Blogs
Miami Personal Bankruptcy Lawyer Jordan E. Bublick has over 25 years of experience in filing Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases. His office is centrally located in Miami at 1221 Brickell Avenue, 9th Fl., Miami and may be reached at (305) 891-4055. www.bublicklaw.com
In the case of In re Short, 2008 WL 2020200 (Bankr.D.Neb.) a bankruptcy case was dismissed due to "totality of the circumstances" although it passed means test. Jordan E. Bublick is a Miami Personal Bankruptcy Lawyer with over 25 years of experience in filing chapter 13 and chapter 7 bankruptcies. Miami Personal Bankruptcy Lawyer Jordan E. Bublick has filed over 8,000 chapter 13 and chapter 7 cases.
Miami Personal Bankruptcy Lawyer Jordan E. Bublick has over 25 years of experience in filing Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases. His office is centrally located in Miami at 1221 Brickell Avenue, 9th Fl., Miami and may be reached at (305) 891-4055. www.bublicklaw.com
In the case of In re Short, 2008 WL 2020200 (Bankr.D.Neb.) a bankruptcy case was dismissed due to "totality of the circumstances" although it passed means test. Jordan E. Bublick is a Miami Personal Bankruptcy Lawyer with over 25 years of experience in filing chapter 13 and chapter 7 bankruptcies. Miami Personal Bankruptcy Lawyer Jordan E. Bublick has filed over 8,000 chapter 13 and chapter 7 cases.
Miami Personal Bankruptcy Attorney Jordan E. Bublick has over 25 years of experience in filing Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases. His office is centrally located in Miami at 1221 Brickell Avenue, 9th Fl., Miami and may be reached at (305) 891-4055. www.bublicklaw.com
Since the enactment of section 222.25(4), Florida Statutes (effective July 1, 2007) there has arisen the issue of whether this section's new $4,000.00 personal property exemption (which is available to those that do not "claim or receive the benefits of a homestead exemption" under Art. X, Sec. 4 of the Florida Constitution) is in addition to the $1,000.00 personal property exemption of Art. X, Sec. 4(a)(2) or whether it includes it. The case of In re Bezares, Case No. 07-12820 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. October 23, 2007)(Paskay, J.) addressed this issue and concluded that the new $4,000.00 of personal property exemption provided by section 222.25(4), Florida Statues is in addition to the $l,000.00 constitutional personal property exemption.
In this case, the chapter 7 trustee argued that the maximum allowable personal property exemption claim is $4,000.00. The trustee cited the legislative history of section 222.25(4), Fla.Stat. which supported the trustee's position The debtor argued that the the $4,000.00 exemption was in addition to the $1,000.00 constitutional personal property exemption based on the well established principle that the legislature has no power to abrogate, alter or amend any provision of the Constitution.
The Court agreed with the argument of the Debtor and stated that the only method by which the Florida Constitution can be altered or amended is by virtue of Article XI, Section 5 of the Florida Constitution. A statutory amendment of the constitutional $1,000.00 personal property exemption would be a violation of the Florida Constitution. Based on this argument, the Court held that section 222.25(4), Fla. Stat. added $4,000.00 to the previous $1,000.00 exemption to make a total of $5,000.00 of personal property exemption for those who not "claim or receive the benefits of a homestead exemption."Jordan E. Bublick is a Miami Personal Bankruptcy Lawyer with over 25 years of experience in filing chapter 13 and chapter 7 bankruptcies. Miami Personal Bankruptcy Lawyer Jordan E. Bublick has filed over 8,000 chapter 13 and chapter 7 cases.
Miami Personal Bankruptcy Attorney Jordan E. Bublick has over 25 years of experience in filing Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases. His office is centrally located in Miami at 1221 Brickell Avenue, 9th Fl., Miami and may be reached at (305) 891-4055. www.bublicklaw.com
Since the enactment of section 222.25(4), Florida Statutes (effective July 1, 2007) there has arisen the issue of whether this section's new $4,000.00 personal property exemption (which is available to those that do not "claim or receive the benefits of a homestead exemption" under Art. X, Sec. 4 of the Florida Constitution) is in addition to the $1,000.00 personal property exemption of Art. X, Sec. 4(a)(2) or whether it includes it. The case of In re Bezares, Case No. 07-12820 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. October 23, 2007)(Paskay, J.) addressed this issue and concluded that the new $4,000.00 of personal property exemption provided by section 222.25(4), Florida Statues is in addition to the $l,000.00 constitutional personal property exemption.
