Blogs

1 week 1 day ago

Alternatives to bankruptcy–disappear One alternative to bankruptcy is to just disappear.  Why am I bringing this up, now? This week somebody asked Quora (a website I follow) how to legally disappear.  The answer, sign up for a Caribbean cruise. Get off at the Virgin Islands. Don’t get back on. For most people, bankruptcy works. But when […]
The post Alternatives to Bankruptcy–Disappear by Robert Weed appeared first on Northern VA Bankruptcy Lawyer Robert Weed.


5 days 11 hours ago

"The recent Middle District of Florida decision in In re Nabavi, 2014 WL 3939595 (D.C. M.D. Florida, August 12, 2014) made reference to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal’s longtime adoption of the "civil plain error rule" - an exception to the general rule that an appellate court will not consider an issue not raised in the lower court.  In the Nabavi  appeal to the District Court from the Bankruptcy Court, the creditor raised arguments which it had failed to bring before the Bankruptcy Court. The District Court held that the creditor waived its right to bring his arguments on appeal as the “civil plain error rule” exception did not apply.Preservation of Error The U.S Supreme Court held in Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552 (1941) that “[o]rdinarily an appellate court does not give consideration to issues not raised below.”  In Hormel, Justice Black explained that [O]ur procedure scheme contemplates that parties shall come to issue in the trial forum vested with authority to determine questions of facts. This is essential in order that parties may have the opportunity to offer all the evidence they believe relevant to the issues which the trial tribunal is alone competent to decide; it is equally essential in order that litigants may not be surprised on appeal by final decision there of issues upon which they have had not opportunity to introduce evidence.According, the 11th Circuit held in Narey v. Dean, 32 F.3d 1521 (11th Cir. 1994)  that "appellate courts generally will not consider an issue or theory that was not raised in the district court."  Exception: Civil Plain Error Rule
But the Supreme Court in Hormel held that its general principle is not unyielding and “[t]here may always be exceptional cases or particular circumstances which will prompt a reviewing or appellate court, where injustice might otherwise result, to consider questions of law which were neither pressed nor passed upon by the court or administrative agency below.” Justice Black added that Rules of practice and procedure are devised to promote the ends of justice, not to defeat them. A rigid and undeviating judicially declared practice under which courts of review would invariably and under all circumstances decline to consider all questions which had not previously been specifically urged would be out of harmony with this policy. Orderly rules of procedure do not require sacrifice of the rules of fundamental justice11th Circuit 
In the case of In re Lett, 632 F. 3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2011), the 11th Circuit  reviewed its prior adoption of Hormel's “civil plain error rule” and its exceptions.  The 11th Circuit explained that the rule's exception permits consideration of a pure question of law not raised below, if the failure to consider that issue on appeal would result in a "miscarriage of justice."  The In Re Lett Court explained  that a “miscarriage of justice” is a decision or outcome of a legal proceeding that is prejudicial or inconsistent with the substantial rights of a party. Another 11th Circuit case explained that “[a]ny wrong result resting on the erroneous application of legal principles is a miscarriage of justice in some degree.”
The recent case of In re Biscayne Park, LLC, 540 Fed. Appx. 952 (11th Cir. 2013) cited In Re Lett and further explicated the circumstances in which the "plain error rule" will apply. The Court explained that it will consider an issue not raised in the lower courts under five circumstances:

  1. it involves a pure question of law and if refusal to consider it would result in a clear miscarriage of justice
  2. where the appellant raises an objection to an order which he had no opportunity to raise at the lower court level
  3. where the interest of substantial justice is at stake
  4. where the proper resolution is beyond doubt
  5. if the issue presents significant questions of general impact or of great public concern

Bankruptcy ContextThe In re Lett Court explained that the “civil plain error rule” is particularly true in the bankruptcy context. The Court stated that “[o]rdinarily an appellate court does not give consideration to issues not raised below” because “bankruptcy cases are to be tried in front of bankruptcy court.”  The Court cited a prior decision that related that it is within the court’s discretion to resolve an issue decided in the bankruptcy court “if the record thoroughly presents the issue”  but “if the record reflects an issue that was presented in a cursory manner and never properly presented to the Bankruptcy Court, the issue is not preserved for appeal.” This decision further explained that “it is not enough that the record provides facts which may permit the resolution of an issue; rather the record must be adequately developed, to the point that the Bankruptcy Court could have passed on the issue …”

    Certain Bankruptcy Code Provisions Never Waived?The author of a 2011 post on Weil Gotshal's "Bankruptcy Blog", wrote that the In re Lett decision suggested that certain provisions of the Bankruptcy Code may never be waived, such as in the context of a chapter 11 confirmation order, even if the party could have raised - but did not raise the argument before the bankruptcy court.  The blog post points out that the In re Lett Court "ultimately concluded that the district court had actually erred in relying on the civil plain error rule in declining to address whether the plain complied with the absolute priority rule" as that the involved confirmation related issue had been preserved for appeal because the requirement of section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code had "sufficiently present[ed] the absolute priority rule in the bankruptcy court as to preserve the issue for review..."  and that the debtor himself had placed the absolute priority rule squarely before the court when he proffered compliance with section 1129(b) and sought confirmation of the chapter 11 plan.

    ReferencesAs related in this short video,  preservation of the record can make the difference between life and death in a criminal proceeding.  

    Jones Day blog post on In re Lett. 

    Rogers Towers blog post.  (implications of substantial consummation as barrier to appeal)Attached: Untitled document

    Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com


    5 days 11 hours ago

    "The recent Middle District of Florida decision in In re Nabavi, 2014 WL 3939595 (D.C. M.D. Florida, August 12, 2014) made reference to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal’s longtime adoption of the "civil plain error rule" - an exception to the general rule that an appellate court will not consider an issue not raised in the lower court.  In the Nabavi  appeal to the District Court from the Bankruptcy Court, the creditor raised arguments which it had failed to bring before the Bankruptcy Court. The District Court held that the creditor waived its right to bring his arguments on appeal as the “civil plain error rule” exception did not apply.Preservation of Error The U.S Supreme Court held in Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552 (1941) that “[o]rdinarily an appellate court does not give consideration to issues not raised below.”  In Hormel, Justice Black explained that [O]ur procedure scheme contemplates that parties shall come to issue in the trial forum vested with authority to determine questions of facts. This is essential in order that parties may have the opportunity to offer all the evidence they believe relevant to the issues which the trial tribunal is alone competent to decide; it is equally essential in order that litigants may not be surprised on appeal by final decision there of issues upon which they have had not opportunity to introduce evidence.According, the 11th Circuit held in Narey v. Dean, 32 F.3d 1521 (11th Cir. 1994)  that "appellate courts generally will not consider an issue or theory that was not raised in the district court."  Exception: Civil Plain Error Rule
    But the Supreme Court in Hormel held that its general principle is not unyielding and “[t]here may always be exceptional cases or particular circumstances which will prompt a reviewing or appellate court, where injustice might otherwise result, to consider questions of law which were neither pressed nor passed upon by the court or administrative agency below.” Justice Black added that Rules of practice and procedure are devised to promote the ends of justice, not to defeat them. A rigid and undeviating judicially declared practice under which courts of review would invariably and under all circumstances decline to consider all questions which had not previously been specifically urged would be out of harmony with this policy. Orderly rules of procedure do not require sacrifice of the rules of fundamental justice11th Circuit 
    In the case of In re Lett, 632 F. 3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2011), the 11th Circuit  reviewed its prior adoption of Hormel's “civil plain error rule” and its exceptions.  The 11th Circuit explained that the rule's exception permits consideration of a pure question of law not raised below, if the failure to consider that issue on appeal would result in a "miscarriage of justice."  The In Re Lett Court explained  that a “miscarriage of justice” is a decision or outcome of a legal proceeding that is prejudicial or inconsistent with the substantial rights of a party. Another 11th Circuit case explained that “[a]ny wrong result resting on the erroneous application of legal principles is a miscarriage of justice in some degree.”
    The recent case of In re Biscayne Park, LLC, 540 Fed. Appx. 952 (11th Cir. 2013) cited In Re Lett and further explicated the circumstances in which the "plain error rule" will apply. The Court explained that it will consider an issue not raised in the lower courts under five circumstances:

    1. it involves a pure question of law and if refusal to consider it would result in a clear miscarriage of justice
    2. where the appellant raises an objection to an order which he had no opportunity to raise at the lower court level
    3. where the interest of substantial justice is at stake
    4. where the proper resolution is beyond doubt
    5. if the issue presents significant questions of general impact or of great public concern

    Bankruptcy ContextThe In re Lett Court explained that the “civil plain error rule” is particularly true in the bankruptcy context. The Court stated that “[o]rdinarily an appellate court does not give consideration to issues not raised below” because “bankruptcy cases are to be tried in front of bankruptcy court.”  The Court cited a prior decision that related that it is within the court’s discretion to resolve an issue decided in the bankruptcy court “if the record thoroughly presents the issue”  but “if the record reflects an issue that was presented in a cursory manner and never properly presented to the Bankruptcy Court, the issue is not preserved for appeal.” This decision further explained that “it is not enough that the record provides facts which may permit the resolution of an issue; rather the record must be adequately developed, to the point that the Bankruptcy Court could have passed on the issue …”

      Certain Bankruptcy Code Provisions Never Waived?The author of a 2011 post on Weil Gotshal's "Bankruptcy Blog", wrote that the In re Lett decision suggested that certain provisions of the Bankruptcy Code may never be waived, such as in the context of a chapter 11 confirmation order, even if the party could have raised - but did not raise the argument before the bankruptcy court.  The blog post points out that the In re Lett Court "ultimately concluded that the district court had actually erred in relying on the civil plain error rule in declining to address whether the plain complied with the absolute priority rule" as that the involved confirmation related issue had been preserved for appeal because the requirement of section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code had "sufficiently present[ed] the absolute priority rule in the bankruptcy court as to preserve the issue for review..."  and that the debtor himself had placed the absolute priority rule squarely before the court when he proffered compliance with section 1129(b) and sought confirmation of the chapter 11 plan.

      ReferencesAs related in this short video,  preservation of the record can make the difference between life and death in a criminal proceeding.  

      Jones Day blog post on In re Lett. 

      Rogers Towers blog post.  (implications of substantial consummation as barrier to appeal)Attached: Untitled document

      Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com


      3 days 11 hours ago

      Chapter 7 Bankruptcy: A Bird’s Eye View 
      Chapter 7 bankruptcy gives you a “second chance” to get your finances under control by having a bankruptcy court legally discharge (or wiped out in friendly lingo) most of your unsecured debt, such as credit card debt, hospital bills, as well as personal loans. Rarely does it get rid of alimony, child support, student loans, or tax debt.
      “Liquidation bankruptcy” describes this type of bankruptcy. It is the most common, easiest, and quickest way to file for bankruptcy. According to the American Bankruptcy Institute (ABI), while bankruptcy filings nationwide were down 24% (to 397,370) in 2021, the ratio of Chapter 7 filings to all bankruptcies remained stable at 69%.
      Is Chapter 7 Right For Me?
      Some of the differences can be traced back to this: not everyone can file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The court uses a “means test” to decide if a Chapter 7 filing is eligible. The bankruptcy means test looks at your income, expenses, secured and unsecured debt, and other financial records to see whether your disposable earnings are below the median income for your state (50 percent lower or 50 percent higher). The income level for the means test differs from state to state.
      Applicants are occasionally asked to sell any non-exempt assets, however, according to several online sources, 96% of Chapter 7 petitions are “no asset” filings, meaning there is insufficient equity or worth in the properties for the trustee to liquidate them and pay off lenders. One of the good things to think about is this: most of the time, it takes between four to six months to finish the Chapter 7 process.
      Oregon (Portland, Salem, Medford) Bankruptcy Lawyers
      If you have too much debt to handle and don’t know what to do, our Oregon and Washington bankruptcy lawyers at Northwest Debt Relief Law Firm can help you. We believe that everybody deserves a fresh chance at a good life, and we’ll find the best way to help you get your finances back on the right track!
      Our Oregon (Portland, Salem, Medford) bankruptcy lawyers will give time to answer all of your questions so you will gain peace of mind. We can help take away the pressure and burden of your debt problems today. Call us now for an appointment! 
      How Does Bankruptcy Under Chapter 7 Work?
      If you file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and are approved, you can get rid of a lot of unsecured debts. But other debts, by law, will stick to you like glue. For the rest, there are gray areas that require case-by-case consideration.
      The following debts in Oregon are dischargeable under Chapter 7:

      • Balances on credit cards (includes overdue as well as late fees)
      • Accounts in the hand of a collection agency
      • Medical bills
      • Payday and personal loans (unsecured)
      • Mortgage or auto loans that you can’t pay back (but the house or vehicle can be reclaimed)
      • Home owners association fees (if you give back your home or your condo)
      • Utility bills
      • Civil court rulings (not fraud based)
      • Overpayments from Social Security
      • Veterans’ loans and overpayments

      Debts in Oregon that are not dischargeable under Chapter 7 include:

      • Alimony
      • Child Support
      • Student loans (Student loans can only be canceled if you can show that paying them is too hard)
      • Home owners association fees (if you keep your home or your condo)
      • Personal injury debts caused by something you did while you were drunk
      • Unsecured debts that you intentionally did not include in your filing
      • Secured debts
      • Tax liens (Income tax debt that has been around for at least 240 days and meets other restrictions)

      To start the Chapter 7 process, you have to file a number of documents and pay a number of fees, unless you are in a very difficult situation.
      If you’re serious about handling Chapter 7, here’s a quick primer:

      1. Start by filling out a long list of forms that list the debtor’s assets, expenses, income, liabilities, overall financial position, and also any existing contracts or leases that are already in their name.
      2. Chapter 7 debtors must then pay $20 to $100 for credit counseling before they file for bankruptcy. Nonprofit credit counseling agencies usually offer these courses. They look at your finances to see if there are other ways to solve the problem (like debt consolidation, debt management, debt settlement, or nonprofit debt settlement) that don’t involve filing for bankruptcy to resolve the issue.
      3. If bankruptcy is your best option, you must take the forms you filled out in Step 1 to the local bankruptcy court and file a bankruptcy petition.
      4. From there, you’ll need to start to pay for the process with what’s left in your wallet. Yes, bankruptcy has its own costs. There is a fee for filing the petition ($335), court fees (which differ state-to-state), and, unless you are still representing yourself, attorney fees (which, according to the National Bankruptcy Forum, average $1,250 and are paid upfront).
      5. When someone declares bankruptcy, they have to fill out a lot of paperwork, which is then made public. People who go to bankruptcy court are often listed in newspapers and on the Internet, so they potentially may lose financial control and privacy.

