Blogs
When the bankruptcy laws were changed on October 17, 2005, there was an effort to curb abusive filings. To do so, a means test was authored utilizing IRS standards for acceptable expenses. In addition to the means test, there were requirements such as having completed a credit counseling session before a case can be filed+ Read More
The post Interesting Development in Some Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Cases appeared first on David M. Siegel.
Dismissing and Re-filing a Chapter 13 There are certain circumstances where you may want to dismiss your chapter 13 case and refile. You do have the ability to do this. There are certain circumstances where you may have to wait six months to refile. This would be the case where you want to dismiss the+ Read More
The post Can I Dismiss My Bankruptcy & Refile? appeared first on David M. Siegel.
This is the bankruptcy case study for Todd, from Steger, Illinois, and his wife Emily. The couple is considering chapter 7 or chapter 13 bankruptcy, but is not sure which chapter is best for them. Let’s explore the details. The couple owns a home in Steger, Illinois with a market value of approximately $110,000.+ Read More
The post Can We Save Our Home With Bankruptcy? appeared first on David M. Siegel.
When you think about the student loan crisis, your mind conjures up images of twenty-somethings working at Starbucks. What you don’t see, however, are the hundreds of thousands of hard-working professionals who pull in comfortable salaries yet live in fear of their student loans.
Confused about how such a thing could possibly happen, and why those with deep pockets aren’t always on top of their student loan payments?
Consider this: most people do not graduate from school with high-paying jobs in place. Doctors in particular work many years before getting that fat paycheck. In fact, your friendly local physician likely spent a decade or better in a residency program, living like a college student.
Professionals of all stripes pay their dues for years, during which time they are just as unable to pay their student loans as any other college graduate. By the time their personal finance situation turns a corner, it’s too late to get back on the horse.
You see, federal student loans come with only so much in the way of forbearance. Once they’re gone, you can’t get another one.
So you fall behind on the student loan tab only to be told about consolidation for the federal loans (you can’t consolidate the private student loans unless you qualify based on your credit score). But once you consolidate, you can’t do it again – which leaves you saddled with a new loan that may have an interest rate too high to afford on your still-meager salary.
If you fall behind and go into default, you can catch up on your federal student loans by rehabilitating the payments (again, no such luck with the private student loans). But once again, you can rehabilitate your student loans only one time. Hit another bump in the road and you’ve got no recourse.
By the time your income rises enough to start paying the student loans, you’re faced with coughing up a huge chunk of change to cure a default or, in the case, of a federal student loan in default for a second time, the entire balance.
That can run tens of thousands of dollars for some, hundreds of thousands for others. Confronted with the lack of options, even the wealthiest of student loan borrowers can’t catch up on their payments as this story by WABC shows.
So next time you see a wealthy doctor, dentist or other professional don’t be shocked to find out you have something in common – a big student loan bill.
It costs a lot of money to go broke, literally. Chapter 7 fees vary from case to case, but the average case filed in Nebraska ranges from $1,200 to $1,500 depending on the complexity of the case and the attorney hired. Clients frequently ask if their case can be filed before all fees are paid. The clear answer to this question is no. Bankruptcy laws simply do not allow an attorney to accept payment of Chapter 7 legal fees after the case is filed.
A recent case involving Louisiana bankruptcy attorney Glay Collier underscores this rigid rule. Collier advertised a “No Money Down Chapter 7” where he would charge $100 before the case was filed and then debit his client’s bank account for the remaining fees to be paid after the case was filed. It goes without saying, an attorney can file a lot of cases for no money down, and Collier did just that. Unfortunately, when a client failed to make the monthly payment Collier retaliated by failing to file necessary documents and the case was dismissed. The client hired another attorney and sought damages.
The Louisiana bankruptcy court imposed $40,000 of sanctions and damages against attorney Collier
In a thundering opinion, the Louisiana bankruptcy court imposed $40,000 of sanctions and damages against attorney Collier for multiple violations of the bankruptcy code. The Court also referred the case to the Chief Judge of Louisiana for a determination of further sanctions and possible disbarment. The Court ruled that the “Credit/Debit Authorization From” signed by the debtor prior to filing the bankruptcy case could not be used after the case was filed since that form became void the moment the case was filed. Once the case was filed the bank account debits ceased to be voluntary and were thus deemed a violation of the bankruptcy stay.
