Archive for the ‘Bankruptcy Cases’ Category

Dodgers File Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Monday, June 27th, 2011

The Los Angeles Dodgers, one of the most storied franchises in baseball, had to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy today. It will be interesting to see what happens now. Most of the time, these types of bankruptcies are to quickly structure a sale of the franchise, but it doesn’t look like the McCourts want to sell the Dodgers. But, it seems, everyone else does want them to sell the Dodgers.

McCourt tried to put together a sale of television rights that was worth $3 billion over 17 years, with a cash advance of $385 million, that would have resolved his family court problems and the team’s liquidity issues. But Major Leage Baseball shot it down, saying that McCourt would essentially be using a substantial portion of the $385 million for his personal reasons, thus sucking more value out of the franchise, and that the broadcast rights are worth much more than the contract provided. One theory is that McCourt was use the bankruptcy court to force MLB to accept the TV deal. However, Fox (the company offering the TV deal) now says that they do not want the deal forced on MLB, so where does that leave McCourt?

The franchise agreement that all owners have to sign with MLB is incredibly restrictive. Owners essentially give MLB the right to come in and do whatever they want “if it is in the best interests” of MLB. And relying on that clause, MLB stepped in and essentially placed the Dodgers into something akin to a receivership. So, it will be interesting to see if the bankruptcy court gives McCourt any leverage in the discussion as to how much of that franchise agreement is enforceable by MLB.

SCOTUS Grants Cert. for Chapter 12 Tax Case

Wednesday, June 15th, 2011

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear an appeal from a Ninth Circuit case involving whether a Chapter 12 debtor could essentially trap capital gains taxes in a Chapter 12 estate, and therefore, not have to pay all of the capital gains taxes. The name of the case is Hall v. U.S. and the Supreme Court case number is 10-895.

After filing a Chapter 12 bankruptcy, the debtors sold their farm for $960,000, incurring a capital gains tax of $29,000. They then sought to treat the capital gains taxes as unsecured debt incurred by the Chapter 12 estate. The lower court had authorized this treatment of the debt, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The probable reason that certiorari was granted is to resolve a split in the circuits. Currently, the Eighth Circuit has ruled contrary to this, as has the Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

Will Your Attorney Be With You When You Go To Bankrutpcy Court?

Wednesday, December 8th, 2010

When you hire a bankruptcy lawyer, you probably assume that lawyer or another attorney from that lawyer’s firm will be with you when you “go to court.” (The technical name for the court hearing is the “341 meeting of creditors.”) But depending on what lawyer you hire, you might be wrong. A few clues that you should look for to see if your lawyer will actually be with you all the way through the case:

  1. Is your lawyer physically located in the same area where the courthouse is located? If not, the lawyer will probably try to find a local attorney who knows little or nothing about your case to stand in for them.
  2. Have you ever met face-to-face with your lawyer? If you never have a face-to-face meeting with your lawyer, that is an indication that the lawyer may not be planning to go to court with you.
  3. Does your lawyer do everything by a website, e-mail or phone? This is another indication that the lawyer might not be in the area and therefore, might not personally attend your hearing.
  4. Hire a local lawyer. If you hire a local lawyer, there is a much better chance that the lawyer will appear with you in court.
  5. Lastly, you should ask your lawyer if they will be personally present with you at the 341 meeting. Now, there are occasional scheduling issues which might prevent a lawyer from personally appearing at the 341. What you want to avoid is the situation where a lawyer regularly relies on outside counsel to handle court appearances.

And there is also a significant risk to the lawyers who routinely hire outside counsel to attend bankruptcy court hearings. In a recent case out of Michigan, the court examined one of these arrangements. The bankruptcy lawyer did not appear with the client at the court hearing (which was apparently the lawyer’s regular practice) and paid a local attorney (not a member of the bankruptcy lawyer’s firm) $100 to attend instead. This payment was not disclosed to the court. The court ordered that the bankruptcy lawyer refund $500 to the client for substandard legal representation and as a sanction for failing to make the full disclosures required by bankruptcy law. The court described the problem as follows:

More important than this lapse, however, is the fact that [bankruptcy lawyer] left the Debtor to attend her first meeting of creditors, the only hearing the Debtor was required to attend throughout the course of her case, with an attorney she did not know or retain. Although the Debtor offered no specific criticism of [appearance attorney], the court infers she was not pleased with the last-minute substitution, and that she believed she did not get the full benefit of her bargain with [bankruptcy lawyer]. Had the Debtor wanted to retain [appearance attorney], she could have done so; instead, she chose [bankruptcy lawyer].

