Blogs

3 years 10 months ago

WARNING - READ THIS FIRST I provide legal advice and representation in debt collection lawsuits only for residents of New York and California. If you live in any other state aside from California or New York, I will not speak with you about any a debt collection lawsuit or judgment that was Read the article
The post Defeat LVNV Funding Lawsuits With These Magic Words appeared first on Shaev & Fleischman P.C..


8 years 5 months ago

In the case of Susan G. Brown v. Douglas Ellmann [1], the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the “Sixth Circuit”) recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision to deny a Chapter 7 debtor’s proposed exemptions for the value of redemption rights she enjoyed under Michigan law related to the sale of a property she surrendered to the bankruptcy estate. [1] Case No. 16-1967 (6th Cir., March 20, 2017). Read More ›
Tags: 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Chapter 7


7 years 10 months ago

In the case of Susan G. Brown v. Douglas Ellmann [1], the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the “Sixth Circuit”) recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision to deny a Chapter 7 debtor’s proposed exemptions for the value of redemption rights she enjoyed under Michigan law related to the sale of a property she surrendered to the bankruptcy estate. [1] Case No. 16-1967 (6th Cir., March 20, 2017). Read More ›
Tags: 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Chapter 7


8 years 3 months ago

tax debt collectionDebt Collectors abusive shakedown
April, 2017 – according an article in the New York Times, Congress instructed the Internal Revenue Service is going to use private debt-collection companies to collect overdue payments from taxpayers, despite this idea being a complete failure in 1996 and again in 2006.  This new provision was buried in a $305 billion highway funding bill – a great place to hide a significant change in the IRS tax debt collection policy.
Who will be harmed?

Nina E. Olson, whose job at the Internal Revenue Service is to be an advocate on behalf of taxpayers, believes that assigning collection to debt collectors is “a bad idea,” she wrote in a letter to Congress. “It disproportionately impacts low-income and other vulnerable taxpayers, and despite two attempts at making it work, the program has lost money both times, undermining the sole rationale for its existence.”

Ms. Olson refers to psychological tricks that may have coerced some debtors into payments they could not afford forcing them to chose between housing or paying tax obligations.  Tactics that are not used by IRS collection agents.
Why is this a problem with this type of tax debt collection?
For many years criminals have preyed on taxpayers, most who are elderly and other vulnerable groups, lying that they represent the IRS.  For years consumer protection groups have been educating the public that IRS agents do not call or email a delinquent taxpayer, instead those contacts are made by letter. For more on that subject read: impersonating I.R.S. collectors.
What companies were hired?
tax debt collectionCongress wants taxes paid before food or housing.
Four – Pioneer Credit Recovery, a subsidiary of Navient, who has a tortured history of poor debt collection practices (fired by Education Department for misleading borrowers) so of course another government agency should offer them the same opportunity to abuse the vulnerable.  CBE Group, ConServe and Performant.  Could there be a problem in giving an organization with a proven history of abuse authority to collect from a vulnerable community?  Now what could possibly happen?
What is the benefit to the collection companies?
They will work on commission, earning up to 25 percent of debts collected.This will definitely encourage abusive behavior!
If history bears out this program will be another complete failure and result again in abuse of the vulnerable.
Proponents of the tax debt collection plan say the potential gain will net $2.4 billion over the next 10 years, yet the two past failed attempts show it cost the tax payer more than was collected.

According to Morgan King:
Key provisions governing private collection of IRS taxes:

  • Taxpayers will be protected by rights provided under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
  • Both private collector and IRS will send letters to the taxpayer informing them about assignment to private collector.
  • Payments are to be made directly to the IRS.

