Blogs

10 years 4 weeks ago

Filing of the Case - Automatic Stay Upon the filing of your bankruptcy case, you are immediately protected from most collection actions against you and your property. The automatic stay is an injunction against thereditors from proceeding wit heir collection actions.
Creditors MeetingAbout 6 weeks after the bankruptcy case is filed, a "creditors' meeting" (34l meeting) is held. This is normally just a short meeting among you, your bankruptcy lawyer, the bankruptcy trustee, and any creditors who choose to attend.  In most cases, no creditors bother to attend. 

Length of Chapter 13 Plan Chapter 13 plan are usually for a period of 3 to 5 years. This length of the plan depends on various facts, including, whether your income is below or above median income, the amount of your non-exempt property, and what you are trying to achieve in chapter 13 plan.

Discharge OrderAfter you complete your chapter 13 plan, the trustee will issue a report of your plan completion. Shortly thereafter, your chapter 13 discharge will be entered and your case closed.Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - Kendall & Aventura Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com


10 years 1 month ago

Section 329 of title 11 United States Code is entitled debtor’s transaction with attorneys. This section gives the court oversight in financial as well as transactional relationships between debtors and their attorneys. It basically states that any attorney representing the debtor in bankruptcy shall file with the court a statement of the compensation paid for+ Read More
The post Bankruptcy Attorneys Need To Be Aware Of Section 329 appeared first on David M. Siegel.


10 years 1 month ago

Student Debt - National DebtStudent loan debt is at 1.2 trillion dollars; which is the largest national debt, second to only mortgage debt. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimates there is an additional $150 billion in banks and private loans.
According to an article in Bloomberg Business many lenders are finding that their suits are marred by missing documents and procedural errors – such as the same problems we saw with robosigning scandals in mortgage loans. “This is robosigning 2.0 with student loans,” says Robyn Smith, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center, a nonprofit advocacy group. “You have securitized loans in these large pools; you have the sloppy record keeping,” as in the mortgage crisis.
Read more…
The post Student Loan Lawsuits – Is This “Robosigning 2.0″? appeared first on Diane L. Drain - Phoenix Bankruptcy & Foreclosure Attorney.


10 years 3 weeks ago

Only individuals are eligible to file for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.   A husband and wife can file a joint Chapter 13 case.Corporations, partnerships, estates, and trusts are not eligible to file for Chapter 13.  But individual operating their own business as a sole proprietorship (unincorporated) are generally eligible to file chapter 13 to deal with their personal and business debt.

In order to qualify for chapter 13 bankruptcy,  an individual must have a source of "regular income." "Regular income" means a source of money sufficient to fund a Chapter 13 plan.Income is not defined by the Bankruptcy Code, but the courts have held that Congress intended a broad definition of income for purposes of eligibility for Chapter 13.Typical sources of regular income are wages, social security income, and retirement benefits.

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


10 years 3 weeks ago

Only individuals are eligible to file for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.   A husband and wife can file a joint Chapter 13 case.Corporations, partnerships, estates, and trusts are not eligible to file for Chapter 13.  But individual operating their own business as a sole proprietorship (unincorporated) are generally eligible to file chapter 13 to deal with their personal and business debt.

In order to qualify for chapter 13 bankruptcy,  an individual must have a source of "regular income." "Regular income" means a source of money sufficient to fund a Chapter 13 plan.Income is not defined by the Bankruptcy Code, but the courts have held that Congress intended a broad definition of income for purposes of eligibility for Chapter 13.Typical sources of regular income are wages, social security income, and retirement benefits.

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


10 years 1 month ago

On May 4, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, No. 14-116, a case which deals with issues of finality and appealability of orders in bankruptcy proceedings. In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that a bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of a Chapter 13 debtor’s proposed repayment plan is not a final order and thus is not immediately appealable. Read More ›
Tags: Chapter 13, U.S. Supreme Court


10 years 1 month ago

Sometimes it’s hard to tell when you should stop making payments in your Oregon Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. Many attorneys, including myself, will often have to tell clients that their plans will last for at least 36 but might go as long as 60 months. The question then becomes how will I know when to stop making payments?
The answer is that you or your employer should continue making payments until your Oregon Chapter 13 Trustee expressly informs you to stop doing so.
It can at times be difficult to predict the exact length of your plan of when it is filed. Often turnover of tax refunds during your case can shorten the length of a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Plan. Modifications of your Plan after confirmation can often lengthen it. What your bankruptcy attorney should be able to answer with certainty at the time of filing is the minimum length of the plan. You should ask your bankruptcy attorney whether you are below or above the median. That answer will tell you whether you must continue payments for a minimum of 36 months or whether you must continue for the full 60 months.
 

The original post is titled When Do I Stop Making payments in My Oregon Chapter 13 Bankruptcy? , and it came from Portland Bankruptcy Attorney | Northwest Debt Relief .


10 years 3 weeks ago

Miami bankruptcy lawyer Jordan E. Bublick has over 25 years of experience in filing chapter 13 and chapter 7 bankruptcy case and mortgage modifications. Office: 1221 Brickell Ave., 9th Fl., Miami, Florida. Tel.: (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com


The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals decided an issue regarding the enforcement of lost mortgage notes in the case of StateStreetBank and Trust Co., Trustee for Holders of Bear Stearns Mortgage Securities, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1993-12 v. Harley Lord, et al., 851 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The Court held that StateStreet could not maintain a cause of action to enforce a missing promissory note or to foreclose on the related mortgage in the absence of proof that it or its assignor ever held possession of the promissory note. Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2002).