So, to sum up, there are many quality bankruptcy attorneys in this local area. Choose one of them over someone out of the area. And feel free to ask your attorney if they or someone from their firm will be personally appearing with you at the meeting of creditors.

9th Circuit BAP Tells Wells Fargo No More Freezing Bank Accounts

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel castigated Wells Fargo for a practice that has been the bane of many debtors and their counsel. Wells Fargo has a procedure whereby it automatically freezes any debtor’s bank account where the total bank balances at the bank exceed $5,000. The bank’s stated purpose is to make sure those funds are available to the Chapter 7 Trustee. The case name is In re Mwangi, No. 09-1408 (9th Cir. BAP June 30, 2010).

The Ninth Circuit BAP, however, has found the practice violates the automatic stay because it is an act to control property of the estate. Furthermore, the BAP found that debtors who have been injured by such an action may seek damages from Wells Fargo for such a violation. 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a)(3) prohibits “any act . . . to exercise control over property of the estate.” The court noted that Sec. 362(a)(3) proscribes “the mere knowing retention of estate property.” The court went on to find that

Wells Fargo asserts it did not exercise control over property of the estate. We disagree. Wells Fargo could have paid the account funds to the trustee; it did not. Wells Fargo could have released the account funds claimed exempt to the Appellants when demand was made; it did not. Wells Fargo could have sought direction from the bankruptcy court, by way of a motion for relief from stay or otherwise, regarding the account funds; it did not. Instead, it chose to hold the funds until a demand was made for payment that it alone deemed appropriate. If that is not “exercising control over” the funds, we don’t know what is.

The court went on to note that the automatic stay and turnover provisions are self-executing and that Wells Fargo turned the self-executing nature of those provisions on their head by requiring the debtors to take affirmative action to get access to their funds.

It will be interesting to see if Wells Fargo appeals this case.

SCOTUS Opts for Reality

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

When confronted with the question of whether Congress meant you apply the means test mechanically to determine how much a debtor can pay in Chapter 13, even when that would lead to impossible results, the Supreme Court sided with reality, finding that “projected disposable income” is a “forward-looking” term and is not equivalent to “disposable income.” The case is Hamilton v. Lanning. This is a significant landscape shift for those of us in the Ninth Circuit, because the Kagenveama case reached the opposite conclusion finding that disposable income (derived mechanically from the means test) was equivalent to “projected disposable income” (the amount that has to be paid to unsecured creditors in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case).

In Lanning, the Supreme Court found that the means test (and disposable income) is a starting point for determining how much debtors have to pay in Chapter 13. But, however, if there are known or virtually certain changes to a Debtor’s income or expenses, the court has discretion to take that into account in figuring the amount that can be paid to unsecured creditors. Many of the bankruptcy cases that have gone up to the Ninth Circuit since Kagenveama have been attempts to reconcile the mechanical approach adopted by the Ninth Circuit with the reality of bankruptcy practice. Many of those cases are not quite so important after Lanning, because reality will now be determined as of the confirmation of the plan, not as of the date of filing, and if there are known changes as of confirmation, the court will take those changes into account at the time of confirmation.

As a side note, Justice Scalia is the only justice who dissented. In his view, disposable income is equivalent to projected disposable income. While Justice Scalia may have made the most intellectual defensible position, I think the decision reached by the Court will work out best in the long run for all parties to Chapter 13 cases. Bankruptcy judges need discretion to consider significant changes in each case and they now have that with the Lanning decision.

9th Cir BAP – "NO" to Stripped Mortgage and Surrendered Property Deductions on the Chapter 13 Means Test

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

The Ninth Circuit BAP ruled in two cases, In re Martinez and In re Smith, that Chapter 13 debtors may not take deductions for payments on stripped mortgages and surrendered property, respectively. They relied heavily on the “reasonable and necessary” language of 1325(b)(2), finding that the application of the means test as stated in (b)(3) was limited by the reasonable and necessary language in (b)(2).