The United States Trustee recently filed a complaint against Colorado attorney Kevin Heupel for his firm’s use of a “no money down” program. Heupel doubled the price of his service for the No Money Down option and required clients to sign a bank account debit agreement before the bankruptcy case was filed. Without any court authorization, Heupel zapped money out of his client’s bank accounts right after the bankruptcy was filed and failed to report the full amount of his fees. The US Trustee’s complaint alleged that debtors were not informed that continuation of the payments were voluntary and required a court-approved Reaffirmation Agreement to be valid. Heupel also did not inform his clients of the impermissible conflict of interest that prevents a bankruptcy attorney from being a creditor in his client’s case. As a result of the US Trustee’s complaint and media attention to the case, Kevin Heupel recently filed for Chapter 11 protection.
This is a key point: Chapter 13 cases can be converted to Chapter 7 at any time.
So what does a person do if they absolutely have to file a bankruptcy case now because 25% of their paycheck is being garnished? The best answer is to file Chapter 13. Yes, Chapter 13 is a 3 to 5 year payment plan, but a Chapter 13 case can be filed in Nebraska for as little as $75 down. (Local Nebraska bankruptcy rules require at least $75 of the $310 court fees to be paid when the case is filed, with the remainder due in a reasonable time.) Also, if more than $600 of a debtor’s paycheck has been garnished in the 90 days prior to filing, that money can generally be recovered by filing a turnover action, thus providing the necessary funds to fully pay attorney fees to convert the case to Chapter 7. This is a key point: Chapter 13 cases can be converted to Chapter 7 at any time (provided the debtor was eligible for Chapter 7 when the case was filed).
No money down Chapter 7? Nope, can’t do that. Pay $75 down for Chapter 13 and flip to a Chapter 7 after payment of remaining court fees and attorney fees are paid? Yes, that may be an option. If debts are out of control there is always a way to figure out the legal fees. If lawsuits have been filed there are ways to delay the judgments. If bank accounts have been hit with garnishments there are ways to exempt the funds. Never assume you can’t afford to go broke.
Image courtesy of Flckr & Kevin Dooley.
It costs a lot of money to go broke, literally. Chapter 7 fees vary from case to case, but the average case filed in Nebraska ranges from $1,200 to $1,500 depending on the complexity of the case and the attorney hired. Clients frequently ask if their case can be filed before all fees are paid. The clear answer to this question is no. Bankruptcy laws simply do not allow an attorney to accept payment of Chapter 7 legal fees after the case is filed.
A recent case involving Louisiana bankruptcy attorney Glay Collier underscores this rigid rule. Collier advertised a “No Money Down Chapter 7” where he would charge $100 before the case was filed and then debit his client’s bank account for the remaining fees to be paid after the case was filed. It goes without saying, an attorney can file a lot of cases for no money down, and Collier did just that. Unfortunately, when a client failed to make the monthly payment Collier retaliated by failing to file necessary documents and the case was dismissed. The client hired another attorney and sought damages.
The Louisiana bankruptcy court imposed $40,000 of sanctions and damages against attorney Collier
In a thundering opinion, the Louisiana bankruptcy court imposed $40,000 of sanctions and damages against attorney Collier for multiple violations of the bankruptcy code. The Court also referred the case to the Chief Judge of Louisiana for a determination of further sanctions and possible disbarment. The Court ruled that the “Credit/Debit Authorization From” signed by the debtor prior to filing the bankruptcy case could not be used after the case was filed since that form became void the moment the case was filed. Once the case was filed the bank account debits ceased to be voluntary and were thus deemed a violation of the bankruptcy stay.
The United States Trustee recently filed a complaint against Colorado attorney Kevin Heupel for his firm’s use of a “no money down” program. Heupel doubled the price of his service for the No Money Down option and required clients to sign a bank account debit agreement before the bankruptcy case was filed. Without any court authorization, Heupel zapped money out of his client’s bank accounts right after the bankruptcy was filed and failed to report the full amount of his fees. The US Trustee’s complaint alleged that debtors were not informed that continuation of the payments were voluntary and required a court-approved Reaffirmation Agreement to be valid. Heupel also did not inform his clients of the impermissible conflict of interest that prevents a bankruptcy attorney from being a creditor in his client’s case. As a result of the US Trustee’s complaint and media attention to the case, Kevin Heupel recently filed for Chapter 11 protection.
This is a key point: Chapter 13 cases can be converted to Chapter 7 at any time.