      Property Exemptions Under Chapter 7
      When does my chapter 7 bankruptcy case endIt was already mentioned earlier that Chapter 7 is often called “liquidation bankruptcy,” which means that the debtor can sell everything they own in one big garage sale to help pay off their debts.
      Extreme liquidation, on the other hand, doesn’t happen very often.
      The bankruptcy process can be hard, but the point of bankruptcy law is to help people get out of overwhelming debt and start over. Taking everything away from Chapter 7 petitioners would not help them get back on their feet and ready to contribute financially to their communities.
      In light of this, most “necessities of modern life,” or things that are needed for living and working, are not taken away by bankruptcy law.
      “This doesn’t mean you have to keep everything you own. Rather, exemption laws in bankruptcy protect things that people need, like a car that works, furniture, and clothes. Whenever a bankruptcy exemption does not cover all of your property, it is “nonexempt.”
      Exempted Properties Include:

      • Motorized vehicles (until a certain value).
      • fairly essential Clothing.
      • Things and furniture for the house that is reasonably necessary.
      • Home appliances.
      • Jewelry (until a certain value).
      • Pensions.
      • A portion of the debtor’s home equity.
      • Tools of the trade or job of the debtor (until a certain value).
      • A portion of wages earned but not yet paid.
      • Benefits from the government, like Social Security, welfare, and unemployment compensation accumulated in a bank account.
      • Payouts for personal injuries.

      When Does My Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case End?
      It’s not uncommon to be unsure when your bankruptcy will end. Many  people think it’s over after the meeting with creditors, which everyone who files for Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 must attend. Some people think it’s over when they get the discharge, which is the court order that wipes out their debts if they qualify.
      But neither of them is right. These are what you need to know:

      • Your debt is wiped out by a “discharge.” A “discharge order” is the official court form that clears out your debt, and a “final decree” is the official court form that ends your case.
      • In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the court often closes your case with a final decree soon after mailing out the discharge order.
      • You have to work with the bankruptcy trustee in charge of your bankruptcy case until it’s closed.
      • A case that has been closed can be reopened by the court to fix problems or fix mistakes.

      If you do everything right, all of the above will happen. If you do something wrong or forget to do a step, the court can “dismiss” or close your case without giving you a discharge. You will find below a more thorough explanation.
      Your Bankruptcy Case Is Closed When The Final Decree (Not The Discharge) Is Issued
      You will get your discharge before the case is over except if you make a mistake, like neglecting to file your debtor education certificate. A discharge is an order from the bankruptcy court that says certain debts, such as credit card debts, medical bills, utility bills, and more, are no longer due.
      But the discharge order does not mean that the case is closed. Your  bankruptcy case will stay open until other aspects are finished, which may be in a few days, a few months, or even a year. Here’s what happens in Chapter 7.

      • Most Chapter 7 filers get their debts forgiven about 60 days after the 341 meeting as long as there are no assets or litigation involved. If you did not lose any property in the bankruptcy and the court does not have to deal with a motion or a lawsuit, it will close your case a few days later with a “final decree.”
      • If someone objects to your discharge in a Chapter 7 case that involves assets or a lawsuit, it could take longer to have your discharge. Even if you get the discharge to be released within a few months, the case won’t be closed until the bankruptcy trustee sells property and pays creditors, and until the court settles any lawsuits. When the court is ready to close the case, you will receive the final decree.

      After you get a bankruptcy discharge, you still have to take care of things
      After the court gives you a discharge, complicated bankruptcy cases that involve big property sales or existing lawsuits termed “adversary proceedings” stay open for a long time. The court will not close your case until the bankruptcy trustee has taken care of all the property in the bankruptcy estate and filed a final accounting.
      Here’s the catch: you have to work willingly with the trustee until the court closes your case. Among the things you may have to do are:

      • surrendering property that a bankruptcy exemption couldn’t protect
      • responding to discover or showing up at a 2004 examination (a type of investigation), or
      • testifying or defending yourself in a motion hearing or an adversary proceeding

      When Your Bankruptcy Case Will Be Closed By The Court
      Chapter 7 cases involving assets that are hard-to-sell, like real estate, or cases that involve fraud litigation tend to stay open for a long time.
      Chapter 7 cases that don’t have any of these problems usually end in four months.
      Reopening Your Closed Bankruptcy Case After It Has Already Been Closed
      The court can be asked to reopen your bankruptcy case by you, the trustee, or your creditors. However,  why would anyone want to open it back up again?
      You may want to reopen it if you mistakenly neglected to include a debt in your list or when a creditor is breaking the terms of your discharge. In these situations, you could request the court to look at your case again and deal with these issues.
      Or, let’s say that someone thinks that you lied on your bankruptcy papers or didn’t list all of your assets. The court could look at your claim again and, if needed, tell the trustee how to handle those assets. Even worse, the court could take away your discharge. 
      Bankruptcy Lawyer In Oregon (Portland, Salem, Medford)
      Bankruptcy law is unique in that it is largely a process of qualifying. The laws tell you how to fill out 50-60-pages of a bankruptcy petition, and you cannot skip a step because all rules apply in each and every case.
      The steps to filing bankruptcy are long and complicated. You may be unsure of which among your assets are safe to retain, how to fill out the documents, or even how to begin the process. Only with the right bankruptcy lawyer can this stress and confusion be taken away, making a hard process easier to handle.
      The Northwest Debt Relief Law Firm is a special kind of bankruptcy law firm. If you need help getting a fresh financial start, our Portland bankruptcy lawyers are available to guide you through the entire bankruptcy process. For us, bankruptcy is only the first step in helping you get out of debt completely. Every client gets a full set of services, which includes:

      • a one-time free consultation with an experienced bankruptcy lawyer, not a paralegal, without you having to come to our office
      • Personalized legal fees based on how hard your case is. There is no “one size fits all” solution to your debt problems.
      • Payment plans can be changed to fit your needs.
      • Stop creditor harassment immediately by contacting debt collectors within 48 hours to inform them that they are not allowed to contact you about your debts and that any communications must be done through our office.
      • You can make unlimited emails and phone calls to get your questions answered.
      • You have 100% secure online access to your case information so you can get useful information 24/7. We’re the 1st law firm that can do so much for you without you having to leave your chair.
      • You will get full legal representation in court, never having to go it alone.
      • After your bankruptcy case is over, you can get free updates to your credit report.
      • Lifetime support for any questions or problems that come up with your case, FOR FREE.