Share this entry

About the Author:
Diane L. DrainDiane L. Drain is a well known and respected Arizona bankruptcy attorney. She is an expert in both consumer bankruptcy and Arizona foreclosure. Since 1985 she has been a dedicated advocate for her clients and spokesperson for Arizona citizens. Diane is a retired professor of law teaching bankruptcy for more than 20 years. As a teacher she believes in offering everyone, not just her clients, advice about the Arizona bankruptcy laws. She is also a mentor to hundreds of Arizona attorneys.
I would be flattered if you connected with me on GOOGLE+
*From Diane: This article/blog is available for educational purposes only and does not provide specific legal advice. By using this information, you agree there is no attorney client relationship between you and me, and that this information should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from an attorney familiar with your personal circumstances and licensed to practice law in your state.*

The post Despite Dismal Past Failures Congress Unleashes New Tax Debt Collection Policy appeared first on Diane L. Drain - Phoenix Bankruptcy & Foreclosure Attorney.


8 years 5 months ago

Wynn at Law, LLC is honored to be part of more successful real estate offers than we can count since the 2008 recession. Every one of them had five components in common that made for ‘clean’ bids and negotiations without animosity.
1) Know what you’re buying. This means getting your property inspected and making sure that your offer is based on what the inspector says. Making an offer with the inspections waived is a huge gamble with one of your largest investments… it can be done, but it takes a perfect storm of knowing the property extremely well, a bargain on the market as-is, and a knowledgeable attorney in your corner. A tip: Walk through the house with an inspector before your offer.
2) Know what it’s worth. Real estate ‘comps’ show what similar homes have sold for in the area. A good agent will produce them for you. You can also sleuth for them on your own through public records. You’ll know what the owner paid when. You can also find permits issued for renovations the current owner made so you’ll know the work was locally inspected.
3) Know your seller. Is the bank selling the property? Or is the owner distressed? Or is the family selling on behalf of a decedent? Each selling situation has its own nuances. For example, the bank is less emotionally attached to a number than a long-time owner.
4) Know your own finances. Offer c-a-s-h. This is true whether it is your cash, or a lender’s money. From the bank’s perspective in a foreclosure or distressed property, by placing a cash offer they view you as not subject to financing. Regardless of whether it’s bank-owned or family-owned property, the seller’s been previously dealing with offers that involve financing.
5) Know your real estate attorney. Wynn at Law LLC knows the real estate in southeast Wisconsin, most of the agents and many of the local lenders. As we mentioned in a previous article, the sooner in the home-buying process our firm is involved, the more we can assist in a smooth, legally sound transaction.
The fair comes in August
Remember our article on honesty? If you’re low-balling an offer just for the sake of doing it, think twice. This tactic can burn your bridges with local realty professionals and homeowners alike. ‘Fair’ isn’t really a real estate term. It’s a subjective concept: What’s fair to the seller or the buyer or the bank are not likely to be the same. Wynn at Law LLC sees the best offers as being equitable, rather than fair. From our experience, the only ‘fair’ upon which there is objective agreement is the one at the fairgrounds in August.
 
*The content and material in this original post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The post Make an equitable real estate offer with these five tips appeared first on Wynn at Law, LLC.



8 years 5 months ago

This is the bankruptcy case study for Mr. C., who resides in Geneva, Kane County, Illinois. He is in the office to determine whether or not chapter 7 bankruptcy will provide the relief that he is seeking. Let’s look at the facts of this particular case. He is currently the owner of a piece of+ Read More
The post Bankruptcy Case Study For T.C., From Geneva, Illinois. appeared first on David M. Siegel.


7 years 3 months ago

This is the bankruptcy case study for Mr. C., who resides in Geneva, Kane County, Illinois. He is in the office to determine whether or not chapter 7 bankruptcy will provide the relief that he is seeking. Let’s look at the facts of this particular case. He is currently the owner of a piece of+ Read More
The post Bankruptcy Case Study For T.C., From Geneva, Illinois. appeared first on David M. Siegel.


