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

The following are some of the options open to the South Florida distressed homeowner:

1. Mortgage Modification - HAMP or otherwise. As the mortgage companies have ramped up their staffing, the ability to achieve a HAMP or other modification has been increasing. The government regulations have also been improved over time to increase the achievement of modifications.

2. Short Sale - often favored by real estate brokers, but may soon have more actual benefit for homeowners if FNMA guidelines are changed to allow for better future credit for short sales rather than foreclosure.

3. Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure - the homeowner gives a deed to the mortgage company to avoid a full judicial foreclosure. Often not requested by mortgage companies due to possible title issues.

4. "Walk Away" from Home

5. Chapter 13 Bankruptcy - often combining the filing of chapter 13 bankruptcy and the use of the Bankruptcy Court's new mediation program for Mortgage Modification program.
 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

A mortgage foreclosure may also have federal income tax consequences. One issue is "discharge of indebtedness income." This can be understood as the IRS's attempt to tax you on money you were loaned but are not going to repay. The mortgage lender may be required to report the amount of the cancelled debt to you and the IRS on a Form 1099-C, Cancellation of Debt. Fortunately though there are various exceptions to this rule and even a recently added exception.

One of the exceptions to discharge of indebtedness income is if the mortgage debt is discharged in bankruptcy, including under chapter 7 or under chapter 13. In order to take advantage of this exception, it may be important to file for bankruptcy before the foreclosure sale.

Another exception to discharge of indebtedness income is the insolvency exception. That means if you are insolvent when the debt is cancelled, some or all of the cancelled debt may not be taxable to you. Insolvency generally means that your total debts are more than the fair market value of your total assets.

The new exception if the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 which generally allows people to exclude certain discharge of indebtedness from the foreclosure or mortgage restructuring on their principal residence. This new provision applies to debt forgiven in 2007, 2008 or 2009. Up to $2 million of forgiven debt is eligible for this exclusion ($1 million if married filing separately).

An applicable form is Form 982, "Reduction of Tax Attributes Due to Discharge of Indebtedness (and Section 1082 Basis Adjustment).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 an opinion filed on March 14, 2007, Florida's Third District Court of Appeals held that MERS does have standing to sue in foreclosure. MERS v. Oscar Revoredo, et al., ___ FLW ____ (3rd DCA. Case No. 3D05-2572 2007). The Court adopted the reasoning of MERS, Inc. v. Azize, 32 FLW D546 (2nd DCA 2007) which involved a very similar procedural situation and the identical question of law.

The trial court struck MERS's pleadings and ruled that it did not have standing to proceed as it acted essentially as a collection and litigation agent for the actual owner of the notes and mortgages.

The Court of Appeals noted that the involved problem "arises from the difficulty of attempting to shoehorn a modern innovative instrument of commerce into nomenclature and legal categories which stem essentially from medieval English land law." The Court held that MERS did not lack the standing to foreclose and it clarified that that in accordance with its usual practice, MERS was the holder of the note. The Court stated that it did not make a difference that MERS was not the owner of the mortgage as Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210(a) allows an action to be prosecuted in the name of authorized persons without joining the party for whose benefit the action is brought.

The Court further held that as "no substantive rights, obligations or defenses are affected by the use of the MERS device, there is no reason why mere form should overcome the salutatory substance of permitting the use of this commercially effective means of business."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.

Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 Bankrutcy Law - 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 recent case of Guillermo A. Morales, Case No. 07-16284-BKC-RBR, (Bankr.S.D.Fla. January 2, 2008)(Ray, J.) the Bankruptcy Court was given the opportunity to interpret new section 222.25(4), Florida Statutes which allows a debtor to exempt personal property not to exceed $4,000 if he does not "claim or receive the benefits of a homestead exemption under s. 4, Art. X of the State Constitution." Based on the particular facts of the case, the Court held that the debtor had not proven that he had not received the "benefits" of the homestead exemption and the trustee's objection to the debtor's exemption under section 222.25(4), Florida Statutes was sustained. But the court did state that if a debtor properly abandons his entire interest in his homestead at the start of a case or and does not claim his homestead exemption or does so by proper subsequent schedule amendments, then he would be able to claim the $4,000 section 222.25(4) personal property exemption.

In his chapter 7 schedules, the debtor listed one piece of real property with two mortgages. He did not claim the real property as exempt in his schedule C. In his original statement of intentions, the debtor set forth his intentions to reaffirm the two mortgages. Later he filed an amended statement of intentions where he indicated that his intentions were to surrender the real property to one of the mortgagees and reaffirm [sic] the other mortgage. The debtor claimed the use the $4000 personal property exemption under section 222.25(4), Florida Statutes (2007) and the trustee filed an objection to this claim of exemption.

The issue before the court was the meaning of section 222.25(4)'s phrase "receive the benefits of a homestead exemption." The trustee argued that the debtor was not eligible for the section 222.25(4) exemption as by owning a homestead, the debtor receives the benefit of the homestead exemption whether or not he makes use of it. The debtor contended that he had abandoned his interest in the real property, had not claimed it as exempt in his schedule C, and was not receiving any "benefits" of a homestead exemption.

The court looked to the language of the statute and found that it was written in the present tense. The court stated that the fact that a "debtor may have claimed or received the benefits of a homestead exemption in the past would appear to have no bearing on the application of the statute to a debtor's present situation." The court reasoned that even if a debtor had in the past received the benefits of the homestead exemption, he would qualify for the $4,000 section 222.25(4) personal property exemption if he does not claim it [the real property] as exempt and ceases to receive the benefits of a homestead exemption.

The court noted that in this case, that although debtor did not claim the homestead exemption, it was not clear whether he had derived any "benefits" from the exemption. The debtor argued that his amended statement of intentions to surrender the real property constituted an "abandonment" of the real property and that he was no longer receiving any "benefit" of the homestead exemption.

The court stated that the debtor was correct in his statement that under Florida law, abandonment of a homestead is one way that the protection of the homestead exemption may be lost. However, the court concluded that the debtor had failed to clearly indicate his intention with respect to the real property and that the court could not conclude that he had abandoned his homestead. The court noted that at the beginning of the case, the debtor had filed a statement of intentions indicating his intention to reaffirm the mortgages and retain the real property. The debtor only later changed his mind. The court also found "incompatible" with an abandonment the debtor's stated intention in his amended statement of intentions to surrender the real property to only one of the two mortgage holders and reaffirm the debt owed to the other mortgage holder.

Although the court failed to find an abandonment of the homestead in this case which led to the court's denial of the debtor's claim of exemption under section 222.25(4), the court stated that if a debtor "properly abandons his entire interest in his homestead at the start of a case and does not claim his homestead exemption" then he would be able to claim the $4,000 section 222.25(4) personal property exemption. The court even left open the possibility of a subsequent amendment of the debtor's schedules to indicate an abandonment of all interest in his homestead and to claim the $4,000 section 222.25(4) personal property exemptions.

In this case, the court found that the debtor failed to clearly indicate his intentions with respect to the real property and was denied use of the section 222.25(4) exemptions. Since the rendering of the court's decision, the debtor filed an amended statement of intentions setting forth a surrender to both mortgagees and has moved the court for a rehearing. In his motion for rehearing, the debtor refers to this amended statement of intention and points out that he did not oppose the motion for stay relief filed by one of the mortgagees.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.