Archive for the ‘Fresno Bankruptcy’ 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.

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.

Mr. Fear Will be Speaking on a National CLE Teleconference on the Topic of Bankruptcy Exemptions

Tuesday, March 1st, 2011

On May 2, 2011, Mr. Fear will be speaking at an NBI CLE Teleconference on the topic of Bankruptcy Exemptions. The one and a half-hour session will cover the following topics:

  • Making the Most of Bankruptcy Exemptions
  • Claiming Exemptions
  • Types of Property Exemptions
  • Other Exemption Categories
  • Treatment of Retirement Funds
  • Calculation of Exemptions
  • Surcharge on Exemptions 

To register for the teleconference, click here.

Thinking about starting a restaurant . . . be careful about running up too much debt

Tuesday, March 1st, 2011

The restaurant business is tough as it is, but when restaurants acquire a lot of debt, it is sometimes impossible to make it work. One of the biggest reasons that start-ups fail is inadequate capital and it is important to remember that debt does not equal capital.

Another local restaurant, Campagnia, has filed for Chapter 11 reorganization. Hopefully, this will allow the restaurant to get its financial house in order and keep its doors open. With $4 million in debt, it is unlikely the restaurant could have had adequate cash flow to survive without a reorganization.

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.

How to Let States File Bankruptcy

Friday, January 21st, 2011

Allowing states to file bankruptcy raises a host of questions and issues. This article from the New York Times addresses some of them.  One issue is that states are sovereign and could just refuse to honor particular contracts. But if they do, their bond ratings get lower, which costs them more money in the long run. Of course, filing a bankruptcy could lead to a really low bond rating. But, right now, there is no legal mechanism equivalent to declaring bankruptcy for a state.

David Skeel, a well-respected bankruptcy professor, opined that Congress should give states a way to go bankrupt. Professor Skeel seems to rather lightly dismiss the constitutional concerns:

Start with the issue of constitutionality. The main objection to
bankruptcy for states is that it would interfere with state
sovereignty—the Constitution’s protections against federal meddling in
state affairs. The best known such barrier is the Tenth Amendment, but
the structure of the Constitution as a whole is designed to give the
states a great deal of independence. This concern is easily addressed.
So long as a state can’t be thrown into bankruptcy against its will,
and bankruptcy doesn’t usurp state lawmaking powers,
bankruptcy-for-states can easily be squared with the Constitution. But
the solution also creates a second concern. If the bankruptcy framework
treads gingerly on state prerogatives, as it must to be constitutional,
it may be exceedingly difficult for a bankruptcy court to impose the
aggressive measures a state needs to get its fiscal house in order.

He may be right about this, but it seems to me that sovereignty is a little more complex than that. But let’s say we get past sovereignty. How would it work?

We now have more than 70 years of experience with a special chapter of
the bankruptcy code—now called Chapter?9—which permits cities and other
municipal entities to file for bankruptcy. For decades, this chapter
did not get a great deal of use. But since the successful 1994 filing
for bankruptcy by Orange County, California, after the county’s bets on
derivatives contracts went bad, municipal bankruptcy has become
increasingly common. Vallejo, California, is currently in bankruptcy,
and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, is mulling it over. The experience of
these municipal bankruptcies shows how bankruptcy-for-states might
work, what its limitations are, and why we need it now.

Once concern I would have is the complexity of state finances to be handled in the bankruptcy court. The complexity of state bankruptcy seems that it would dwarf municipal bankruptcies. On the other hand, the GM bankruptcy was pretty complex in itself and there have been a lot of complex bankruptcies in recent years. Maybe this would be something a bankruptcy judge could handle.

I guess we will see if anything comes to fruition.

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.

FTC Bans Upfront Fees by Debt Negotiators

Friday, July 30th, 2010

The FTC enacted a new rule, effective October 27, 2010, that will ban debt negotiators from collecting an advance fee before the debt has been negotiated.

This is a serious problem, as I have commented before on this blog. It has been said that the business of most debt negotiation companies is akin to a Ponzi scheme, because it essentially requires failure of the debt negotiation plan for the debt negotiation company to be most profitable. Most of these companies require payment of almost all of the fee upfront. So, for example, the total debt might be $40,000, monthly payment for 36 months might be $500, and the debt negotiation fee might be $4,500. But almost all of that fee would be taken in the first 9 months and then the debt negotiation would start. By that time, at least one of the creditors will have sued and the plan will fall apart. Most of the time the debtor will end up filing bankruptcy, having obtained no real benefit from the debt negotiation plan.

In addition, the rule will provide how much of the fee can be collected for each debt that is settled:

To ensure that debt relief providers do not front-load their fees if a
consumer has enrolled multiple debts in one debt relief program, the
Final Rule specifies how debt relief providers can collect their fee
for each settled debt. First, the provider’s fee for a single debt must
be in proportion to the total fee that would be charged if all of the
debts had been settled. Alternatively, if the provider bases its fee on
the percentage of what the consumer saves as result of using its
services, the percentage charged must be the same for each of the
consumer’s debts.

I do not think that the current business model used by most of the debt negotiation companies out there will work with these rules. So, we will either see a lot of companies get out of the business or they will be using a different business model, one that actually serves the clients. That being said, I would not be surprised to see a lot of companies try to operate while ignoring this rule.