Blogs
In the year 2007, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Chames v. DeMayo, 2007 WL 4190796 (Florida December 20, 2007) upholding the 3rd District Court of Appeals' decision (on rehearing) that the waiver of the Florida homestead exemption in an unsecured agreement is unenforceable. The court applied the doctrine of stare decisis and refused to recede from precedent of over a hundred years that the homestead exemption cannot be waived in an unsecured agreement. See Carter's Adm'rs v. Carter, 20 Fla. 558 (1884), Sherbill v. Miller Mfg. Co., 89 So.2d 28, 31 (Fla.1956).
In this case, an attorney who held an unsecured claim for legal fees based on a retainer agreement asked the court to recede from its precedent based on three arguments. First, based on a certain amendment to article X, section 4 of the Florida Constitution. Second, based on a purported national trend approving such waivers. Third, based on other Florida Supreme Court holdings that constitutional rights may be waived. The court rejected each of these arguments in turn.
The creditor first argument was that the 1985 amendment to article X, section 4 of the Florida Constitution, which replaced the phrase "the head of a family" with "a natural person" changed the purpose of the homestead exemption from that of one protecting the family into a personal right that may be waived. The court found no intent on the part of Florida voters to change the fundamental purpose of the Florida homestead when they expanded the homestead protection by no longer requiring one to be the head of a family to claim a homestead. The court stated that the creditor's argument overlooked the State's interest in protecting the home so that homeowners are not reduced to destitution and public charge. Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 790 So.2d 1018, 1020 (Fla. 2001).
The creditor next argued that there has been a shift in the position of other states on the issue of homestead exemption waiver. The court noted that if this were true, it would furnish a reason to reconsider its precedent and that it has been willing to recede from precedent when it conflicted with the law in a majority of states. See, e.g., Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So.2d 65, 69 (Fla. 1992). The court stated that due to differing constitutional and statutory provisions, any such trend is difficult to discern and "to the extent it can be discerned, the trend appears to go in the opposite direction." The court found that the "majority of jurisdictions that have addressed the issue (whether by constitution, statute, or judicial opinion) do not permit a general waiver of homestead or personal property exemptions in an executory contract."
The court did note some cases from other states that found a waiver of homestead exemption in other manners but concluded that they did "not inform our analysis" as they were in different contexts. In Shuler v. Wallace, 61 Haw. 590, 607 P.2d 411, 414 (Haw. 1980) the court found that the failure to assert the right to claim an exemptions results in a waiver. In Cameron v. McDonald, 216 N.C. 712, 6 S.E.2d 497, 499 (N.C.1940), the court found that the party was estopped from relitigating his right to a homestead when he failed to assert his right.
Lastly, the creditor argued that the waiver of the homestead exemption should be permitted because the court has permitted the waiver of other constitutional rights. The court held that although most personal constitutional rights may be waived, an individual cannot waive a right designed to protect both the individual and the public. The court reiterated that "the homestead exemption protects not only the debtor, but also the debtor's family and the State." See Havaco, 790 S.2d at 1020.
The court recognized the trend in permitting the waiver of personal constitutional rights, especially rights given to criminal defendants. But the court noted that the waiver must be made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. Indeed, the court noted that it recently allowed a civil plaintiff to make a certain waiver with regard to a civil attorney fees but imposed safeguards such that the attorney must inform the client about his constitutional right, the possible consequences of waiver, and the initialing of six separate paragraphs. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.5(f)(4)(B). In contrast, in this case, the court noted that the waiver was contained on page four of a six page single-spaced contract and at the end of a 118-word sentence.
The court went on point out that the Florida Constitution and case law do permit the waiver of the Florida homestead if accomplished in a certain manner. The court noted Carter and Sherbill do not absolutely prohibit the waiver of the homestead exemption, but they require that a waiver be accomplished in the manner that the article X, section 4 of the Florida Constitution prescribes: by "mortgage, sale, or gift." What is prohibited is a "general waiver of the homestead exemption in an otherwise unsecured instrument." The court stated that "[r]equiring that a waiver of the homestead exemption be made in the context of a mortgage assures that the waiver is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily."(305) 891-4055 - Jordan E. Bublick is a Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer with over 25 years of experience in filing Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 Bankrkuptcy Cases.