So what does a person do if they absolutely have to file a bankruptcy case now because 25% of their paycheck is being garnished? The best answer is to file Chapter 13. Yes, Chapter 13 is a 3 to 5 year payment plan, but a Chapter 13 case can be filed in Nebraska for as little as $75 down. (Local Nebraska bankruptcy rules require at least $75 of the $310 court fees to be paid when the case is filed, with the remainder due in a reasonable time.) Also, if more than $600 of a debtor’s paycheck has been garnished in the 90 days prior to filing, that money can generally be recovered by filing a turnover action, thus providing the necessary funds to fully pay attorney fees to convert the case to Chapter 7. This is a key point: Chapter 13 cases can be converted to Chapter 7 at any time (provided the debtor was eligible for Chapter 7 when the case was filed).
No money down Chapter 7? Nope, can’t do that. Pay $75 down for Chapter 13 and flip to a Chapter 7 after payment of remaining court fees and attorney fees are paid? Yes, that may be an option. If debts are out of control there is always a way to figure out the legal fees. If lawsuits have been filed there are ways to delay the judgments. If bank accounts have been hit with garnishments there are ways to exempt the funds. Never assume you can’t afford to go broke.
Image courtesy of Flckr & Kevin Dooley.
It costs a lot of money to go broke, literally. Chapter 7 fees vary from case to case, but the average case filed in Nebraska ranges from $1,200 to $1,500 depending on the complexity of the case and the attorney hired. Clients frequently ask if their case can be filed before all fees are paid. The clear answer to this question is no. Bankruptcy laws simply do not allow an attorney to accept payment of Chapter 7 legal fees after the case is filed.
A recent case involving Louisiana bankruptcy attorney Glay Collier underscores this rigid rule. Collier advertised a “No Money Down Chapter 7” where he would charge $100 before the case was filed and then debit his client’s bank account for the remaining fees to be paid after the case was filed. It goes without saying, an attorney can file a lot of cases for no money down, and Collier did just that. Unfortunately, when a client failed to make the monthly payment Collier retaliated by failing to file necessary documents and the case was dismissed. The client hired another attorney and sought damages.
The Louisiana bankruptcy court imposed $40,000 of sanctions and damages against attorney Collier
In a thundering opinion, the Louisiana bankruptcy court imposed $40,000 of sanctions and damages against attorney Collier for multiple violations of the bankruptcy code. The Court also referred the case to the Chief Judge of Louisiana for a determination of further sanctions and possible disbarment. The Court ruled that the “Credit/Debit Authorization From” signed by the debtor prior to filing the bankruptcy case could not be used after the case was filed since that form became void the moment the case was filed. Once the case was filed the bank account debits ceased to be voluntary and were thus deemed a violation of the bankruptcy stay.
The United States Trustee recently filed a complaint against Colorado attorney Kevin Heupel for his firm’s use of a “no money down” program. Heupel doubled the price of his service for the No Money Down option and required clients to sign a bank account debit agreement before the bankruptcy case was filed. Without any court authorization, Heupel zapped money out of his client’s bank accounts right after the bankruptcy was filed and failed to report the full amount of his fees. The US Trustee’s complaint alleged that debtors were not informed that continuation of the payments were voluntary and required a court-approved Reaffirmation Agreement to be valid. Heupel also did not inform his clients of the impermissible conflict of interest that prevents a bankruptcy attorney from being a creditor in his client’s case. As a result of the US Trustee’s complaint and media attention to the case, Kevin Heupel recently filed for Chapter 11 protection.
This is a key point: Chapter 13 cases can be converted to Chapter 7 at any time.
So what does a person do if they absolutely have to file a bankruptcy case now because 25% of their paycheck is being garnished? The best answer is to file Chapter 13. Yes, Chapter 13 is a 3 to 5 year payment plan, but a Chapter 13 case can be filed in Nebraska for as little as $75 down. (Local Nebraska bankruptcy rules require at least $75 of the $310 court fees to be paid when the case is filed, with the remainder due in a reasonable time.) Also, if more than $600 of a debtor’s paycheck has been garnished in the 90 days prior to filing, that money can generally be recovered by filing a turnover action, thus providing the necessary funds to fully pay attorney fees to convert the case to Chapter 7. This is a key point: Chapter 13 cases can be converted to Chapter 7 at any time (provided the debtor was eligible for Chapter 7 when the case was filed).
No money down Chapter 7? Nope, can’t do that. Pay $75 down for Chapter 13 and flip to a Chapter 7 after payment of remaining court fees and attorney fees are paid? Yes, that may be an option. If debts are out of control there is always a way to figure out the legal fees. If lawsuits have been filed there are ways to delay the judgments. If bank accounts have been hit with garnishments there are ways to exempt the funds. Never assume you can’t afford to go broke.
Image courtesy of Flckr & Kevin Dooley.
