If you have been reading your local newspapers, you may be aware that Nathan Deal, the Republican candidate for Governor of Georgia, is facing scrutiny about his personal finances and about the bankruptcy filings of his daughter and son-in-law.
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Mr. Deal personally guaranteed bank loans totaling over $2 million that was used to build and finance a sporting goods store owned by his daughter and son-in-law called Wilder Outdoors, located on Highway 365 near Gainesville. Unfortunately for the Wilders, the sporting goods business failed, leaving about $2.5 million due. Mr. and Mrs. Wilder filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2009, discharging their obligations on the outstanding bank loans, leaving Mr. Deal exposed as the guarantor.
Mr. Deal and the Wilders were able to refinance the business loan several years ago prior to the closing of the business but now, a $2.5 million debt will come due in February, which would be about a month after he takes office if he wins.More on Will Bankruptcy Issues Affect Georgia Governor’s Race?
Filed under Chapter 7 issues, Georgia Bankruptcy, Revocation of Discharge-Section 727 by 
There are dozens of lawyers out there who offer to prepare and file bankruptcy cases. Some work in high volume “bankruptcy mill” firms that compete on price while others compete on experience, knowledge and service. Usually the cost differential is a few hundred dollars, but when you are considering bankruptcy, every dollar counts – so why would you want a lawyer like me as opposed to a firm that would offer to represent you for a lower price?
I could offer a glib answer like “if you needed brain surgery, would you look for the cheapest surgeon on the one with the most experience and industry recognition” but that does not really answer the question. Perhaps it would be helpful if you could look over my shoulder as I analyze a real life situation that came before me recently.
Earlier this month an email arrived from a couple who wanted information about bankruptcy. The wife wrote that she was a stay at home mom raising 2 children and that her husband lost his job about a year ago, and recently started back to work at a lower paying job. Their current household income is just under $50,000. They own a house that is now worth less than what they paid for it – the house is worth about $200,000 – the first mortgage is $210,000 and the second mortgage is $35,000. They own one older car outright and are financing a mini-van. They have also incurred around $25,000 of credit card debt – most of which was used trying to keep the mortgage current.
Earlier this year they fell behind on both the first and second mortgage. The first mortgage lender started foreclosure proceedings, but suspended foreclosure and offered to consider my potential clients for a mortgage modification. They have been making modified payments for several months but when they called the lender to ask if they had been approved for a permanent modification, the account rep told them that their modification paperwork had not been approved but that their application had been sent to another department for a reconsideration. News of this decision had not been provided to my prospective clients – the only reason they found out was from their call. No one from the mysterious reconsideration division was available and their multiple calls have not been returned for over 2 weeks.
They decided to contact me because they are getting the sense that the mortgage company is unlikely to approve their modification and they want to be prepared for a possible foreclosure. What are their options?More on Inside the Mind of a Bankruptcy Lawyer – Should I File and if so, Why Should I Choose Your Firm?
Filed under General consumer bankruptcy info, Georgia Bankruptcy by
United Press and about two dozen tabloid web sites and blogs are reporting that reality TV star Teresa Guidice, and her husband Joe have been sued by their Chapter 7 trustee for failing to report assets in their bankruptcy petition. Guidice, one of the “Real Housewives of New Jersey,” apparently signed a book contract for a cookbook that will pay her $250,000 but failed to reveal that asset on her petition. The trustee also alleges that the tax returns submitted by Teresa and her husband were fraudulent as well.
Setting aside the question of why a book publisher thinks it can make back a quarter of a million dollars on sales of Teresa Guidice’s “Skinny Italian” cookbook, what Teresa and her husband are facing is a complaint under Section 727(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which bars a Chapter 7 discharge to a debtor who knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case—
Filed under Chapter 7 issues, Denial of discharge - Section 727 by
As you may know, last year Congress passed a law called the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. This law, nicknamed the CARD Act of 2009, was designed to regulate a variety of unpopular credit card tactics, such as interest rate increases without notice, inactivity fees and unfair interest calculations.
According to credit card industry analysts, the CARD Act of 2009 will eliminate over $390 million in fees for credit card issuers. Not surprisingly, the credit card companies do not intend to walk away from this fee income. For every fee and penalty eliminated by the CARD Act, credit card issuers are finding replacements. For example the annual fee for many cards has been increased, sometimes dramatically. Card issuers are also sending corporate card applications (called “professional cards”) to consumers. Corporate cards are not included in the CARD Act.
The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story explaining how the credit card companies intends to recoup their lost fee income. The bottom line: the CARD Act of 2009 will eliminate some consumer-unfriendly tactics used by the credit card companies, but it will trigger an equal number of new consumer-unfriendly tactics. Caveat Emptor.
Filed under Consumer protection by
I recently received an email from a blog reader asking about his obligations to his mortgage company when he does not reaffirm:
I have read your blog and you are very through so I write you with hopes that you might answer this question for me. I file Chapter 7 in 08, and did not reaffirm my loan. I am still living in the house and did make some payments. However, i have not for the last 8 months. It is my understanding that I must sign a document to reaffirm and that continuing payment in itself is not a reaffirmation…or? Well it gets a little more complicated. My house is valued at $410,000 and the bank has offered me a deal that is going to be hard to refuse. They have agreed to let me do a short re-fi in the amount of 180k. If I agree to that is that in itself a reaffirmation?
Here is my response: in most cases, when you take out a mortgage loan, you are signing two different types of agreements. The first type is a promissory note whereby you personally agree to make the payments. The second type of obligation creates a property lien, meaning that you, as the owner of the property, pledges that property as collateral for the loan.