Links:

http://www.fresnobklaw.com/Uploads/Martinez.pdf
http://www.fresnobklaw.com/Uploads/Smith.pdf

More analysis to come . . .

New York Bankruptcy Court: Debtors and Chapter 13 Trustees Should Object to Stale Proofs of Claim

Friday, May 22nd, 2009

One issue that frequently comes up in bankruptcy cases is the filing of “stale” (i.e., beyond the statute of limitations) claims. What happens is that debt buyers, such as LVNV, purchase a large volume of debt at pennies on the dollar. When a debtor files a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, they attempt to collect on that debt by filing a proof of claim. The debt, however, may be 10 years old and the debt collector could not have pursued the claim in state court. Confronting this issue, a bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York had the following to say:

C. Debtors and Their Counsel, If They Are Represented, and the Chapter 13 Trustee Should Scrutinize and Object to Stale Claims

In most circumstances it would be enough for the Court to stop with its ruling sustaining the objections and expunging the claims. But these claims and objections highlight a larger problem for this and other bankruptcy courts across the country. Two of the three claims at issue here were filed by LVNV, one of numerous bulk-claims purchasers that regularly file stale claims in bankruptcy courts. As stated in In re Andrews, 394 B.R. at 387, “[t]he phenomena of bulk debt purchasing has proliferated and the uncontrolled practice of filing claims with minimal or no review is a new development that presents a challenge for the bankruptcy system.”

While agreeing that the practice of bulk-claims purchasers filing stale claims is a serious problem, the court rejected the debtor’s argument that the conduct was sanctionable, as had other courts before it. Id. (citing cases). As pointed out in Andrews:

Allowing claims based on unchallenged proofs of claim is efficient
and economical in most cases. However, requiring debtors to file
objections and to raise affirmative defenses to large numbers of stale
claims filed by assignees based on a business model rather than after
careful review and evaluation is both burdensome and expensive.

Id. The solution suggested by the court was rules amendments:

The court will ask the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules
to consider whether changes should be made to the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure and to the Official Bankruptcy Forms to alleviate
the significant burden on individual debtors and on the bankruptcy system
caused by the large number of undocumented, stale claims being filed by
the bulk purchasers of charged-off debts. . . . Finally, because the federal
rule-making process typically takes no less than three years to produce a
new rule, this issue will also be referred, with the consent of the two other
judges of this district, to the Local Rules Committee . . . .

Id. at 389.

Unless and until local or national rules changes are made, it is incumbent on debtors, their counsel, and the Chapter 13 Trustee, carefully to scrutinize proofs of claims to identify and object, if appropriate, to stale claims. The Chapter 13 Trustee clearly has standing under Bankruptcy Code § 1302(b)(3) to object to stale claims. See Overbaugh v. Household Bank N.A. (In re Overbaugh), 559 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2009). Particularly in cases with pro se debtors, the Chapter 13 Trustee plays a crucial role and has an important responsibility in assuring that only proper claims are allowed and paid from the debtor’s estate.

In re Hess, — B.R. —-, 2009 WL 1285296 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y. May 06, 2009).

Goodbye Negative Equity!

Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008

One of the changes under the 2005 BAPCPA is that car creditors’ claims cannot be valued (i.e., paid only the value of the car or other collateral) if the car was purchased within 910 before the bankruptcy filing. This cut down significantly on the amount of cars that could be valued in Chapter 13.

One problem that came up was the problem of “negative equity,” i.e., when a car is traded in and is worth less than what is owed on it, the dealership will often roll the extra debt into the new purchase. So, for example, if you trade in your 2002 car worth $5,000 when you owe $10,000 on it, your new car loan would be $5,000 more than it would have been otherwise. I will frequently see clients with $5,000, $10,000 or even $15,000 in negative equity on a vehicle. The question is whether the “negative equity” can be valued at its true worth (zero) or whether the whole amount of the loan has to be paid.

The Ninth Circuit addressed this question in In re Penrod, adopting the dual status rule. The dual status rule means that the portion of the debt allocable to negative equity may be valued because it is not “purchase money” and the portion of the debt that is not for “negative equity” cannot be valued. This ruling makes the most sense practically, because in most of those situations, the Debtor would not be able to afford the car with negative equity, whereas the Debtor could afford the car if the “negative equity” could be removed from the amount of the debt.

