Archive for the ‘Chapter 7’ Category

Pay Your HOA Fees Post-Bankruptcy . . . or Else!

Friday, October 28th, 2011

Of the many exceptions to discharge found in 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523, subsection (a)(16) is perhaps the oddest. That section limits the dischargeability of property or home owners association (“HOA”) assessments, but only for assessments that are incurred post-petition. So, anything incurred pre-petition is discharged. The section states that the bankruptcy discharge does not discharge an individual from a debt

for a fee or assessment that becomes due and
payable after the order for relief to a membership association with
respect to the debtor’s interest in a unit that has condominium
ownership, in a share of a cooperative corporation, or a lot in a
homeowners association, for as long as the debtor or the trustee has a
legal, equitable, or possessory ownership interest in such unit, such
corporation, or such lot, but nothing in this paragraph shall except
from discharge the debt of a debtor for a membership association fee or
assessment for a period arising before entry of the order for relief in
a pending or subsequent bankruptcy case;

This often creates huges problems for debtors in bankruptcy. Often debtors want to surrender an overencumbered home to the bank,* but the debtor has to keep making payments on the HOA assessments until the deed is formally recorded transferring title to the new owner. And as I have noted anecdotally in my practice and as others have noted, banks seem to take a lot longer to foreclose when an HOA is involved. This makes some sense on the bank’s part, because once the foreclosure takes place, the bank is now liable for ongoing HOA assessments. But before the foreclosure takes place, the HOA assessments are subordinate to the bank’s lien. In some clients’ situations, the bank has taken almost 3 years to foreclose on a lien where an HOA was involved.

For debtors filing bankruptcy, it is important that they remember to make all of their post-filing assessments and to make them timely. Some HOA creditors are relatively lenient, while others can be quite agressive in attempting to collect these. For debtors who face agressive HOA collection tactics, it is imperative that they keep good records that they paid all of their post-petition HOA fees and paid them timely.

*Note: I use the term “bank” loosely to refer to the entity holding the mortgage and the entity enforcing that mortgage. Most mortgages are held in trusts and are serviced by mortgage servicers that don’t actually own the paper and those servicers are not banks. The days are far gone when your local bank owned your mortgage.

WSJ: Consumer Bankruptcy Filings Down 5% in July

Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that consumer bankruptcy filings were down 5% in July from a month earlier. The commentary suggests that consumers are starting to get a handle on their household balance sheets. While that may be the case due to foreclosures which relieve a significant amount off the balance sheet, I think the untold story here is that a lot of people need to file, but cannot even afford to hire an attorney and (justifiably) don’t feel comfortable trying to navigate the bankruptcy process without one.

Fresno Bankruptcy Filings Are Flat or Trending Down Slightly

Monday, June 27th, 2011

Interestingly, even with the economy in such poor shape, it looks like local bankruptcy filings are staying flat or somewhat down from last year. This is only for the first quarter of the year so it is difficult to know exactly what these statistics mean for the rest of the year, but from all of the bankruptcy attorneys I talk to, it sounds like the number of potential filers is down slightly. This is good new for consumers, because they won’t have to choose between waiting months to get in to see an experienced bankruptcy attorney and choosing a less-experienced bankruptcy attorney who is available now. A couple of years ago, it might have taken a month to get in to see some of the more experienced consumer bankruptcy attorneys in Fresno. The wait should be much less now.

The Automatic Stay, a.k.a., You Can Answer Your Phone Again

Wednesday, June 8th, 2011

One of the main reasons that people file bankruptcy is something called the “automatic stay.” The automatic stay is called that because that is what it is: (1) it goes into effect automatically upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition and (2) it operates as a “stay,” or stops, efforts to collect against a debtor. The automatic stay is quite different from most other areas of law. In most areas of law, if you want a stay or an injunction, you have to make a significant showing as to why the stay is necessary. Not in bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, you just file the case and the stay goes into effect.

So what happens if a creditor violates the automatic stay? Let’s say a creditor disregards the automatic stay and continues a lawsuit against a debtor after the bankruptcy is filed. What penalties are there? A willful disregard of the automatic stay can result in the creditor being liable for actual damages, attorneys fees, and in appropriate cases, punitive damages. So, creditors have good reason to be very cautious about violating the automatic stay.

Unfortunately, they are not always as cautious as they should be. When that happens, it is important to have an attorney that is willing to sue the creditor for violation of the automatic stay. It is also important to remember that automatic stay violations have to be proven by evidence. So, if you think a creditor is violating the automatic stay, you should start keeping track of each detail regarding that violation. This would include (1) writing down details regarding each phone contact, (2) keeping any written communication, including the envelope used to send the communication, and (3) documenting any damages that occur as a result of the violation.

A Bankruptcy Doesn’t Get Rid of Your House

Monday, February 28th, 2011

I frequently talk with people who think that by filing a bankruptcy, they can rid themselves of a house they don’t want anymore. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

In the modern housing crisis, there are many people who do not want to keep an over-encumbered house. They may have lost a job and know they will never be able to pay for it, or their efforts to obtain a loan modification may have been frustrating and ineffectual, and they are just tired of fighting to keep the house. So, the logical next question is, how can I give my house back to the bank? The short answer is, you can’t . . . unless the bank agrees.