8 years 5 months ago

Each California bankruptcy case formally begins with a document known as the “voluntary bankruptcy petition,” regardless of whether the debtor is filing under Chapter 13 (wage earner’s plan, reorganization) or Chapter 7 (straight bankruptcy, liquidation). However, while the bankruptcy petition gets the process started, the debtor will also need some additional forms in order to successfully complete the case and obtain a discharge. Our Roseville bankruptcy attorneys list some of the bankruptcy papers and legal documents a debtor may need to complete their case in California. The exact forms each debtor will file depend on his or her financial circumstances, the type of bankruptcy being declared, and other factors, which is one of the reasons it is so important to be represented by an experienced lawyer.

bankruptcy lawyer california
List of Forms for Debtors Filing Bankruptcy in CA
Not every debtor will need to file all of the following forms in order to receive a bankruptcy discharge. For example, a debtor under Chapter 7 will not be required to file Form B 2300B (Order Confirming Chapter 13 Plan), for obvious reasons. To provide another example, there are many Chapter 7 debtors who choose not to file Form B 103B, which is a voluntary application to have the Chapter 7 filing fee of $335 waived. Likewise, only members of the U.S. Armed Forces need concern themselves with Form B 2020 (Statement of Military Service). Your Chapter 7 bankruptcy lawyer or Chapter 13 bankruptcy attorney will analyze your debts, assets, income, and other factors, such as whether you are filing jointly or individually, in order to determine which forms need to be filed and signed, where, and on what dates.
Debtors should keep in mind that failure to submit the necessary documents with complete, accurate, and up-to-date information could cause detrimental delays, or even result in the dismissal of your case by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. If you are suspected of intentionally submitting incomplete or false information on your bankruptcy papers – for example, intentionally concealing assets or failing to list creditors – you could even be prosecuted for fraud.
With that information in mind, California bankruptcy forms include the following documents:

  • Means Testing Forms

    • Form B 122A-1 – Chapter 7 Statement of Your Current Monthly Income
    • Form B 122A-2 – Chapter 7 Means Test Calculation
    • Form B 122B – Chapter 11 Statement of Your Current Monthly Income
    • Form B 122C-1 – Chapter 13 Statement of Your Current Monthly Income and Calculation of Commitment Period
    • Form B 122C-2 – Chapter 13 Calculation of Your Disposable Income

It is unusual for individual debtors to file under Chapter 11, which is more commonly used by corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), and other business entities. However, regardless of whether you are a business owner or simply an individual whose financial circumstances happen to be suited to Chapter 11, our Chapter 11 bankruptcy attorneys can help you through the process.

  • Bankruptcy Forms for Individual Debtors

    • Form B 106Dec – Declaration About an Individual Debtor’s Schedules
    • Form B 106Sum – Summary of Your Assets and Liabilities
    • Form B 106A/B – Schedule A/B: Property
    • Form B 106C – Schedule C: The Property You Claim as Exempt
    • Form B 106D – Schedule D: Creditors Who Hold Claims Secured by Property
    • Form B 106 E/F – Schedule E/F: Creditors Who Have Unsecured Claims
    • Form B 106G – Schedule G: Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases
    • Form B 106H – Schedule H: Your Codebtors
    • Form B 106I – Schedule I: Your Income
    • Form B 106J – Schedule J: Your Expenses
    • Form B 107 – Your Statement of Financial Affairs for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy
    • Form B 121 – Your Statement About Your Social Security Numbers
  • Additional Forms for Chapter 7 Debtors

    • Form B 108 – Statement of Intention for Individuals Filing Under Chapter 7
    • Form B 318 – Discharge of Debtor in a Chapter 7 Case
  • Additional Forms for Chapter 13 Debtors

    • Form B 2830 – Chapter 13 Debtor’s Certifications Regarding Domestic Support Obligations
    • Form B 3180W – Chapter 13 Order of Discharge (or Form B 3180WH, which is used for Chapter 13 hardship discharges)

Where Can I Get Bankruptcy Forms for Chapter 7 or Chapter 13?
All of the bankruptcy forms listed above are available on the internet and can be individually downloaded from the official website of the United States Courts. Alternately, debtors in the Roseville, Sacramento, or Folsom area can download bankruptcy forms by following three steps:

  1. Visit the website for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California at caeb (dot) uscourts (dot) gov.
  2. Scroll down to the section on “Court Information” and click the “Filing and Fee Information” link.
  3. Click on the link to “Forms Package” and wait for the documents to download.

folsom bankruptcy attorney
Contact Our CA Bankruptcy Lawyers for a Free Consultation
The Bankruptcy Group assists individual debtors, married couples, and business owners file for bankruptcy in the Sacramento area. If you’re thinking about filing for bankruptcy in California, our Folsom Chapter 7 lawyers, Sacramento Chapter 7 lawyers, or Folsom Chapter 13 attorneys can help. For a free and confidential legal consultation about personal bankruptcy or business bankruptcy in California, contact our law offices at (800) 920-5351 today.
The post What Forms Do I Need to File for Bankruptcy in California? appeared first on The Bankruptcy Group, P.C..


8 years 3 months ago

Bank of America Hit with $45 Million in Punitive Damages for Stay Violations
Posted on29 March 2017.

In re: ERIK SUNDQUIST and RENÉE SUNDQUIST, Debtors SUNDQUIST v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.; BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Defendants.

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California,March 23, 2017, Adv. Pro. No. 14-02278, Case No. 10-35624-B-13J

National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center, and several other consumer protection entities, published an article that outlines the completely irresponsible and illegal actions of Bank of America.  The homeowners, like thousands before them, followed their bank’s direction to default on their home loan so they could qualify for a loan modification.  B of A constantly lost paperwork, denied modification with no reason, starting and stopping foreclosures, ignoring the automatic stay when filing for bankruptcy, along with many other outrageous actions.

“The mirage of promised mortgage modification lured the plaintiff debtors into a kafkaesque nightmare of stay-violating foreclosure and unlawful detainer,” for which the court ordered over $1 million dollars in actual damages plus a significant punitive damage award. Sundquist v. Bank of America, No. 10-35624, Adv. Proc. No. 14-2278 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. March 23, 2017).

Bank of America willfully violated the automatic stay by:

among other things, foreclosing on the Sundquist residence, prosecuting an unlawful detainer action, forcing them to move, secretly rescinding the foreclosure, failing to protect the residence from looting, refusing to pay for Sundquist property lost, and subjecting the Sundquists to a mortgage modification charade. Pursuant to § 362(k)(1), Bank of America is liable for all damages incurred between the initial violation of the automatic stay and the time the stay violation is fully remedied (which remedy comes in this decision and accompanying judgment).

Bank of America sent thugs to stake out the residence and intimidate the family
The Sundquists filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy under threat of imminent foreclosure. After foreclosing in violation of the stay, Bank of America sent thugs to stake out the residence and intimidate the family, and gave them a three-day notice of eviction causing the Sundquists and their children to find temporary housing. Upon learning that they were no longer the owners of the home, the Sundquists voluntarily dismissed their bankruptcy case thereby ending the automatic stay. Meanwhile, and without the Sundquists’s knowledge, Bank of America rescinded the foreclosure and returned title of the home to them. When they later returned to the house they found that major appliances had been removed. In keeping with its conduct throughout, Bank of America attempted to collect mortgage payments for the months the Sundquists had been without their home.
Bank of America found to willfully cause extreme emotional distress

The court found Bank of America’s conduct to be willful and intentional and that it resulted in “emotional distress, lost income, apparent heart attack, suicide attempt, and post-traumatic stress disorder, for all of which Bank of America disclaim[ed] responsibility.”

Awarded $1 million in actual damages and $45 million in punitive damages

the court ordered that a portion of the punitive damages be directed to seven entities: the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center, the National Consumer Law Center and five University of California Law Schools.

