birdsell, Chapter 7 Trustee of Hercules Enterprises, Inc.’s Bankruptcy Estate, Appellee, 387 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir, 2004).
Accordingly, my reading of the Bankruptcy Code is that Section 523(a)(7) creates a two prong test to determine whether a civil contempt action is dischargeable in bankruptcy:
1) The debt cannot be discharged if the penalty is payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit; AND
2) The debt cannot be discharged if the penalty is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss [a “pecuniary loss” is defined as “a loss that can be evaluated in money terms” (Black’s Law Dictionary)].

If mother files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and receives a discharge, even if the current $20,000.00 penalty is dischargeable, the underlying order to remain current on student loans is not dischargeable. The mother should file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy to attempt a discharge of both the civil contempt penalty as well as the property settlement order.

In the facts presented, the state court order was that the money be paid directly to the father and not payable to or for the benefit of the any governmental unit. Therefore, the first prong is not met and the debt can be discharged in bankruptcy. The second prong is that the debt cannot be discharged if the debt is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss. Conversely then, the debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy if the penalty is for actual pecuniary loss. In this case, the court order does specifically state that penalty is for actual compensation so it should be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
More importantly, however, is that the divorce decree directed the mother to remain current on student loans and hold the father harmless as a co-debtor. Through issuance of this divorce decree order, the state court has created another potential debt for the mother; that is, the father can collect money for damages if the mother does not remain current on student loans. This potential debt to father will remain in effect until either the student loan is timely paid or the divorce decree order is discharged. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy will NOT discharge any debt to a former spouse that was incurred by the debtor in the course of a divorce. Therefore, if mother files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and receives a discharge, even if the current $20,000.00 penalty is dischargeable, the underlying order to remain current on student loans is not dischargeable. Accordingly, if the mother ever falls behind on student loans in the future, the father could simply seek another post-discharge contempt order and the mother would have to appear again before an already unhappy judge. Therefore, I would recommend that the mother file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy to attempt a discharge of both the civil contempt penalty as well as the property settlement order.