nondischargeable debt

How Bankruptcy Affects Student Loan Debt and Car Loan Interest Rates

May 15, 2017 by TomScottLaw

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

February 5, 2017 by TomScottLaw

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.

Differences Between Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

June 7, 2016 by TomScottLaw

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