Most likely the decision will be appealed because it opens up the door for other homeowners who were likewise abused.
Read also: Wall Street Journal

Share this entry

About the Author:
Diane Drain
Diane L. Drain is a well known and respected Arizona bankruptcy attorney. She is an expert in both consumer bankruptcy and real estate laws. Since 1985 she has been a dedicated advocate for her clients and spokesperson for Arizona citizens. Diane is a retired professor of law and has taught bankruptcy for more than 20 years. As a teacher she believes in offering everyone, not just her clients, advice about the Arizona bankruptcy laws. She is also a mentor to hundreds of Arizona attorneys.Read More →
Connect with Diane on google+ *This article is available for educational purposes only and does not provide specific legal advice. By using this information, you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and me, and that this information should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from an attorney familiar with your personal circumstances and licensed to practice law in your state.*

Related Post

Millions $$ Being Released to Arizona Homeowners

Citigroup to Pay Fannie Mae $968M for Loans

What is a Zombie Debt? Banks Are Subverting Bankru...

Judges Holding Banks Responsible – Tired of ...

New Round of Defaults of Mortgages in 2015 and 201...

BofA Gave Staff Bonuses to Foreclose on Homeowners

.yuzo_related_post img{width:246.5px !important; height:116px !important;}
.yuzo_related_post .relatedthumb{line-height:15px;background: !important;color:!important;}
.yuzo_related_post .relatedthumb:hover{background:#fcfcf4 !important; -webkit-transition: background 0.2s linear; -moz-transition: background 0.2s linear; -o-transition: background 0.2s linear; transition: background 0.2s linear;;color:!important;}
.yuzo_related_post .relatedthumb a{color:!important;}
.yuzo_related_post .relatedthumb a:hover{ color:}!important;}
.yuzo_related_post .relatedthumb:hover a{ color:!important;}
.yuzo_related_post .relatedthumb:hover .yuzo__text--title{ color:!important;}
.yuzo_related_post .yuzo_text, .yuzo_related_post .yuzo_views_post {color:!important;}
.yuzo_related_post .relatedthumb:hover .yuzo_text, .yuzo_related_post:hover .yuzo_views_post {color:!important;}
.yuzo_related_post .relatedthumb{ margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; padding: 5px 5px 5px 5px; }
.yuzo_related_post .relatedthumb{}

jQuery(document).ready(function( $ ){
jQuery('.yuzo_related_post .yuzo_wraps').equalizer({ columns : '> div' });
});
The post Bank of America Penalized $45 M for Wrongful Foreclosure appeared first on Diane L. Drain - Phoenix Bankruptcy & Foreclosure Attorney.