Judges Scrutinize Mortgage Docs, Deny Foreclosures

Wednesday, July 30th, 2008

The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog has an interesting article entitled, “Subprime Legal: Judges Scrutinize Mortgage Docs, Deny Foreclosures.” The article addresses one of the most common problems in mortgage lending and more specifically in foreclosures: who owns the note? These notes are transferred around so much, there is a significant question as to who owns the note and as to whether the foreclosing party has the right to be foreclosing on the property. The article also addresses several other common problem with many of these foreclosures. The full text of the article follows:

It’s been about nine months since several federal judges in Ohio issued the
widely-read foreclosure dismissals that shined a light on sloppy paperwork
done by companies that specialize in handling foreclosures.

Since then, the WSJ reports tonight, other judges across the country have
caught on and are carefully scrutinizing mortgage documents filed as part of
foreclosures and dismissing cases based on mistakes they’re finding, which
borrowers might be able to exploit when facing foreclosure. (For another good
read on judges and lawyers working to staunch foreclosure, click here for a
recent NLJ story.)

Among the issues hitting snags among the judges, according to WSJ:

“Backdated” mortgage assignments: Assignments, documents that transfer ownership of the mortgage, are executed after the foreclosure process has begun but state that they are “effective as of” a date prior to the foreclosure action. Some judges are dismissing those cases, saying attempts to retroactively assign the mortgage aren’t valid.

Suspicious multiple hats: Employees for mortgage companies are signing affidavits stating
they are employees of one company, but other mortgage documents say they work at
another firm. In some cases, an employee claims to work for companies on both
sides of a transaction, prompting one skeptical judge to ask for that person’s
work history for the last three years.

Shared office space: In foreclosure filings, one judge has found that numerous mortgage-related companies, including units of Wall Street banks, all claim to share the same address: a suite of a West Palm Beach, Fla., building. “The Court ponders if Suite 100 is the size of
Madison Square Garden to house all of these financial behemoths or if there is a
more nefarious reason for this corporate togetherness,” the judge wrote in a
recent decision.

Brooklyn Crusader: The judge making Madison Square Garden references is Brooklyn’s own Arthur M. Schack (pictured) of Kings County Supreme Court, who has dismissed dozens of foreclosures sua sponte because of shoddy documents or suspicious patterns he notices in the filings. Schack, 63, a former counsel to the MLB Players Association who is known for peppering his rulings with pop culture references such as Bruce Willis movies, says barely any of the foreclosures he has denied eventually are completed.

In one of his foreclosure dismissals, Schack (Indiana, New York Law School) cited the film
“It’s a Wonderful Life” to make the point that homeowners now deal with “large
financial organizations, national and international in scope, motivated primarily by their interest in maximizing profit, and not necessarily by helping people.”

In an interview, Schack, a Brooklyn native, told WSJ: “Taking away someone’s home is a serious matter. I’m a neutral party and in reviewing papers filed with the court, I have to make sure they’re proper.”

Thorough Servicer Analysis

Saturday, July 26th, 2008

In In re Stewart, ___ B.R. ___ 2008 WL 2676961 (Bankr.E.D.La. July 9, 2008) (Westlaw access required), Judge Magner did a thorough review of Wells Fargo’s mortgage servicing procedures in bankruptcy. These procedures are probably similar to those of most servicers and are instructive for dealing with mortgage servicers. That analysis is below:

Loan Administration

Ms. Miller explained that Wells Fargo administers 7.7 million home mortgage loans. [FN16] The management or administration of these loans is accomplished through several computer software packages, some owned by Wells Fargo, some licensed from third party vendors. Entries on the loan account are tracked with a licensed computer software platform commonly known as Fidelity Mortgage Servicing Package or Fidelity MSP. Fidelity MSP provides extremely sophisticated computer software for the management of home mortgage loans and is one of the largest providers of this service nationally. When a payment is received on a mortgage loan, it is entered into the Fidelity MSP system and then deposited. Fidelity MSP applies the payment to a borrower’s account; in this case, satisfying outstanding fees and costs first.