      So, if you or a loved one are in need of the most comprehensive debt relief solutions around in Oregon, simply pick up the phone and give us a call at any time, 7 days a week.
      .fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-0{width:100% !important;margin-top : 0px;margin-bottom : 20px;}.fusion-builder-column-0 > .fusion-column-wrapper {padding-top : 0px !important;padding-right : 0px !important;margin-right : 1.92%;padding-bottom : 0px !important;padding-left : 0px !important;margin-left : 1.92%;}@media only screen and (max-width:1024px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-0{width:100% !important;order : 0;}.fusion-builder-column-0 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 1.92%;margin-left : 1.92%;}}@media only screen and (max-width:850px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-0{width:100% !important;order : 0;}.fusion-builder-column-0 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 1.92%;margin-left : 1.92%;}}.fusion-body .fusion-flex-container.fusion-builder-row-1{ padding-top : 0px;margin-top : 0px;padding-right : 0px;padding-bottom : 0px;margin-bottom : 0px;padding-left : 0px;}
      The post When Does My Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case End In Oregon? appeared first on Portland Bankruptcy Attorney | Northwest Debt Relief Law Firm.


      1 week 2 days ago

       Many of the readers of our email newsletters and blogs are aware that Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code was implemented to help small businesses reorganize quicker and cheaper. Debt limits for Subchapter V bankruptcy filings are currently $2,725,625 limit, but pending legislation will soon raise it to $7,500,000.00.In these challenging economic times, Subchapter V may be a very helpful tool to help businesses reorganize.A recent Fourth Circuit case, In re Cleary Packaging, LLC, 2022 WL 2032296 (4th Cir. June 7, 2022),  clarifies which exceptions to discharge apply to business SubV debtors. Cantwell-Cleary Co., Inc. obtained a $4 million state court judgment against Cleary Packaging, LLC, a company formed by Cantwell-Cleary's former president and CEO. A state court action alleged intentional interference with contracts, tortious interference with business relations, and related claims.As a result of the judgment, Cleary Packaging filed for bankruptcy  under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, electing to proceed under Subchapter V. In its bankruptcy plan, Cleary Packaging proposed to pay Cantwell-Cleary only 2.98% of its judgment, with the remainder of the debt to be discharged. Cantwell-Cleary filed an adversary proceeding seeking a determination that the state court judgment was a debt resulting from "willful and malicious injury" that was not dischargeable under Sections 1192 and 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. Interestingly the bankruptcy court dismissed Cantwell-Cleary’s adversary proceeding, holding that the discharge exceptions in § 523(a) do not apply to corporate debtors. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit addressed the issue of  whether Cleary Packaging, as a Subchapter V corporate debtor, can discharge its $4 million debt to Cantwell-Cleary “for willful and malicious injury.”The Fourth Circuit reversed the Bankruptcy Court and held that the discharge exceptions in section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code apply to corporate debtors in Subchapter V cases where the debtor does not confirm a consensual plan.The Fourth Circuit decision is the first to address the question of what exceptions to discharge apply in cases under Subchapter V. A more detailed article discussing the In re Cleary Packaging can be found at National Review.com at https://www.natlawreview.com/article/fourth-circuit-decision-clarifies-application-exceptions-to-discharge-subchapter-vIndividuals with questions about Subchapter V can contact Jim Shenwick, Esq at 212 541 6224 or [email protected] 