8 years 5 months ago

By SARAH MASLIN NIR
The sign above Soft Touch Car Wash on Broadway in the Inwood neighborhood of Manhattan declares, “Open 24 hours,” but last month the bustling carwash suddenly closed. It was the same at the four other carwashes owned by the same family in New York City and the surrounding area: the phone lines disconnected, the hoses and wash mops idle and dry.
The operators of the small chain, José and Andrés Vázquez, agreed to pay $1.65 million to 18 employees to settle a federal lawsuit over stolen wages, a significant victory in the battles against wage theft in the city’s low-paying industries.
But the suddenly shuttered carwashes illustrate a persistent problem confronting many low-wage workers not just in New York but across the country: Winning in court is no guarantee that they will ever see much, if any, compensation.
The workers who toiled at the Vázquez carwashes battled for nearly six years before receiving the money they were due, their efforts hampered by the owners having filed for bankruptcy — a well-worn tactic used to avoid paying exploited workers, according to labor advocates. The owners could not be reached for comment.
Now, some New York State lawmakers are renewing a push for legislation that would put in place a type of insurance against this tactic, which crops up in industries from nail salons to restaurants. The measure would essentially enable employees who accuse an employer of wage theft to have a lien placed on the employer’s assets while the outcome is being determined.
“We are improving the lot of low-paid service workers; however, we haven’t attacked this fundamental problem of them giving their work, giving their time, and not getting compensated for it,” said Assemblywoman Linda B. Rosenthal, a Democrat who represents parts of Manhattan. “And it’s just not something we can tolerate anymore.”
In a setback for workers and their advocates, the measure was dropped from the budget agreement that state lawmakers reached. But a bill with the same measure, introduced this year by Ms. Rosenthal, is poised for a vote this spring in the Assembly.
Selling off houses and businesses — sometimes for a nominal sum, and frequently to a relative — and declaring bankruptcy is a move that experts say business owners often use to avoid paying back wages, overtime or damages, usually as a result of a court order. Under Ms. Rosenthal’s proposal, businesses would not be permitted to sell their assets while a wage dispute was underway.
“We know their tricks,” she said, referring to unscrupulous business owners. “This is an attempt to jump in front of their tricks.”
A 2015 report written by several worker advocacy organizations calculated that between 2003 and 2013, the New York State Department of Labor was unable to collect over $101 million that employers owed workers.
“It’s not surprising that people who are willing to cheat their workers are willing to transfer their assets to prevent their workers from getting what they are rightfully owed,” said Richard Blum, a staff attorney with the Legal Aid Society who works in the employment law division.
Small-business groups have opposed Ms. Rosenthal’s measure, saying it is an unnecessary and unfair burden on employers.
“It’s based on an accusation, not on proof,” said Denise M. Richardson, the executive director of the General Contractors Association. “An employee who feels aggrieved should not be able to tie up a business’s finances absent any proof that in fact they have been subject to wage theft.”
But workers say they need more powerful tools to battle employers who mistreat them.“Right now, it is very easy for these sweatshop bosses to steal workers’ wages,” said Jin Ming Cao, who has yet to see any of the over $100,000 a judge ordered his former employer, a restaurant in Manhattan, to pay him in 2010, part of $1.5 million settlement involving a group of workers. “Even when they’re found out by a court, they just change names, it’s so easy.”
Laws allowing liens against business owners involved in wage disputes exist in half a dozen states — Alaska, Idaho, New Hampshire, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin — but only Wisconsin permits liens solely based on an allegation of wage theft, according to the National Employment Law Project. In the other states, a lien is allowed only after wage theft has been proved as a result of a lawsuit or an agency investigation, for example.
In New York, rules are already in place to protect workers in a few select industries where wage theft has been a widespread problem. In 2015, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo imposed a requirement that nail salons carry wage bonds, a type of liability insurance designed to prevent the nonpayment of workers.
Nail salon owners have campaigned against the requirement, arguing that the price of carrying such insurance is too burdensome for small businesses like theirs. The cost varies depending on the coverage; carrying a $25,000 bond, for example, would cost an employer between $550 and $700 a year, according to providers.
Last week, lawmakers in West Virginia voted to remove, on similar grounds, a wage bond requirement that had long been in place for construction and mining industries.On a sidewalk outside Manhattan Valley, an Indian restaurant on the Upper West Side, about 100 workers gathered recently to pass out fliers and chant that the proposed state measure, commonly known as Sweat — securing wages earned against theft — needed to become law.
When the restaurant was known as Indus Valley, a group of 10 workers sued and were awarded $700,000 in back wages by a federal judge in 2014. They still have not been paid. The owners have told the court that they sold the restaurant and that Manhattan Valley is a new restaurant with different owners. Workers and advocates claim that is a ruse to avoid payment and that the same owners still run the restaurant.
One of the workers is Efren Caballero De Jesus, 43. He delivered curries, bottled raita sauce and cleaned the kitchen at Indus Valley, often seven days a week, 10 or more hours a day, earning as little as $400 per week, for four years. “I felt degraded,” Mr. De Jesus said.
He was elated when a judge apportioned him over $180,000 of the award in 2015, but three years later, he wonders if he will ever receive anything from the two brothers who owned the restaurant, Phuman and Lakhvir Singh.
“I thought if we got the decision, we were going to collect the money,” Mr. De Jesus said. “I feel very angry.’’
Ahmed Hussain, a server answering the phone at Manhattan Valley on Thursday, said the Singh brothers no longer owned the restaurant. The Singhs could not be reached. Copyright 2017 The New York Times Company.  All rights reserved.


Pages