Bringing you the most up-to-date news, tips and blogs throughout the web. Here’s your Bankruptcy Update for March 4th, 2014 Detroit asks bankruptcy court to approve new deal to end swaps Electricity generator Mach Gen LLC files for bankruptcy Sorenson Communications files for bankruptcy
Real Housewives of New Jersey stars Teresa Giudice, 41 and her husband Giuseppe “Joe” Giudice, 43, may plead guilty to federal charges they are facing through a plea deal. Several media outlets have reported the couple may have a plea deal in place that could lessen their prison sentences with the possibility of millions of […]
I recently received this email from a prospective client (“Jane”) seeking to have her student loans discharged in bankruptcy. Do you see the problems with this case?
I am permanently disabled due to cognitive decline resulting from a craniotomy to repair one of three aneurysms. I also suffer from back pain, anxiety, depression and panic attacks. In addition to my 2012 brain and gallbladder surgeries, I underwent back surgery in 2011 and two foot surgeries in 2010, and due to complications from my back surgery I have not been able to return to work. . I was very recently approved for disability retirement after 25 years as an employee with the federal government. I also receive SSI. I filed a chapter 7 in 2008 and am unsure what my options are in regard to having my student loans forgiven. I am seeking a full discharge.
Let’s start with the most immediate problem – currently, Jane’s eligibility to file bankruptcy. Under Bankruptcy Code Section 727(a)(8), Jane is not eligible to file Chapter 7 for eight years after previously filing a Chapter 7 1. Depending on when in 2008 she filed, she would have to wait until at least 2016 before filing a second case.Assuming for sake of argument that Jane was eligible to file Chapter 7, a practical problem she would face using bankruptcy to discharge her student loans would be that of cost. Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(8) says that student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy unless the debtor can show that not discharging them would constitute undue hardship.In defining undue hardship, bankruptcy judges have come to rely on an analysis set out in a 2nd Circuit case called Brunner vs. New York State Higher Education Services Corp. The Brunner test considers three factors to determine whether student loans can be discharged in bankruptcy:
- has the debtor made a good faith effort to repay his loans
- based on current income and expenses, can the debtor maintain for himself and his family a minimal standard of living if forced to pay his loans; and
- are the debtor’s financial circumstances likely to remain during a significant portion of the student loan repayment period
Based on what Jane writes, I think she would have a reasonable argument that she meets all three elements of the Brunner test, although in general bankruptcy judges have been reluctant to discharge student loans. Regardless, Jane would have the burden of filing a lawsuit in bankruptcy court to put the discharge issue before the judge. Bankruptcy litigation is not cheap – it is likely that the cost of this type of litigation could reach $5,000.I think that there are better options than bankruptcy for Jane.First, she has the option of doing nothing. If Jane’s only source of income is SSI and she has no assets, she is essentially judgment proof. SSI (which is the welfare type of disability) may not be garnished by anyone, even the Department of Education. Jane may end up with judgments filed against her but those judgments are uncollectible and will remain so unless her life circumstances change dramatically.Second, if Jane’s student loans are federally issued or federally guaranteed, she can apply for loan forgiveness based on disability 2. The Department of Education has recently changed its rules regarding disability forgiveness and Jane’s SSI disability determination may be enough to convince the government to forgive her loans.Third, if Jane’s loans are federally issued or guaranteed, she could enter an income based repayment plan. Assuming her income remains low, the income based repayment plan formula would likely call for a zero dollar payment. At the end of the repayment term (usually 20 years), the loans would be deemed satisfied and Jane’s liability would end.So, Jane has a variety of options and based on the information at hand bankruptcy would be the least desireable.
- assuming that the previous Chapter 7 resulted in a discharge ↩
- Disability forgiveness does not generally apply to private student loans. ↩
The post Bankruptcy Often the Least Desireable Option to Eliminate Student Loan Debt appeared first on theBKBlog.
I recently received this email from a prospective client (“Jane”) seeking to have her student loans discharged in bankruptcy. Do you see the problems with this case?
I am permanently disabled due to cognitive decline resulting from a craniotomy to repair one of three aneurysms. I also suffer from back pain, anxiety, depression and panic attacks. In addition to my 2012 brain and gallbladder surgeries, I underwent back surgery in 2011 and two foot surgeries in 2010, and due to complications from my back surgery I have not been able to return to work. . I was very recently approved for disability retirement after 25 years as an employee with the federal government. I also receive SSI. I filed a chapter 7 in 2008 and am unsure what my options are in regard to having my student loans forgiven. I am seeking a full discharge.