In this Court’s experience, virtually every home mortgage executed in the United States contains provisions that determine when payments are due, when they are considered late, what fees or charges may accrue if late, when a default can be declared, the remedies available on default, and which collection fees or charges are recoverable after default. In addition, most notes and mortgages provide fairly clear directives regarding the application of payments between principal, accrued interest, fees, costs, and amounts due to satisfy insurance and property taxes. Mercifully, most home mortgage loans have relatively standard, predictable language. However, the right to assess certain charges or fees on late payment or default is often at the discretion of the holder of the note. How this discretion is exercised is subject to guidelines not contained in the note or mortgage.

In this Court’s opinion, the exercise of that discretion may be impacted by the relationship between the holder of the note and the party that administers its collection. In the present financial market, almost every home mortgage loan is packaged with thousands of other loans and sold to investors assembled on Wall Street. The securitization of mortgage loans allows the original lender to immediately recover the amounts lent, providing it with liquidity and reducing its risk of default. The investors that acquire these bundled loans or portfolios are most often not banks or credit unions, the traditional members of the lending community. Instead, they are investment or brokerage houses; insurance companies; hedge, pension, or mutual funds; and other investment groups. They then hire a loan service provider to administer the loan portfolio.

*6 The securitization of home mortgage loans has divorced the lending community from borrowers. Not only are the new holders of the mortgage notes nontraditional lenders, but a mortgage service provider is a buffer in the relationship between lender and borrower. The holders of notes do not see themselves as lenders, but investors in an asset. They have little interest in the relationship between lender and borrower except as it might affect their return on investment.

Mortgage service providers administer notes for a fee. The terms of their agreements with investors, as well as the guidelines the investors set for administration of the loan, have ramifications for the borrower. Most servicing agreements allow the service provider to charge a flat fee, usually stated as a percentage of the portfolio under administration. All principal and interest payments collected are paid to the note holder. Usually, fees are additional income to the service provider while costs are simply a pass through, or reimbursable items. In addition, servicers invest the “float,” or funds held on deposit, and retain earnings on that investment. Therefore, amounts held in escrow or in debtor suspense are an addition source of revenue for the servicer. While a mortgage service provider and note holder’s interests are closely aligned, they are not perfectly aligned. It is in a mortgage service provider’s interest to collect fees and hold funds, both of which generate additional income for its account. Conversely, a note holder or investor is interested in the collection and application of payments to principal and interest.

Since many fees and charges are imposed at the discretion of the lender and must be “reasonable” under the law, servicing agreements may establish guidelines for the exercise of that discretion. [FN17] In this case, Wells Fargo did not produce its servicing agreement. Therefore, the exact terms of its relationship with Lehman Brothers and the financial incentives available to Wells Fargo are not in evidence.

In any event, Ms. Miller testified that once the guidelines for management of a loan are determined by the loan’s investor, Fidelity MSP imports the guidelines into its internal logic. [FN18] For example, if investor guidelines suggest the assessment of a late charge every time a payment is fifteen (15) days past due, the Fidelity MSP system will automatically assess a late charge if payment is not posted to the account within fifteen (15) days of its due date.

Other charges or fees are assessed against the account by virtue of “wrap around” software packages maintained by Wells Fargo. These software packages interface with Fidelity MSP and implement decisions based on their own internal logic. For example, if a borrower is delinquent in making a payment, Wells Fargo’s computer system may automatically send a demand letter to the borrower. Guidelines might also recommend a property inspection if a loan is past due. If such an event occurs, the computer system will automatically generate a work order for an inspection, allow the vendor to upload the completed report, generate a check to the vendor for the inspection, and charge the customer’s account–all without human intervention.

*7 When a loan is involved in foreclosure, bankruptcy, or other litigation, Wells Fargo manages that loan through its Bankruptcy Department located in Fort Mill, South Carolina. Ms. Miller is the Vice President who oversees this department of 375 people.

The transfer of loans involved in a bankruptcy to Ms. Miller’s department begins with America InfoSource (“AIS”), a third party vendor hired by Wells Fargo to provide daily information regarding new bankruptcy filings that may potentially involve Wells Fargo loans. At the inception of this relationship, Wells Fargo supplied AIS with a listing of every credit relationship it held or serviced, as well as certain fields of information (debtor’s name, address, social security number, etc.) on each borrower. The information is updated daily as Wells Fargo acquires new relationships and old ones are closed.