StateStreet filed an action in the Circuit Court under section 71.011, Florida Statutes to reestablish the lost promissory note. The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision and held that the right to enforce the lost instrument was not properly assigned to StateStreet where it was found that neither StateStreet nor its predecessor in interest possessed the note and StateStreet did not otherwise satisfy the requirements of section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2002) which is Florida's version of the UCC's article on negotiable instruments. The court noted that it was undisputed that the note was lost before the assignment to StateStreet was made.

In footnote one, the Court noted that the enforcement of lost promissory notes, which are negotiable instruments, is actually governed by section 673.3091, Florida Statutes and not section 71.011 which governs enforcement of lost papers. It should be noted that the case of Mason v. Rubin, 727 So.2d 2883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) previously held that the reestablishment of a lost promissory note which is a negotiable instrument is controlled by section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (1993) and not section 71.011, Florida Statutes (1995). The court explained that section 71.011, Florida Statutes (1995) provides for establishing lost documents "except when otherwise provided" -- the implication being that section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (1993) otherwise provides. The court also characterized the provisions of section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (1993) as "more stringent requirements" than section 71.011, Florida Statutes (1995).

The Court explained that pursuant to section 90.953, Florida Statutes, (2002), Florida's code of evidence, the plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure must present the original promissory note as a duplicate of a note is not admissible. Otherwise, the plaintiff must meet the requirements of section 673.3091, Florida Statutes to pursue enforcement. W.H. Dwoning v. First Na'tl Bank of Lake City, 81 So.2d 486 (Fla.1955), Nat'l Loan Investors, L.P. v. Joymar Assocs., 767 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

The Court further explained that although it and the Third District Court of Appeals have held that the right or enforcement of a lost note can be assigned, here there was no evidence as to who possessed the note when it was lost. See Slizyk v. Smilack, 825 So.2d 428, 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), Deakter v. Menendez, 830 So.2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). In Slizyk, the Court allowed the assignee of the note and mortgage to foreclose as the assignor of the note was in possession of the note at the time of the assignment and therefore the right to enforce the instruments was assigned to the assignee as well. In contrast, here the undisputed evidence was that the assignor never held possession of the note and therefore could not enforce the note under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2002). As the assignor could not enforce the lost note under section 673.3091, it had no power of enforcement which it could assign to StateStreet.

The court noted that it did not reach the question of whether Slizyk and National Loan could be applied to allow enforcement of a note if there was proof of possession by an assignor earlier than the most immediate assignor.

It should be noted that in 2004, section 673.3091(1)(a), Florida Statutes was amended to allow enforcement of an instrument if the "person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred." It is not clear that this amendment would have changed the court's decision in StateStreet.

StateStreet was later cited with approval by Dasma Investments, LLC v. Realty Associates Fund III, L.P., 459 F.Supp.2d 1294(S.D.Fla.2006) where the court held that if a party is not in possession of the original note and cannot reestablish it, the party cannot prevail in an action on the note. In Dasma, the court explained that in Florida a promissory note is a negotiable instrument and that a party suing on a promissory note, whether just on the note itself or together with a foreclose on a mortgage securing the note, must be in possession of the original of the note or reestablish the note pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 673.3091. See, Shelter Dev. Group, Inc. v. Mma of Georgia, Inc., 50 B.R. 588, 590 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Fla.1985).

StateStreet was also cited with approval in the case of In re American Equity Corporation of Pinellas, 332 B.R. 645 (M.D.Fla.2005)(Paskay, J.) where the court held that a party must comply with section 673.3091, Florida Statues in order to enforce a lost, destroyed or stolen negotiable instrument. It is noteworthy that the court found that the creditors' affidavits merely stated that the creditors had searched for the original promissory notes but were unable to find them and failed to state that the creditors ever received possession of the original promissory note.Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - Kendall & Aventura Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com


10 years 3 weeks ago


A Florida homestead exemption may be lost by "abandonment". Various types of conduct may constitute "abandonment." Courts generally hold that once a property is established as a homestead, it does not lose that status until it is "abandoned."  Generally, a homestead is considered abandoned when it is no longer a bona fide home and place of permanent residence.

Owner's Intent 

The main consideration in the determination of whether a homestead has been abandoned is the owner's subjective "intent" and the physical absence from the property is not determinative. Placing a property on the market for sale or signing a contract for the sale of property may be relevant unless the homeowner can show a good faith intention to reinvest the proceeds in another homestead within a reasonable period of time.

Although Florida courts liberally construe the scope of the homestead exemption, they also "take care to prevent it from being an instrument of fraud."

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


10 years 3 weeks ago


A Florida homestead exemption may be lost by "abandonment". Various types of conduct may constitute "abandonment." Courts generally hold that once a property is established as a homestead, it does not lose that status until it is "abandoned."  Generally, a homestead is considered abandoned when it is no longer a bona fide home and place of permanent residence.

Owner's Intent 

The main consideration in the determination of whether a homestead has been abandoned is the owner's subjective "intent" and the physical absence from the property is not determinative. Placing a property on the market for sale or signing a contract for the sale of property may be relevant unless the homeowner can show a good faith intention to reinvest the proceeds in another homestead within a reasonable period of time.

Although Florida courts liberally construe the scope of the homestead exemption, they also "take care to prevent it from being an instrument of fraud."

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


Pages