Let’s start with the most immediate problem – currently, Jane’s eligibility to file bankruptcy. Under Bankruptcy Code Section 727(a)(8), Jane is not eligible to file Chapter 7 for eight years after previously filing a Chapter 7 1. Depending on when in 2008 she filed, she would have to wait until at least 2016 before filing a second case.Assuming for sake of argument that Jane was eligible to file Chapter 7, a practical problem she would face using bankruptcy to discharge her student loans would be that of cost. Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(8) says that student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy unless the debtor can show that not discharging them would constitute undue hardship.In defining undue hardship, bankruptcy judges have come to rely on an analysis set out in a 2nd Circuit case called Brunner vs. New York State Higher Education Services Corp. The Brunner test considers three factors to determine whether student loans can be discharged in bankruptcy:
- has the debtor made a good faith effort to repay his loans
- based on current income and expenses, can the debtor maintain for himself and his family a minimal standard of living if forced to pay his loans; and
- are the debtor’s financial circumstances likely to remain during a significant portion of the student loan repayment period
Based on what Jane writes, I think she would have a reasonable argument that she meets all three elements of the Brunner test, although in general bankruptcy judges have been reluctant to discharge student loans. Regardless, Jane would have the burden of filing a lawsuit in bankruptcy court to put the discharge issue before the judge. Bankruptcy litigation is not cheap – it is likely that the cost of this type of litigation could reach $5,000.I think that there are better options than bankruptcy for Jane.First, she has the option of doing nothing. If Jane’s only source of income is SSI and she has no assets, she is essentially judgment proof. SSI (which is the welfare type of disability) may not be garnished by anyone, even the Department of Education. Jane may end up with judgments filed against her but those judgments are uncollectible and will remain so unless her life circumstances change dramatically.Second, if Jane’s student loans are federally issued or federally guaranteed, she can apply for loan forgiveness based on disability 2. The Department of Education has recently changed its rules regarding disability forgiveness and Jane’s SSI disability determination may be enough to convince the government to forgive her loans.Third, if Jane’s loans are federally issued or guaranteed, she could enter an income based repayment plan. Assuming her income remains low, the income based repayment plan formula would likely call for a zero dollar payment. At the end of the repayment term (usually 20 years), the loans would be deemed satisfied and Jane’s liability would end.So, Jane has a variety of options and based on the information at hand bankruptcy would be the least desireable.
- assuming that the previous Chapter 7 resulted in a discharge ↩
- Disability forgiveness does not generally apply to private student loans. ↩
The post Bankruptcy Often the Least Desireable Option to Eliminate Student Loan Debt appeared first on theBKBlog.
Section 110 of the United States Bankruptcy Code provides that a non-attorney can assist in the preparation of the bankruptcy petition. However, as an Inkster, Michigan man just learned (the hard way), the Bankruptcy Code places numerous requirements on bankruptcy petition preparers and subjects those who do not comply to substantial penalties.
On Tuesday, February 25, Derrick Hills of Inkster was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Sean F. Cox to 46 months in prison after being convicted by a jury in September of five counts of criminal contempt. The contempt proceedings stemmed from repeated violations of orders issued by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes from 2007 to 2009. According to a press release issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office following Hills' conviction at trial:
The evidence presented at trial showed that Hills had acted as a bankruptcy petition preparer since 2007, assisting people in filing for bankruptcy. Hills continued to act as a bankruptcy petition preparer despite five bankruptcy court orders issued by Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes, permanently enjoining Hills from doing so for various non-compliance with bankruptcy rules and complications caused by his acting in the capacity of a bankruptcy petition preparer. Hills assisted individuals with consumer debts in preparing and filing their Chapter 7 bankruptcy paperwork. However, his actions went well beyond what was allowed by law and clearly violated Judge Rhodes Orders.
Read More ›
Tags: Chapter 7, Did you Know?, Eastern District of Michigan
You Can Protect Most Property You can file bankruptcy and protect a certain amount of personal property. If you are filing a chapter 7 bankruptcy, then you have certain exemption amounts under Illinois law that allows you to protect a certain amount of property. For example, you can protect up to $15,000 worth of equity+ Read MoreThe post Can I protect My Property And Still File Bankruptcy? appeared first on David M. Siegel.
Being honest during your bankruptcy can make the filing process easier to complete with increased chances of getting the outcome you want. For many debtors this includes discharge, eliminating or wiping out debt. You may think things are complete upon being granted a discharge of debts, but if you were not honest during proceedings your […]
Bringing you the most up-to-date news, tips and blogs throughout the web. Here’s your Bankruptcy Update for February 27, 2014 Twinkies bankruptcy raises specter of U.S. pension fund failures Renzi under pressure as city of Rome risks bankruptcy Detroit uses stick and carrot to sell bankruptcy plan
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.