Blogs
In the case of In re Hionas, ___ B.R. ___, 2006 WL 3913760 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Fla.)(Isicoff J.) the Bankruptcy Court denied a casino's motion for summary judgment in its adversary proceeding to determine an alleged gambling debt nondischargeable. The decision also provides a review of the rules of choice of law in the 11th Circuit in the context of the allowance of a claim in a bankruptcy case.
The Court noted that normally a federal court hearing a matter pursuant to diversity jurisdiction must apply the law of the state in which the court sits pursuant to the ruling in the case of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), including the conflict of law rules of the state in which the federal court sits. However, a federal court with jurisdiction over a matter by virtue of its bankruptcy jurisdiction, when considering the allowance of claims, is not sitting as a court of diversity and the court does not apply the law of the state where it sits. Bankruptcy courts must determine how and what claims should be allowed under equitable principles.
The Court stated that there is apparently a split among the courts as to whether a bankruptcy court should apply the conflicts of law provisions of the state in which it sits or whether it should apply federal law to determine which law should apply. But the Court stated that there does not appear to be a conflict when a bankruptcy court is considering allowance of claims, which is a matter subject to the bankruptcy court's core jurisdiction. The Court reviewed the Supreme Court's decision of Vanston Bondholders Protective Comm. v. Green, 329 U.S. 156 (1946) and stated that it held that the determination by a bankruptcy court of which state law should apply in adjudicating the allowability of a claim should not be dictated by the happenstance of where the bankruptcy case is filed, but rather which law more logically relates to the claim and is most consistent with the dictates of the court's equitable jurisdiction. Furthermore this determination requires the exercise of an informed judgment in the balancing of all the interests of the states with the most significant contacts in order best to accomodate the equities among the parties to the policies of those states.
The Court further found that each of the cases that have followed Vanston in the context of the allowance of a claim have been consistent in recognizing the inapplicability of Erie and Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) and apply a federal analysis to the choice of law issue in the claims allownace context. The Court noted that in the 11th Circuit, in order to determine which law should apply in making a decision regarding choice of law, the court must apply the "significant relationship" test although, depending on the nature of the dispute, more specific factors may have a bearing on the court's determination. See Dresdner Bank A.G v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 446 F.3d 1377 (11th Cir.2006).
The Court concluded by pointing out that whether Nevada law applies to the involved decision would be based on the significant relationships test and not solely on the language in the involved contracts.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
Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
A chapter 13 bankruptcy is also called a wage earner's plan. It enables individuals with a regular income to develop a plan to repay all or part of their debts.
Length of Chapter 13 Plan. Under chapter13, debtors propose a repayment plan to make installments to creditors over three to five years. If the debtor's current monthly income is less than the applicable state median, the plan will be for three years unless the court approves a longer period "for cause." If the debtor's current monthly income is greater than the applicable state median, the plan generally must be for five years. In no case may a plan provide for payments over a period longer than five years. 11 U.S.C. §1322(d). During this time the law forbids creditors from starting or continuing collection efforts
Advantages of Chapter 13 over Chapter 7. Chapter 13 offers individuals a number of advantages over a chapter 7 case. Perhaps most significantly, chapter 13 offers individuals an opportunity to save their homes from foreclosure. By filing under this chapter, individuals can stop foreclosure proceedings and may cure delinquent mortgage payments over time. Nevertheless, they must still make all mortgage payments that come due during the chapter 13 plan on time.
Another advantage of chapter 13 is that it allows individuals to reschedule secured debts (other than a mortgage for their primary residence) and extend them over the life of the chapter 13 plan. Doing this may lower the payments.
Chapter 13 also has a special provision that protects third parties who are liable with the debtor on "consumer debts." This provision may protect co-signers.
Finally, chapter 13 acts like a consolidation loan under which the individual makes the plan payments to a chapter 13 trustee who then distributes payments to creditors. Individuals will have no direct contact with creditors while under chapter 13 protectionJordan 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 most cases, bankruptcy has no effect on current or future employment. Many consumers new to the bankruptcy filing process may worry about suffering potential consequences if they decide to file. This is a common question asked about at the beginning of the filing process. For the most part, the bankruptcy code includes a special [...]
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.
The United States Bankruptcy court does not require that you have legal representation during a bankruptcy process, but it is strongly encouraged. This is especially true for filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy which is a longer and more complicated process. In either case, there is specific paperwork and documentation that must be accurately prepared. That [...]The post Do You Need to Hire an Attorney to File for Bankruptcy? appeared first on Acclaim Legal Services, PLLC.
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.
I am happy to report that the Oregon and Washington Bankruptcy Courts are for the time being staying open despite the government shut down. The bankruptcy courts will stay open for business for at least ten business days. On or around October 15, 2013, the federal Judiciary will reassess its situation and provide further guidance regarding potential closings.
All court proceedings and deadlines remain in effect as scheduled, and all 341 meetings will go forward unless otherwise advised.
The original post is titled Bankruptcy Courts Staying Open Through ShutDown , and it came from Oregon Bankruptcy Lawyer | Portland, Salem, and Vancouver, Wa .
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.
Ouch! You were just notified from your boss that they are going to garnish your wages. You find a A wage garnishment order was served from court. In California, creditors are allowed to garnish up to 25% of your disposable earnings.
25% of your income is a big chunk of money that you need to run your household. One effective way to stop a garnishment order is to file bankruptcy right away. A bankruptcy order will shut down the garnishment order instantly. You will be able to keep your money.
Filing an emergency bankruptcy case requires a little work. First, you need to pay your bankruptcy attorney and pay the filing fee with court. Right now, a chapter 7 bankruptcy fee is $306. Typically, I charge $1000 per case. If you run a business, and you want to keep it, I typically charge $1600. Thus, you will need approximately $1200 to file bankruptcy.
Second, you need to take the credit counseling class. The class can be taken on the internet. They charge as low as $10 for the class. Afterwards, a certificate is issued that needs to be filed.
Finally, you will need to verify and sign a bankruptcy petition that your attorney prepares. If the case needs to be filed right away, an abbreviated petition can submitted to the court with the promise that the full petition is filed within 14 days.
Ken Jorgensen, California Attorneywww.fresnobankruptcylawgroup.com
Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/beigephotos/
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.
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.