In this case, the chapter 7 trustee argued that the maximum allowable personal property exemption claim is $4,000.00. The trustee cited the legislative history of section 222.25(4), Fla.Stat. which supported the trustee's position The debtor argued that the the $4,000.00 exemption was in addition to the $1,000.00 constitutional personal property exemption based on the well established principle that the legislature has no power to abrogate, alter or amend any provision of the Constitution.
The Court agreed with the argument of the Debtor and stated that the only method by which the Florida Constitution can be altered or amended is by virtue of Article XI, Section 5 of the Florida Constitution. A statutory amendment of the constitutional $1,000.00 personal property exemption would be a violation of the Florida Constitution. Based on this argument, the Court held that section 222.25(4), Fla. Stat. added $4,000.00 to the previous $1,000.00 exemption to make a total of $5,000.00 of personal property exemption for those who not "claim or receive the benefits of a homestead exemption."Jordan E. Bublick is a Miami Personal Bankruptcy Lawyer with over 25 years of experience in filing chapter 13 and chapter 7 bankruptcies. Miami Personal Bankruptcy Lawyer Jordan E. Bublick has filed over 8,000 chapter 13 and chapter 7 cases.
In re Newcomb Print Communications, Inc., Case No. 12-08042 (Bankr. W.D. Mich., Sept. 6, 2013).
When a debtor files a case under Chapter 11 and retains legal counsel, another person or entity may fund the debtor’s retainer. But even when the debtor is not the source of the funds, the retainer is property of the bankruptcy estate – which is particularly important if the case later converts to Chapter 7. Read More ›
Tags: Chapter 11, Chapter 7
Oregon and Washington homeowners looking to avoid bankruptcy or just lower their monthly expenses through mortgage refi will now see the application process slow to a stand still. For consumers trying to avoid foreclosure through modification or lower their expenses in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, this is horrible news. Beyond furloughs, lost wages and diminishing global clout, the shutdown is beginning to have consequences for consumers that no one really anticipated.
Tens of thousands of home refinance seekers nationwide will now be unable to get approvals because of the government shutdown, potentially undercutting the nation’s rebounding housing market.Without the requisite documentation from the FHA, IRS and the Social Security Administration, lenders are now less willing to make loans; that is if they can make them at all. For example, lenders rely on the IRS to confirm borrowers’ income and on Social Security to confirm their identity.
Every day that government offices stay closed will delay an increasing percentage of mortgage and interest-rate approvals. Under normal circumstances roughly 18,000 refinances are completed across the country every day. Picture the backlog and slowdown even after the shutdown ends. Who knows how many bankruptcy petitions will be filed in the Seattle and Portland Bankruptcy Courts as a result of the mortgage refi option being taken off the table? With attention in Congress now shifting to an Oct. 17 debt-ceiling deadline, there is no immediate end in sight to the government shutdown.
The problem is that approval of mortgage applications requires several interactions with the federal government and lenders have become much more meticulous about following federal rules after the housing crisis that began in 2007, and are now more thorough in verifying the information on loan applications. Furloughs at the IRS that could have the widest impact. Lenders routinely file a form with the IRS asking for a copy of a borrower’s tax returns. The purpose is to make sure that the buyer provided accurate income information.
But the IRS sent most of its employees home last week when Congress failed to agree on a budget, including those that process what are called tax-return transcripts. Lenders also rely on the Social Security agency to verify borrowers’ Social Security numbers as a way of confirming their identity. These checks are done automatically, but the Web site that provides the information is down.
Please contact our offices if you are attempting to avoid foreclosure through modification or use a refi to cope with other debts. The time is now to explore other options.
The original post is titled Shutdown and Mortgage Modification in Oregon and Washington , and it came from Oregon Bankruptcy Lawyer | Portland, Salem, and Vancouver, Wa .
Robert J. Yonkee Jr., 54, was charged in a federal court with bankruptcy fraud. He was a former resident of Machesnesy Park until he moved to Lake Geneva. He is accused of providing false information about his assets and concealing property when he filed his petition. For each charge he faces five years in prison, [...]