It appears that the the new FICO 9 scoring model is going to be better for Oregonians with scant reporting and medical collection accounts. The new model distinguishes medical debt from non-medical debt. The upshot is that Oregon consumers with unpaid medical collections could improve by as much as 25 points per account. Moreover, borrowers with multiple accounts in collection will no longer be penalized for any old debts carrying a $0 balance. Individuals with more than one account in collection could see scores boosted by as much as 50 to 75 points. The new FICO 9 formula is also kinder to Oregon consumers with limited credit histories, potentially making credit more readily available to younger Oregonians.
Our bankruptcy law firm generally believes that if you are carrying significant debt, the best thing you can do is improve your score is eliminate your unsecured debt in order to improve your debt to income ratio. Generally the best means for accomplishing that end is a bankruptcy filing.
The original post is titled Oregon FICO , and it came from Portland Bankruptcy Attorney | Northwest Debt Relief .
Interesting development for Oregon bankruptcy clients trying to rebuild their credit after bankruptcy. No idea whether the product is really worthwhile, but Rent Track allows Oregon renters to have their rent payments factored into their credit scores. It requires only the renter and property manager to sign a form and the tenant them makes payments online either by e-check or credit card. The payment is then reported to the credit bureau with scores reflecting the on time payment.
Apparently twenty percent of Rent Track users have seen an increase in their credit scores by 10 points or more. So far at least one study on Rent Track forecasts that percent of renters’ scores will increase. I guess the real question is pricing. Keep in mind that most credit scores recover exponentially after bankruptcy anyway.
The original post is titled New Product for Rebuilding Credit After Bankruptcy , and it came from Portland Bankruptcy Attorney | Northwest Debt Relief .
In the aftermath of the real estate mortgage foreclosure crisis in Florida since 2008, various issues have been presented to the court in Florida regarding the enforceability of mortgages, including statute of limitations arguments.
.jpg)
Statute of Limitations CasesForeclosure on Subsequent Default Not BarredDiaz v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., et al., 2014 WL 4351411 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 2, 2014). In this case, the lender's foreclosure actions had previously been dismissed three times - even once with prejudice. The homeowner sought a declaratory order that the note and mortgage were no longer enforceable based on the application the five year statute of limitations. The Court held that even if a foreclosure action is unsuccessful for "whatever reason", the mortgagee "still has the right to file later foreclosure actions-and to seek acceleration of the entire debt-so long as they are based on separate defaults." The Court noted that it consistently holds that complaints that raise this claim are without merit. See Espinoza v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 2014 WL 3845798 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2014), Matos v. Bank of America, 2014 WL 3734578 (S.D. Fla. July 28, 2014), Romero v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc., 2014 WL 1623703 (S.D. Fla. Apr.22, 2014).
Smathers v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 2014 WL 4639136 (M.D.Fla. Sept. 16, 2014) is another case where a foreclosure action had previously been dismissed. Here also, did the homeowner contend that the lender was barred from enforcing the note and mortgage due to Florida's five-year statute of limitations . The homeowner alleged that the note and mortgage were null and void and a cloud on his title to the property. In accordance with other decisions, the Court dismissed the homeowner's complaint, holding that while the lender may not be able to pursue a action on the default that formed the basis of the first foreclosure action, "an acceleration and foreclosure predicated upon subsequent and different defaults present a separate and distinct issue. See also, Torres v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2014 WL 3742141 (S.D. Fla. July 28, 2014), Kaan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 981 F.Supp. 2d 1271 (S.D. Fla. 2013).
Quiet Title Actions Missing "N.A." = Absurd ArgumentIn the case of Unrue v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 2014 WL 4648628 (5th DCA September 19, 2014) (subject to revision or withdrawal), the homeowner argued that the mortgage was not enforceable due to the mortgage listing the lender as "Wells Fargo" instead of "Wells Fargo, N.A." The Court used the word "absurd" twice. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to allow the homeowner one opportunity to file an amended pleadings pursuant to Rule 1.190(a), but warned that the last time this argument came before the Court in a similar circumstance, the trial court's dismissal was upheld, referring to the homeowner's complaint as an "absurd demand" and attorneys fees were assessed.
See. Badgley v. SunTrust Mortg., 134 So.3d 559 (5th DCA 2014). The dissent, would not have even allowed an amended pleading, deeming the homeowner's case an "affront to the court" and "frivoulous." Jordan E. Bublick is a Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer with over 25 years of experience in filing Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Cases and Mortgage Modifications (305) 891-4055
Updated daily, this blog will keep you informed on the latest bankruptcy news! 
Learn more about how Bankruptcy works and what you need to know.