      1 week 2 days ago

      bible on layoff notice
      RELIGION AND BANKRUPTCY
      Bankruptcy has its roots in religion. No one should avoid dealing with debt because of misunderstandings about religious or ethical considerations. It is NOT shameful to seek relief from crushing debt!
      …Forgive Us Our Debts…
      by O. Max Gardner, Attorney at Law
      Dalton Camp proclaimed several years ago that, “having lost its value, money may no longer be the root of all evil; credit having taken its place.” This statement demonstrates the paradox of modern day religion and debt—should our reaction be one of condemnation or one of compassion? Since many recent respected studies have shown that the average American family is only three weeks away from personal bankruptcy, and new legislation that will deny bankruptcy relief to hundreds of thousands of American families is now the law [as of 2005], it is time to revisit what the Bible teaches us about debt.
      The Bible makes it clear that people are generally expected to pay their debts. Leviticus 25:39. No one will — or should — advance any argument against this general proposition. However, this moral and legal obligation to pay just debts must be balanced by such considerations as the need for compassion and the call to cancel debts at periodic intervals. The Biblical basis for such considerations is based on the sabbatical and Jubilee years. The secular basis arises out of the Constitutional [provision] that Congress [may] enact uniform laws allowing businesses and consumers to cancel and to restructure debt obligations. This Biblical support for the legal right to cancel debt is enforced by the even stronger Biblical doctrine that prohibited interest of any amount rather than just usury or excessive interest.
      Book of Deuteronomy - 15Within the areas of economic justice and stability, the Old Testament is replete with examples of compassionate treatment of the poor, and with preservation of the family unit. These goals were superior to the material concerns of repayment of debt. For instance, Deuteronomy 15:7-10 is particularly forceful. It provides as follows: “If there is a poor man among your brothers . . . do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be open-handed and freely lend him whatever he needs. Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: ‘The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,’ so that you show ill toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hands to.”
      The cancellation of debt in the Old Testament was accomplished at legislated intervals. Deuteronomy 15:1-2 clearly provides for such legislative release with the following language: “At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor, his brother, because the Lord’s release has been proclaimed”. Under this Biblical model, the debtors’ payment or non-payment of debts was not in question. The debtors may or may not have been culpable for their debts. It was a strict model with no “means test” or detailed analysis of every debt.[1] And, while Old Testament lenders were admonished to be merciful, debts were canceled every seven years whether they liked it or not. The Old Testament model can therefore be legitimately applied to modern day bankruptcy laws. The principle is that, while taken seriously, debt can be canceled to achieve some higher purpose—such as the preservation of the family unit. It also should be noted that Deuteronomy 15:12-13 provides that slaves should be freed every seven years creating an interesting analogy between the creditor-debtor and the master-servant relationship.
      The Bible on Interest
      The Biblical use of the term “usury” corresponds to our modern word interest rather than to the notion of “excessive interest” to which we generally apply the term usury today. Only a small number of us would seriously question the morality of profiting from a loan at normal interest rates. However, the Talmud quotes an ancient rabbi as saying: “It is better to sell your daughter into slavery than to borrow money on interest.” The Lord only knows what this same rabbi would say today if confronted with credit cards bearing interest rates of 34.99% and higher and with some “pay day” lenders demanding annual rates in excess of 2,000%.
      The Biblical doctrine of usury rests primarily on three texts: Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:35; and Deuteronomy 23:19-20. Exodus and Leviticus prohibit loans of money or food with interest to a needy brother or sister or even a resident alien. Deuteronomy forbids taking interest from any person. Other Books of the Bible underline the importance of this prohibition on interest. For example, Psalm 15:5 characterizes a righteous man as one who, among other things, “lends his money without usury.” Both Ezekiel 22:12 and Nehemiah 5:0-11 condemn lending money with interest, especially to the poor. And Ezekiel 18:13 list the taking of interest among sins worthy of death.
      The prohibition on interest is based on God’s covenant with Israel. The rule is founded upon the compassionate treatment of various oppressed groups: the resident alien; the widow; the orphans; and the poor. Exodus 22:25-27 states the law in explicit terms: “If you lend to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like the money lender; charge him no interest. If you take your neighbor’s cloak as a pledge, return it to him by sunset, because his cloak is the only covering he has for his body. What else will he sleep on? When he cries out to me, I will hear, for I am companionate.” Leviticus 25:35-37 provides that “If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so that he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at profit.” Finally, Deuteronomy 23:19-20 provides: “Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest.”
      Jesus driving money changers out of the TempleJesus clearly had these Biblical principles in mind when he admonished the “money changers” and removed them from God’s house, the sacred Temple. In John 2:14 Jesus “poured out the changers of money and overthrew the tables”. Jesus, in fact, was always true to the principles underlying usury and debt forgiveness and the notion of the importance of placing love and compassion above greed and wealth. In Luke 6:34-35 Jesus said: “And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies and, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish.” The followers of Jesus were to be concerned with the welfare of others, even when met with hatred and abuse.
      The consistent teaching of both the Old and New Testaments is that compassion, mercy and justice are to override purely economic concerns, such as loans. Religious people are to be gracious to all, even debtors. Jesus said that God does cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust, and in Mark 10:25 he said that “[i]t is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter in to the kingdom of God”. And in Luke 16:9 he said: “I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings”, and to “forgive and ye shall be forgiven” Luke 6:37.
      The compassion of the scriptures, including the setting aside of legitimate rights of lenders, was typical of economic relationships in the economy of early Judeo-Christian societies. The central theme is one of stability—a stable society with a guarantee of economic security to each family. Wealth was viewed as a blessing from God (Deuteronomy 8:11-18, 28). This blessing resulted from obedience and was based on God’s compassion. The tithing for the poor, the gleaning laws, the year of the Jubilee, were all tangible ways that Israelites could show compassion for each other and honor God by following His law. Beyond income-maintenance programs, the Biblical Law provided a permanent mechanism—such as the Sabbatical year and Jubilee—to ensure that temporary misfortune barred no family from full participation in economic life.
      The New Bankruptcy Law
      The current bankruptcy law passed by Congress and signed into law by the President in 2005 lacks any compassion for the poor, makes no redress to the modern day money changers who shamelessly peddle plastic at rates that would draw the Holy wrath of God himself; provides no relief but only additional misery to the families saddled with thousands of dollars in medical bills; and most importantly severely undermines the economic and social stability of the average American family. These Americans are like the farmers of the Old Testament who proclaimed to King Nehemiah, “We have had to borrow money to pay the king’s tax on our fields and vineyards. Although we are of the same flesh and blood as our countrymen and though our sons are as good as theirs, yet we have to subject our sons and daughters to slavery. Some of our daughters have already been enslaved, but we are powerless, because our fields and our vineyards belong to others”. Nehemiah 5:3-5. Nehemiah responded to his people and ordered to “let the extracting of usury stop! Give back to them immediately their fields, vineyards, olive groves, and houses and also the usury you are charging them…”. Nehemiah 5:11. It is time for our elected Representatives in Washington to follow the example of the Holy Scriptures and to respond in kind by repealing the current Bankruptcy Bill and by not taking away power from the powerless and eliminating relief for the suffering.
      Based on an article by O. Max Gardner, III, Esquire
      ([email protected])
      Used with permission.
      [1] This passage is similar to many other Old Testament commandments including Deuteronomy 5:17’s “Thou shall not kill” which provides no specifics and creates no hierarchy of culpability.

      .fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-0{width:100% !important;margin-top : 0px;margin-bottom : 20px;}.fusion-builder-column-0 > .fusion-column-wrapper {padding-top : 20 !important;padding-right : 20 !important;margin-right : 1.92%;padding-bottom : 20 !important;padding-left : 20 !important;margin-left : 1.92%;}@media only screen and (max-width:980px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-0{width:100% !important;order : 0;}.fusion-builder-column-0 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 1.92%;margin-left : 1.92%;}}@media only screen and (max-width:640px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-0{width:100% !important;order : 0;}.fusion-builder-column-0 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 1.92%;margin-left : 1.92%;}}.fusion-body .fusion-flex-container.fusion-builder-row-1{ padding-top : 10px;margin-top : 20px;padding-right : 10px;padding-bottom : 0px;margin-bottom : 15px;padding-left : 10px;}.fusion-imageframe.imageframe-1{ margin-top : 15px;margin-left : 15px;}Knowledge is Power -light shining on a book.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-1{width:25% !important;margin-top : 0px;margin-bottom : 20px;}.fusion-builder-column-1 > .fusion-column-wrapper {padding-top : 0px !important;padding-right : 0px !important;margin-right : 10px;padding-bottom : 0px !important;padding-left : 0px !important;margin-left : 10px;}@media only screen and (max-width:980px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-1{width:100% !important;order : 0;}.fusion-builder-column-1 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 10px;margin-left : 10px;}}@media only screen and (max-width:640px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-1{width:100% !important;order : 0;}.fusion-builder-column-1 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 10px;margin-left : 10px;}}

      .fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-2{width:75% !important;margin-top : 0px;margin-bottom : 20px;}.fusion-builder-column-2 > .fusion-column-wrapper {padding-top : 0px !important;padding-right : 15px !important;margin-right : 10px;padding-bottom : 0px !important;padding-left : 15px !important;margin-left : 10px;}@media only screen and (max-width:980px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-2{width:100% !important;order : 0;}.fusion-builder-column-2 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 10px;margin-left : 10px;}}@media only screen and (max-width:640px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-2{width:100% !important;order : 0;}.fusion-builder-column-2 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 10px;margin-left : 10px;}}.fusion-body .fusion-flex-container.fusion-builder-row-2{ padding-top : 10px;margin-top : 20px;padding-right : 10px;padding-bottom : 0px;margin-bottom : 15px;padding-left : 10px;}.fusion-body .fusion-flex-container.fusion-builder-row-3{ padding-top : 0px;margin-top : 0px;padding-right : 30px;padding-bottom : 20px;margin-bottom : 0px;padding-left : 30px;}

      The post Forgive Us Our Debts appeared first on Law Office of D.L. Drain, P.A., Arizona Bankruptcy Lawyer.


      5 days 11 hours ago

      The United States District Court of the Northern District of Florida landmark decision in Brenner, et al. v. Scott, etc., 999 F.Supp. 2d 1278 (2014), regarding the constitutionality of Florida's restrictions on marriage, makes reference to a U.S. Supreme Court case that was disposed of by  "summary disposition."  The Court stated that US Supreme Court “summary dispositions” bind lower federal courts – unless “doctrinal developments in the Supreme Court undermine the decision.” Aspects of summary disposition are addressed in Alex Hemmer's 2013 informative article, Courts as Managers: American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock and Summary Disposition at the Roberts Court, 122 Yale L.J. Online 209 (2013). 
      Summary Dispositions
      "Summary dispositions" are provided for by Supreme Court Rule 16 which provides for the "disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari." It provides that after the Court considers the certiorari briefs (which are shorter than the later full merits briefs), it "will enter an appropriate order" and that the "order may be a summary disposition on the merits."