People typically think “LA Dodgers Bankruptcy” or “Hostess Bankruptcy” or “General Motors Bankruptcy” when hearing the term Chapter 11 bankruptcy. But let a California Chapter 11 bankruptcy attorney explain, and you will find that Chapter 11 bankruptcy also applies to people, such as individuals who are sole proprietors, business owners, or wage earners with either secured debt above $1,149,525.00 or unsecured debt beyond $383,175.00. In such cases, chapter 13 is not available. For such individuals, a chapter 11 may be the only option.
Creditors usually get to vote in chapter 11 cases. However, that isn’t necessarily true in individual, non-corporate, chapter 11 cases.
The 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decided in In Re Friedman (March 19, 2012), that the absolute priority rule does not apply in an individual chapter 11 case. Why the distinction? Well, 11 U.S.C. Section 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) says that for a class of unsecured claimants that ”the holder of any claim or interest that is junior to the claims of such class will not receive or retain under the plan on account of such junior claim or interest any property, except that in a case in which the debtor is an individual, the debtor may retain property included in the estate under section 1115, subject to the requirements of subsection (a)(14) of this section.”
Typically, the absolute priority rule comes into play if there is one impaired class of claims that does not accept the plan. That means a chapter 11 plan will not be crammed down on unsecured creditors unless the debtor, as the equity interest holder, gets nothing under the plan. The reason for this absolute priority rule is to promote fairness.
In Friedman, the court mentioned using “common sense” in determining whether the absolute priority rule applies in individual cases. The court found that it had to first look at the language within the bankruptcy code to determine whether the absolute priority rule applies. The court found nothing contrary to hold that the absolute priority rule apply in individual cases based on the language of the applicable statutes. It also found it incongruous that a chapter 11 individual debtor had to submit equivalent value of 5 years of disposable income under 1129(a)(15) yet have the absolute priority rule still apply. Moreover, the court noted the semblance of newly added statutes for chapter 11 cases that closely mirrored chapter 13 rules for individual cases.
The Friedman court concluded with this thought: “When decicisions have gone further than exercising a plain reading of the statute, they have entered into speculative analyses that are fatally flawed.” Thus, at least for now, the 9th Circuit BAP has concluded the absolute priority rule does not apply – however it is unclear whether 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Judges are even bound by BAP opinions so the magnitude of this case has yet to be determined. Stay tuned.
Attorney Jeffrey C. Hsu handles consumer and small business bankruptcy law. He can also help you as a California Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Attorney. His experience includes having worked for a former Chapter 7 Trustee, serving as judicial extern to a Los Angeles Bankruptcy Judge, and completing a clinical internship with the U.S. Trustee’s Office. Mr. Hsu also successfully participated at the 17th Annual Duberstein National Bankruptcy Moot Court Competition. Call today to schedule your free consultation at 626-999-5959 or email him at [email protected]. His law office internet website can be found at www.jchfirm.com.
People typically think “LA Dodgers Bankruptcy” or “Hostess Bankruptcy” or “General Motors Bankruptcy” when hearing the term Chapter 11 bankruptcy. But let a California Chapter 11 bankruptcy attorney explain, and you will find that Chapter 11 bankruptcy also applies to people, such as individuals who are sole proprietors, business owners, or wage earners with either secured debt above $1,149,525.00 or unsecured debt beyond $383,175.00. In such cases, chapter 13 is not available. For such individuals, a chapter 11 may be the only option.
Creditors usually get to vote in chapter 11 cases. However, that isn’t necessarily true in individual, non-corporate, chapter 11 cases.
The 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decided in In Re Friedman (March 19, 2012), that the absolute priority rule does not apply in an individual chapter 11 case. Why the distinction? Well, 11 U.S.C. Section 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) says that for a class of unsecured claimants that ”the holder of any claim or interest that is junior to the claims of such class will not receive or retain under the plan on account of such junior claim or interest any property, except that in a case in which the debtor is an individual, the debtor may retain property included in the estate under section 1115, subject to the requirements of subsection (a)(14) of this section.”
Typically, the absolute priority rule comes into play if there is one impaired class of claims that does not accept the plan. That means a chapter 11 plan will not be crammed down on unsecured creditors unless the debtor, as the equity interest holder, gets nothing under the plan. The reason for this absolute priority rule is to promote fairness.