(Note: I am using the term bank here loosely. Yes, I know that almost all residential loans are handled by a servicer, not by the holder of the note.)

Often, these people need to file a bankruptcy anyway and they think that the bankruptcy can help them deal with the house they want to dump. Here comes the confusing part: they are partly right and partly wrong. The bankruptcy discharges the personal liability on the debt, i.e., the bank could not sue you and get a money judgment against you personally. However, the bankruptcy does not cause the property to be transferred from you to the bank. And this can be a big problem for several reasons.

As long as the property is in your name, you are responsible for everything that happens on the property. So, you have to keep the insurance and property taxes current, and you have to make sure that the property complies with all codes and ordinances, e.g., making sure the grass is watered. Also, if your home has a property owners’ association, you are liable for any post-petition fees or assessments. This may be why it seems like banks are slower to foreclose on houses with property owners’ associations.

So, what has to happen to have the property transferred out of your name? There are several ways that could happen when the property is “under water”:

1. Deed in lieu of foreclosure. Sometimes, the bank is willing to take a deed in lieu of foreclosure. Essentially, the borrower signs a deed to the bank. Unfortunately, the bank usually requires a laundry list of guarantees to do this, and even then, few banks will actually approve these. Banks want to get the property sold and quickly out of the bank’s name, not keep it around in the bank’s name.

2. Short sale. A short sale means selling your property for less than the bank is owed. To do that, the bank has to agree. Getting bank approval can take a long time and they may not agree to it. There are also issues with potential tax consequences from doing a short sale. Once escrow closes, the property is no longer in the borrower’s name.

3. Trustee’s Sale a.k.a. Foreclosure. The foreclosure process takes a minimum of 110 days, but usually longer. First, the bank records and sends out a Notice of Default, giving the borrower 90 days to bring the loan current. If the loan is not brought current, the bank can then give 20 days notice of a trustee’s sale. At the trustee’s sale, the property is equitably transferred to the new owner, but it is not finalized until a trustee’s deed is recorded. Usually, the trustee’s sale deed is recorded within 15 days of the trustee’s sale. It is probably not safe to consider the property to have left the borrowers name until the trustee’s deed is recorded.

In bankruptcy, we might say that the “debtor intends to surrender the house.” But all that means is that the debtor will not be contesting a foreclosure. The bank still has to complete the foreclosure for the property to be transferred out of the debtor’s name. And sometimes, it takes a long time.

I have had many clients who have told me that the bank took over 2 years to foreclose on a home. Consequently, I usually suggest that clients not move out of a home until they know the lender will foreclose. That way, the client can make sure the property is kept up and taken care of while waiting for the lender to foreclose. Of course, the client won’t have to pay any rent during that time period and can save up for moving costs.

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.

Mr. Fear Will Be Speaking at Two Bankruptcy CLE Events This Summer

Tuesday, May 18th, 2010

The first is entitled Fundamentals of Bankruptcy and is taking place on June 25, 2010 at San Joaquin College of Law. Mr. Fear will be speaking at 2:45 p.m. (different from program schedule) on “Pre-Filing Issues for Debtors and their Attorneys.”

On August 16, 2010, Mr. Fear will participate in the NBI Seminar entitled Nuts and Bolts of Bankruptcy Law. Mr. Fear will be speaking on Introduction to the Bankruptcy Code and Rules and the Basics of Chapter 7.

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.”

Ride-through is Still Alive, With a Twist

Tuesday, June 19th, 2007

Before the advent of BAPCPA (2005), Chapter 7 debtors in the Ninth Circuit (which includes California) did not have to reaffirm a car loan in order to keep the car. As long as the debtor was current on payments, the debtor could keep the car, even if the installment contract stated that bankruptcy was an event of default. Things are different under BAPCPA, however. One of the sweeping changes made by BAPCPA was to require debtors to require debtors to reaffirm if they wish to keep a car.

Almost all car installment purchase agreements provide that bankruptcy is an event of default, thus allowing the creditor to repossess the car. Under prior law, these “ipso facto” (by the very fact) provisions had no effect. However, BAPCPA allows these provisions to have effect if the Debtor fails to either (1) timely file a statement of intention, or (2) timely fulfill that statement of intention. What this means is that if the debtor fails to timely file the statement of intention or follow through on the statement of intention, arguably, the creditor can repossess the car, even if the debtor is current.

This presents a significant conundrum often to debtors who are current on their car payments. The effect of reaffirmation is harsh. If you reaffirm, you probably can’t discharge the debt in a subsequent bankruptcy, even if your car blows up or you lose your job and can’t make the payments.

A recent case, however, indicates that the “ride-through” is still alive, if the debtor does everything he is supposed to do and the court declines to approve the reaffirmation agreement. The case is In re Moustafi, — B.R. —-, 2007 WL 1592965 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.,2007). (Must have Westlaw to view.) In that case, the debtor timely filed the statement of intention and timely signed a reaffirmation agreement. The court declined to approve the reaffirmation agreement, because it was not in the debtor’s best interest. Then the court stated that because the debtor had done everything that was required, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 521(d) does not allow the ipso facto clause to be valid. If the ipso facto clause is not valid, then there is no default and the creditor cannot repossess the car.