      Hemmer notes that this rule does not explain what a summary disposition is, when or  why such an order is appropriate, and what precedential value it holds. He explains that such "questions are left to the Court to work out in practice" and that summary disposition orders play an "ambiguous role" and have "amorphous boundaries."

      Three Types of Summary Dispositions
      Hemmer explains that "[o]ver the past forty years, the Court has relied on three common, if controversial, forms of summary disposition" as follows:

      • summary orders, granting the certiorari petition and affirming or reversing the judgment without explanation (generally per curiam - "by the Court" or unsigned) 
      • summary opinions, granting the certiorari petition and affirming or reversing the judgment with an explanation, usually with a brief discussion of the facts and issues involved (generally per curiam) 
      • reconsideration orders - "grant, vacate, and remand" ("GVR"), court grants the certiorari petition, vacates the judgment below and remands the case to the lower court for "reconsideration". 

      Merits or Non-Merits DecisionsProfessor Vikram Amar explains in a blog post, that these summary dispositions,  are based "merely on the certiorari-stage briefs, without the benefit of arguments or merits briefings." But he addes that some types of summary dispositions do reach the merits of the appeal. 
      Amran explains that in GVR dispositions, the Court "is formally not weighing in on the merits but merely giving the lower court a first opportunity to apply the intervening decision." But that the some types of summary dispositions do reach the merits of the appeal. Hemmer reviews that technically a GVR does "not amount to a final determination on the merits" but rather merely indicates that the Court believes that upon reconsideration, there is a "reasonable probability" that the lower court would reject a legal premise upon which it relied.
      Summary Disposition in the Warren, Burger, and Robert CourtsHemmer reviews the extent and nature of summary disposition used in the Warren Court (alot of summary dispositions with little explanation), the Burger Court (little summary orders, alot of GVRs), and the present Roberts Court (use of summary orders and GVR, but with expansion of use in a managerial capacity).   Hemmer opines that the Roberts Court's expansion of use is not only where the decision below did not rely on changed legal premises or present clear error but for the court below to "consider arguments or case law that they could have relief on but did not"- that is "in search of errors."  He notes Justice Scalia's lack of favor of such practice - "GVR-in-light-of-nothing."  
      Capacities of Appellate CourtsHemmer and the authors he references explain that generally courts of appeals can have two capacities: "a lawmaking capacity in which they" "announce, clarify, and harmonizes the rules of decisions" and "an error-correcting capacity, in which they" "determine if prejudicial errors were committed" in "applying those rules to facts."  
      Hemmer cites an author who stated that the Supreme Court "is not, and has never been, primarily concerned with the correction of errors in lower court decisions."  Hemmer questions the suitability of "summary opinions" for "making law""because they are not the products of merits briefing and oral argument." Hemmer argues that the best way to understand "summary dispositions" (and the way the Roberts Court does understand it), is as a "tool to manage and oversee the docket of the lower court" and to ensure that the "lower-court decision takes account of intervening precedent without the Court spending its own time and energy on cases that pose similar issues." Hemmer opines that in this manner, the Court acts in a "managerial capacity" rather than in a "lawmaking" or "error-correcting capacity." 
      Precendential Value and Limitations on UsageIn Hardwick v. Bowers, 706 F.2d 1202 (11th Cir. 1985), the Court cited the general rule of Hick v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975) that a "summary affirmance of the Supreme Court has binding precedential effect." 
      Limitations on the Scope: Judgment Distinguished from ReasoningBut the Court in Hick also held that if the summary disposition lacks an explanation of its reasons, its "holding must be carefully limited." The Hardwick  Court stated that although a summary affirmance "represents an approval by the Supreme Court of the judgment below but should not be taken as an endorsement of the reasoning of the lower court" and that "finding the precise limits of a summary affirmance has proven to be no easy task." The Harwick Court  explains that a court "seeking to identify the issues governed by a summary affirmance should examine the issues necessarily decided in reaching the result as well as in the jurisdictional statement" and cited another Supreme Court case that held that a summary affirmance is binding only to the "precise issues presented and necessarily decided." 
      "Subsequent Developments" that "Undermine" Precedential ValueThe Hardwick Court also reviewed that a "summary disposition binds lower court only until the Supreme Court indicates otherwise" but "developments subsequent " subsequent to a summary disposition" may "undermine whatever controlling weight it once may have possessed." 
      Hardwick reviews that "[d]octrinal developments need not take the form of an outright reversal of the earlier case. The Supreme Court may indicate its willingness to reverse or reconsider a prior opinion with such clarity that a lower court may property refuse to follow what appears to be binding precedent."  The Court further states that "[e]ven less clear-cut expressions by the Supreme Court can erode an earlier summary disposition because summary actions by the Court do not carry the full precedential weight of a decision announced in a written opinion after consideration of briefs and oral argument." 

      Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com


      5 days 11 hours ago

      The United States District Court of the Northern District of Florida landmark decision in Brenner, et al. v. Scott, etc., 999 F.Supp. 2d 1278 (2014), regarding the constitutionality of Florida's restrictions on marriage, makes reference to a U.S. Supreme Court case that was disposed of by  "summary disposition."  The Court stated that US Supreme Court “summary dispositions” bind lower federal courts – unless “doctrinal developments in the Supreme Court undermine the decision.” Aspects of summary disposition are addressed in Alex Hemmer's 2013 informative article, Courts as Managers: American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock and Summary Disposition at the Roberts Court, 122 Yale L.J. Online 209 (2013). 
      Summary Dispositions
      "Summary dispositions" are provided for by Supreme Court Rule 16 which provides for the "disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari." It provides that after the Court considers the certiorari briefs (which are shorter than the later full merits briefs), it "will enter an appropriate order" and that the "order may be a summary disposition on the merits."

      Hemmer notes that this rule does not explain what a summary disposition is, when or  why such an order is appropriate, and what precedential value it holds. He explains that such "questions are left to the Court to work out in practice" and that summary disposition orders play an "ambiguous role" and have "amorphous boundaries."

      Three Types of Summary Dispositions
      Hemmer explains that "[o]ver the past forty years, the Court has relied on three common, if controversial, forms of summary disposition" as follows:

      • summary orders, granting the certiorari petition and affirming or reversing the judgment without explanation (generally per curiam - "by the Court" or unsigned) 
      • summary opinions, granting the certiorari petition and affirming or reversing the judgment with an explanation, usually with a brief discussion of the facts and issues involved (generally per curiam) 
      • reconsideration orders - "grant, vacate, and remand" ("GVR"), court grants the certiorari petition, vacates the judgment below and remands the case to the lower court for "reconsideration". 