In Friedman, the court mentioned using “common sense” in determining whether the absolute priority rule applies in individual cases. The court found that it had to first look at the language within the bankruptcy code to determine whether the absolute priority rule applies. The court found nothing contrary to hold that the absolute priority rule apply in individual cases based on the language of the applicable statutes. It also found it incongruous that a chapter 11 individual debtor had to submit equivalent value of 5 years of disposable income under 1129(a)(15) yet have the absolute priority rule still apply. Moreover, the court noted the semblance of newly added statutes for chapter 11 cases that closely mirrored chapter 13 rules for individual cases.
The Friedman court concluded with this thought: “When decicisions have gone further than exercising a plain reading of the statute, they have entered into speculative analyses that are fatally flawed.” Thus, at least for now, the 9th Circuit BAP has concluded the absolute priority rule does not apply – however it is unclear whether 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Judges are even bound by BAP opinions so the magnitude of this case has yet to be determined. Stay tuned.
Attorney Jeffrey C. Hsu handles consumer and small business bankruptcy law. He can also help you as a California Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Attorney. His experience includes having worked for a former Chapter 7 Trustee, serving as judicial extern to a Los Angeles Bankruptcy Judge, and completing a clinical internship with the U.S. Trustee’s Office. Mr. Hsu also successfully participated at the 17th Annual Duberstein National Bankruptcy Moot Court Competition. Call today to schedule your free consultation at 626-999-5959 or email him at [email protected]. His law office internet website can be found at www.jchfirm.com.
People typically think “LA Dodgers Bankruptcy” or “Hostess Bankruptcy” or “General Motors Bankruptcy” when hearing the term Chapter 11 bankruptcy. But let a California Chapter 11 bankruptcy attorney explain, and you will find that Chapter 11 bankruptcy also applies to people, such as individuals who are sole proprietors, business owners, or wage earners with either secured debt above $1,149,525.00 or unsecured debt beyond $383,175.00. In such cases, chapter 13 is not available. For such individuals, a chapter 11 may be the only option.
Creditors usually get to vote in chapter 11 cases. However, that isn’t necessarily true in individual, non-corporate, chapter 11 cases.
The 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decided in In Re Friedman (March 19, 2012), that the absolute priority rule does not apply in an individual chapter 11 case. Why the distinction? Well, 11 U.S.C. Section 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) says that for a class of unsecured claimants that ”the holder of any claim or interest that is junior to the claims of such class will not receive or retain under the plan on account of such junior claim or interest any property, except that in a case in which the debtor is an individual, the debtor may retain property included in the estate under section 1115, subject to the requirements of subsection (a)(14) of this section.”
Typically, the absolute priority rule comes into play if there is one impaired class of claims that does not accept the plan. That means a chapter 11 plan will not be crammed down on unsecured creditors unless the debtor, as the equity interest holder, gets nothing under the plan. The reason for this absolute priority rule is to promote fairness.
In Friedman, the court mentioned using “common sense” in determining whether the absolute priority rule applies in individual cases. The court found that it had to first look at the language within the bankruptcy code to determine whether the absolute priority rule applies. The court found nothing contrary to hold that the absolute priority rule apply in individual cases based on the language of the applicable statutes. It also found it incongruous that a chapter 11 individual debtor had to submit equivalent value of 5 years of disposable income under 1129(a)(15) yet have the absolute priority rule still apply. Moreover, the court noted the semblance of newly added statutes for chapter 11 cases that closely mirrored chapter 13 rules for individual cases.
The Friedman court concluded with this thought: “When decicisions have gone further than exercising a plain reading of the statute, they have entered into speculative analyses that are fatally flawed.” Thus, at least for now, the 9th Circuit BAP has concluded the absolute priority rule does not apply – however it is unclear whether 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Judges are even bound by BAP opinions so the magnitude of this case has yet to be determined. Stay tuned.
Attorney Jeffrey C. Hsu handles consumer and small business bankruptcy law. He can also help you as a California Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Attorney. His experience includes having worked for a former Chapter 7 Trustee, serving as judicial extern to a Los Angeles Bankruptcy Judge, and completing a clinical internship with the U.S. Trustee’s Office. Mr. Hsu also successfully participated at the 17th Annual Duberstein National Bankruptcy Moot Court Competition. Call today to schedule your free consultation at 626-999-5959 or email him at [email protected]. His law office internet website can be found at www.jchfirm.com.
The post CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY ISN’T JUST ABOUT BASEBALL & TWINKIES! ASK A CALIFORNIA CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEY. appeared first on JCH LAW FIRM.
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.