AIS scans the electronic databases of all the bankruptcy courts in the country and attempts to match debtors to any of the information supplied by Wells Fargo. If a match is made for one field of information, Wells Fargo is immediately notified. The notification provides Wells Fargo with the debtor’s name, address, social security number, the bankruptcy court, case number, chapter type, and judge assigned. Once notified, Wells Fargo verifies that the debtor is a borrower. To verify the “match,” Wells Fargo scans the information supplied by AIS against its own records. Ideally, three fields or pieces of information will be verified and matched. [FN19] If a three field match is not secured by Wells Fargo’s internal computer system, the system will reject the borrower and a manual match will be attempted. This is one of the few times any human being touches or reviews a loan’s electronic record.

Once Wells Fargo’s computers have verified the AIS borrower match, the program automatically activates a system within the Fidelity MSP software platform called a Bankruptcy Work Station (“BWS”). This sub-part of Fidelity MSP is allegedly infused with computer logic designed to manage a loan during a pending bankruptcy. The supervision of that loan then falls to Ms. Miller.

Once a borrower’s status as a bankruptcy debtor has been confirmed, the Fidelity MSP/BWS automatically advises counsel for Wells Fargo when a loan is referred for legal action. Who is selected to represent Well Fargo is dependent on who owns the loan. If a loan is owned by Wells Fargo, it is automatically referred to one of its national counsel; either Brice or McCalla Raymer. If held by one of the federal agencies, Wells Fargo will refer the loan to a firm on an approved list supplied by the agency. If held by a private investment group, that group can specify counsel or can delegate the responsibility to Wells Fargo as the service provider. If the loan is managed by national counsel, local counsel are retained to physically file pleadings and make court appearances when necessary. Local counsel are not given access to either the electronic files or accounting history but receive all of their information from national counsel. They typically do not have direct client access and may even be prohibited from contacting the service provider or note holder by their retainer agreements. [FN20]

*8 Once the BWS notifies Brice that it has been retained, Brice is given immediate access to Wells Fargo’s mainframe computer platform. In addition, the computer automatically searches different parts of Wells Fargo’s multiple software packages and compiles a storage file where counsel can obtain all the information necessary to perform his or her duties. For example, when a loan is owned or serviced by Wells Fargo, the documents evidencing the initial loan transaction are kept in pdf format under a software platform called FileNet. FileNet is scanned for copies of the note, mortgage, recordation certificate, and other relevant closing documents. Those electronic files are then assembled in a storage file for counsel’s use. The Fidelity MSP system, containing the loan’s account history, is open to review by counsel. iClear, another computer program, contains copies of the invoices that represent costs billed to the loan. [FN21]

The first task of counsel, once a bankruptcy is filed, is to prepare a proof of claim. Because counsel has direct access to Wells Fargo’s complete loan accounting, as well as the documents that support its debt and security interest, national counsel prepares the proof of claim without ever speaking to a Wells Fargo representative. In fact, Wells Fargo testified that it does not review any proof of claim prior to its filing. Wells Fargo’s testimony was that only after filing was the proof of claim reviewed for accuracy. [FN22] Other legal assignments are executed in a similar fashion.

For example, when a loan goes into postpetition default, the BWS automatically notifies legal counsel of this fact. Legal counsel then prepares a motion for relief utilizing information obtained from the Fidelity MSP system and BWS, including attaching any necessary documents to support the motion and the financial allegations of the default. The motion is typically filed without Wells Fargo’s input or review. Wells Fargo testified that it does not maintain records of the legal documents filed on its behalf but relies exclusively on counsel for this service.

The logic utilized by the BWS in its decision making process is both detailed, court, and even judge specific. For example, if under local rules, or even local custom of a particular district or judge, a motion for relief may not be filed until the loan is at least ninety (90) days past due, the computer can be adjusted to notify counsel of the need to file a motion for relief when the debtor’s account is past due ninety (90) days rather than the typical sixty (60). Other adjustments to the system can be made to eliminate fees or charges prohibited by a particular jurisdiction or judge within a jurisdiction. In summary, Fidelity MSP and BWS allow Wells Fargo to input the individual demands of a particular investor or note holder as well as a court district or even judge.