      Merits or Non-Merits DecisionsProfessor Vikram Amar explains in a blog post, that these summary dispositions,  are based "merely on the certiorari-stage briefs, without the benefit of arguments or merits briefings." But he addes that some types of summary dispositions do reach the merits of the appeal. 
      Amran explains that in GVR dispositions, the Court "is formally not weighing in on the merits but merely giving the lower court a first opportunity to apply the intervening decision." But that the some types of summary dispositions do reach the merits of the appeal. Hemmer reviews that technically a GVR does "not amount to a final determination on the merits" but rather merely indicates that the Court believes that upon reconsideration, there is a "reasonable probability" that the lower court would reject a legal premise upon which it relied.
      Summary Disposition in the Warren, Burger, and Robert CourtsHemmer reviews the extent and nature of summary disposition used in the Warren Court (alot of summary dispositions with little explanation), the Burger Court (little summary orders, alot of GVRs), and the present Roberts Court (use of summary orders and GVR, but with expansion of use in a managerial capacity).   Hemmer opines that the Roberts Court's expansion of use is not only where the decision below did not rely on changed legal premises or present clear error but for the court below to "consider arguments or case law that they could have relief on but did not"- that is "in search of errors."  He notes Justice Scalia's lack of favor of such practice - "GVR-in-light-of-nothing."  
      Capacities of Appellate CourtsHemmer and the authors he references explain that generally courts of appeals can have two capacities: "a lawmaking capacity in which they" "announce, clarify, and harmonizes the rules of decisions" and "an error-correcting capacity, in which they" "determine if prejudicial errors were committed" in "applying those rules to facts."  
      Hemmer cites an author who stated that the Supreme Court "is not, and has never been, primarily concerned with the correction of errors in lower court decisions."  Hemmer questions the suitability of "summary opinions" for "making law""because they are not the products of merits briefing and oral argument." Hemmer argues that the best way to understand "summary dispositions" (and the way the Roberts Court does understand it), is as a "tool to manage and oversee the docket of the lower court" and to ensure that the "lower-court decision takes account of intervening precedent without the Court spending its own time and energy on cases that pose similar issues." Hemmer opines that in this manner, the Court acts in a "managerial capacity" rather than in a "lawmaking" or "error-correcting capacity." 
      Precendential Value and Limitations on UsageIn Hardwick v. Bowers, 706 F.2d 1202 (11th Cir. 1985), the Court cited the general rule of Hick v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975) that a "summary affirmance of the Supreme Court has binding precedential effect." 
      Limitations on the Scope: Judgment Distinguished from ReasoningBut the Court in Hick also held that if the summary disposition lacks an explanation of its reasons, its "holding must be carefully limited." The Hardwick  Court stated that although a summary affirmance "represents an approval by the Supreme Court of the judgment below but should not be taken as an endorsement of the reasoning of the lower court" and that "finding the precise limits of a summary affirmance has proven to be no easy task." The Harwick Court  explains that a court "seeking to identify the issues governed by a summary affirmance should examine the issues necessarily decided in reaching the result as well as in the jurisdictional statement" and cited another Supreme Court case that held that a summary affirmance is binding only to the "precise issues presented and necessarily decided." 
      "Subsequent Developments" that "Undermine" Precedential ValueThe Hardwick Court also reviewed that a "summary disposition binds lower court only until the Supreme Court indicates otherwise" but "developments subsequent " subsequent to a summary disposition" may "undermine whatever controlling weight it once may have possessed." 
      Hardwick reviews that "[d]octrinal developments need not take the form of an outright reversal of the earlier case. The Supreme Court may indicate its willingness to reverse or reconsider a prior opinion with such clarity that a lower court may property refuse to follow what appears to be binding precedent."  The Court further states that "[e]ven less clear-cut expressions by the Supreme Court can erode an earlier summary disposition because summary actions by the Court do not carry the full precedential weight of a decision announced in a written opinion after consideration of briefs and oral argument." 

      Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com


      1 week 2 days ago

      devil with debt relief contract, blood dripping from pen
      Usury – historical references and bankruptcy
      USURY can be traced back 4,000 years.  It has always been despised, condemned, restricted or banned by moral, ethical, legal or religious entities. The oldest references to usury are found in religious manuscripts of India, dating back to 2000-1400 BC where the ‘usurer’ is associated with any interest lender. In the Hindu Sutra (700-100 BC) as well as in the Buddhist Jatakas (600-400 BC) there are many references to the payment of interest, along with expressions of disdain for the practice. Vasishtha, a prominent lawmaker of the era, drafted a law that banned the high caste Brahmans and Kshatryas from being usurers or money-lenders. In the second century AD, the term usury becomes relative, meaning that interest above the legal rate could not be charged; that would be a usurious loan.

      No one wants to file bankruptcy. Having said that, and in order to protect your health and peace of mind, along with that of your family, bankruptcy may be your only option.
      Very few of us have the ability to completely control the financial part of our lives. Companies fail, jobs are lost, people get sick and families are broken.
      The creditors are happy to give everyone credit, whether or not they qualify.
      gluttonous pig in barrel surrounded by foodThese creditors have no regard for the individual’s ability to repay the credit. In fact, they want the borrower to be late because  the creditor makes more money from a default or overdraft of a credit limit or bank account. As a result, that creditor is betting that they will earn more in interest, penalties, and additional charges from borrowers than they will lose as a result of bankruptcy. They are hedging their bets by issuing as much credit as everyone’s mail and email boxes can handle.
      Those same creditors will not work with a borrower who is experiencing financial difficulties.

      man fondling money, yelling

      That creditor doesn’t care if the borrower has never been late.  They use various methods to ensure that the payment is late, such as changing the date or time the payment is due, changing the location where the payment is made, or refusing to accept a payment because they know that 98 percent of all borrowers will simply pay the late fee rather than argue. That creditor only wants “their money.” If you don’t believe me, ask their collection agents. Today, it is extremely rare for a creditor to be loyal to their customers.
      You must make educated decisions about what is best for you and your family.
      The first step is to seek professional advice on your options. Please contact us for a free consultation.

      .fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-0{width:100% !important;margin-top : 0px;margin-bottom : 20px;}.fusion-builder-column-0 > .fusion-column-wrapper {padding-top : 0px !important;padding-right : 0px !important;margin-right : 1.92%;padding-bottom : 0px !important;padding-left : 0px !important;margin-left : 1.92%;}@media only screen and (max-width:980px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-0{width:100% !important;}.fusion-builder-column-0 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 1.92%;margin-left : 1.92%;}}@media only screen and (max-width:640px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-0{width:100% !important;}.fusion-builder-column-0 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 1.92%;margin-left : 1.92%;}}.fusion-body .fusion-flex-container.fusion-builder-row-1{ padding-top : 20px;margin-top : 20px;padding-right : 20px;padding-bottom : 20px;margin-bottom : 0px;padding-left : 20px;}@media only screen and (max-width:980px) {.fusion-title.fusion-title-1{margin-top:10px!important; margin-right:0px!important;margin-bottom:15px!important;margin-left:0px!important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:640px) {.fusion-title.fusion-title-1{margin-top:10px!important; margin-right:0px!important;margin-bottom:10px!important; margin-left:0px!important;}}Arizona Bankruptcy [email protected] only screen and (max-width:980px) {.fusion-title.fusion-title-2{margin-top:10px!important; margin-right:0px!important;margin-bottom:15px!important;margin-left:0px!important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:640px) {.fusion-title.fusion-title-2{margin-top:10px!important; margin-right:0px!important;margin-bottom:10px!important; margin-left:0px!important;}}Law Office of D.L. Drain, P.A.Diane L. Drain - Bankruptcy LawyerWHY SHOULD YOU HIRE ME?
      Filing for bankruptcy can be a difficult process. As a well-known bankruptcy attorney, I am here for you and dedicated to treating you with dignity – you are never just a number and a paycheck. Instead, you are an individual with distinct needs. I am committed to assisting you in helping yourself during this difficult time in your life. If bankruptcy is required, it is not the end of your financial life; rather, it is the start of your financial freedom. But when done incorrectly, it is the start of a nightmare. Please contact me (a retired law professor) for a free bankruptcy consultation before deciding on the best path to protect you and your assets.
      @media only screen and (max-width:980px) {.fusion-title.fusion-title-3{margin-top:10px!important; margin-right:0px!important;margin-bottom:15px!important;margin-left:0px!important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:640px) {.fusion-title.fusion-title-3{margin-top:10px!important; margin-right:0px!important;margin-bottom:10px!important; margin-left:0px!important;}}– Diane L. Drain  Knowledge dispels fear”.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-1.button-3d,.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-1.button-3d:hover{box-shadow:inset 0 1px 0 #fff, 0 0.15em 0 #003d00, 0.1em 0.2em 0.2em 0.15em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);}.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-1.button-3d:active,.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-1.button-3d:hover:active{box-shadow:inset 0 1px 0 #fff, 0 1px 0 #003d00, 0.05em 0.1em 0.1em 0.07em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);}.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-1{border-color:#003d00;border-width:6px 6px 6px 6px;border-radius:2px 2px 2px 2px;background:rgba(255,255,255,0);}.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-1 .fusion-button-text,.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-1 i,.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-1:hover .fusion-button-text,.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-1:hover i,.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-1:focus .fusion-button-text,.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-1:focus i,.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-1:active .fusion-button-text,.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-1:active i{color:#003d00;}.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-1:hover,.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-1:active,.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-1:focus{border-color:#003d00;border-width:6px 6px 6px 6px;background:rgba(255,255,255,0);}Read More About Diane.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-1{width:75% !important;margin-top : 0px;margin-bottom : 20px;}.fusion-builder-column-1 > .fusion-column-wrapper {padding-top : 0px !important;padding-right : 0px !important;margin-right : 2.56%;padding-bottom : 0px !important;padding-left : 0px !important;margin-left : 2.56%;}@media only screen and (max-width:980px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-1{width:100% !important;order : 0;}.fusion-builder-column-1 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 1.92%;margin-left : 1.92%;}}@media only screen and (max-width:640px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-1{width:100% !important;order : 0;}.fusion-builder-column-1 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 1.92%;margin-left : 1.92%;}}a couple crossing a very high bridge.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-2.button-3d,.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-2.button-3d:hover{box-shadow:inset 0 1px 0 #fff, 0 0.15em 0 #003d00, 0.1em 0.2em 0.2em 0.15em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);}.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-2.button-3d:active,.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-2.button-3d:hover:active{box-shadow:inset 0 1px 0 #fff, 0 1px 0 #003d00, 0.05em 0.1em 0.1em 0.07em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);}.fusion-body .fusion-button.button-2{border-radius:10px 10px 10px 10px;}BANKRUPTCY HELP.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-2{width:25% !important;margin-top : 27px;margin-bottom : 0px;}.fusion-builder-column-2 > .fusion-column-wrapper {padding-top : 0px !important;padding-right : 0px !important;margin-right : 7.68%;padding-bottom : 0px !important;padding-left : 0px !important;margin-left : 7.68%;}@media only screen and (max-width:980px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-2{width:100% !important;order : 0;}.fusion-builder-column-2 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 1.92%;margin-left : 1.92%;}}@media only screen and (max-width:640px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-2{width:100% !important;order : 0;}.fusion-builder-column-2 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 1.92%;margin-left : 1.92%;}}.fusion-body .fusion-flex-container.fusion-builder-row-2{ padding-top : 20px;margin-top : 0px;padding-right : 40px;padding-bottom : 20px;margin-bottom : 0px;padding-left : 0px;}.fusion-imageframe.imageframe-2{ margin-top : 15px;margin-left : 15px;}Knowledge is Power -light shining on a book.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-3{width:25% !important;margin-top : 0px;margin-bottom : 20px;}.fusion-builder-column-3 > .fusion-column-wrapper {padding-top : 0px !important;padding-right : 0px !important;margin-right : 10px;padding-bottom : 0px !important;padding-left : 0px !important;margin-left : 10px;}@media only screen and (max-width:980px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-3{width:100% !important;order : 0;}.fusion-builder-column-3 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 10px;margin-left : 10px;}}@media only screen and (max-width:640px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-3{width:100% !important;order : 0;}.fusion-builder-column-3 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 10px;margin-left : 10px;}}

      .fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-4{width:75% !important;margin-top : 0px;margin-bottom : 20px;}.fusion-builder-column-4 > .fusion-column-wrapper {padding-top : 0px !important;padding-right : 15px !important;margin-right : 10px;padding-bottom : 0px !important;padding-left : 15px !important;margin-left : 10px;}@media only screen and (max-width:980px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-4{width:100% !important;order : 0;}.fusion-builder-column-4 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 10px;margin-left : 10px;}}@media only screen and (max-width:640px) {.fusion-body .fusion-builder-column-4{width:100% !important;order : 0;}.fusion-builder-column-4 > .fusion-column-wrapper {margin-right : 10px;margin-left : 10px;}}.fusion-body .fusion-flex-container.fusion-builder-row-3{ padding-top : 10px;margin-top : 5;padding-right : 0px;padding-bottom : 10px;margin-bottom : 20px;padding-left : 0px;}
      The post Usury – historical references and bankruptcy appeared first on Law Office of D.L. Drain, P.A., Arizona Bankruptcy Lawyer.


      1 week 4 days ago

       The Fourth Circuit’s recent decision In re Cleary Packaging, LLC, 2022 WL 2032296 (4th Cir. June 7, 2022) holds that in certain Subchapter V cases the statutory exceptions to the bankruptcy discharge will apply to corporate debtors. An article at National Review explains generally, in a traditional Chapter 11, exceptions to discharge for corporate debtors are more limited if the corporation is not liquidating. "Based on the Fourth Circuit’s decision in In re Cleary Packaging, LLC, Subchapter V includes broader exceptions to discharge for a debtor that cannot confirm a consensual plan, including claims against corporate debtors for certain types of fraud and other willful and malicious injuries." The article can be found at https://lnkd.in/g6i2vEbFJim Shenwick, Esq 212 541 6224 [email protected]


      Pages