When you file a Chapter 7 and receive your discharge, your personal obligations are extinguished. However, a Chapter 7 discharge does not eliminate the mortgage company’s lien against your property. If you “reaffirm” your mortgage, you are actually reaffirming the promissory note and your personal obligations to pay.
For years, many bankruptcy attorneys advised their clients to avoid signing reaffirmation agreements for mortgages, car loans or any other secured debt. The reasoning – even without a personal “guarantee” lenders are protected by the property lien. If the lender is willing to accept payments (the so-called “stay and pay” option), the now discharged debtor keeps his property, keeps making payment, but does not have personal liability on the note.More on Can You be Sued for Non-payment of your Mortgage if You Do Not Reaffirm?
Last month, I met several times with a potential Chapter 13 client who was facing a mortgage foreclosure. Over the course of the past few months he has been juggling his creditors and bills trying to stay afloat and during that time he fell behind to his mortgage company by more than four months, and found himself in the foreclosure process.
This individual earns over $100,000 annually, but, unfortunately he used to earn more than double this amount. His problem was not the mortgage, but his other bills, including a very high car payment and a mortgage payment arising from a failing real estate investment.
Not surprisingly the foreclosure notice got his attention. He immediately took action by calling me to discuss Chapter 13 bankruptcy and by contacting his mortgage company to discuss repayment options. By the Wednesday prior to the pending foreclosure sale scheduled for the following Tuesday, my client had provided me with enough information so that I could prepare a rough draft of a Chapter 13. In this case, by the way, my client and I entered into an agreement whereby he paid me around $300 to open a file and to start entering information into my petition preparation program.
On the pre-foreclosure Wednesday he called to say that after a lot of discussion he was expecting a decision the next day from his mortgage company but that if he did not hear from them by mid-day on Thursday, we would be proceeding with the Chapter 13. A few hours later he called back to say that his mortgage company had agreed to postpone the foreclosure until September and that the Chapter 13 was on hold for now.More on Can You Rely on a Verbal Promise that Your Foreclosure Will be Delayed?
Filed under Alternatives to bankruptcy, Debt negotiation, Foreclosure issues by
The United States Supreme Court rarely accepts cases that affect consumer bankruptcy debtors. Recently, however, the Court considered an issue that potentially impacts all debtors – the treatment of exemptions.
The term “exemptions” refers to property you own that is protected from the reach of the trustee or creditors. For example, every state provides for exemptions that include your clothes, a certain amount of household goods, a certain amount of equity your car, and a certain amount of equity in your home. Georgia has fairly stingy exemptions – you can read the Georgia exemption law by clicking on the link.
When property is declared as exempt, it does not count for purposes of counting up your assets. If you own property that exceeds the exemption available to you, that property could be seized and sold by a Chapter 7 trustee or it could force you to pay back a higher percentage of your unsecured debt in a Chapter 13. Exemption planning and exemption calculation are important functions for consumer bankruptcy lawyers.
The Supreme Court decision in Schwab v. Reilly requires debtors and their attorneys to be more exact when identifying exemptions, and applies to cases filed in Georgia and everywhere else in the United States. The article that follows is a guest post written for this blog by Brandon Moreno, Vice President of the Utah Bankruptcy Hotline. The Utah Bankruptcy Hotline maintains a network of unaffiliated Utah bankruptcy lawyers who provide debt relief and bankruptcy counsel to consumers in Utah.
On June 17, in Schwab v. Reilly, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that limits the extent to which individuals filing under Chapter 7 can exempt their property from the bankruptcy estate. The case arose out of the interplay between two important rules. One imposes dollar-value limits on the extent to which a debtor can exempt certain types of property. The other requires interested parties to object to a debtor’s claimed exemptions within 30 days after the conclusion of the creditors’ meeting, or else lose the ability to retain any of that property for the bankruptcy estate.
More on Ruling by Supreme Court Impacts Bankruptcy Exemptions in Georgia
Filed under Chapter 7 issues, Protected property issues by
Last October, I wrote a post on this blog about bankruptcy fraud, and pointed out that everything included in a bankruptcy filing is subject to scrutiny by the office of the United States Trustee, which is an arm of the United States Department of Justice. In other words, false statements on a bankruptcy petition could land a debtor in hot water – dismissal of the bankruptcy case, fines and even prison.
Because the bankruptcy process can seem informal, it can be easy to forget that a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 filing is made up of documents filed in a federal district court and subject to investigation by the F.B.I.
Attorney Gini Nelson, a New Mexico bankruptcy lawyer, recently published a post about bankruptcy fraud in the Bankruptcy Law Network blog. Gini’s post includes a link to the IRS.gov site containing examples of bankruptcy fraud investigations. I found the IRS.gov link especially interesting in that one can get a sense of the type of fraud that bankruptcy debtors have attempted and the level of fraudulent activity that generated prosecution. Given the highly interconnected and electronic public record access that is available to bankruptcy trustees as well as government investigators I can’t believe any of these folks believed that they would not be caught.
Filed under Chapter 13 issues, Chapter 7 issues, Fraudulent transfers by
On June 7, 2010, the United States Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee v. Lanning. The Supreme Court rarely hears argument in consumer bankruptcy cases so the Lanning decision is big news to consumer bankruptcy lawyers.
The issue in Lanning is one that has troubled bankruptcy lawyers since 2005, when the “means test” was added to the Bankruptcy Code. The means test functions as a test – do you have the “means” or disposable income to fund a Chapter 13 repayment plan? If the means test shows that you do not have sufficient disposable income to make a Chapter 13 work, then you qualify for Chapter 7.
As one of the assistant United States trustees once told me – the purpose of the means test is to disqualify as many people as possible from Chapter 7, and to force them into Chapter 13.
In practice, the means test does not work very well in predicting who can make a Chapter 13 work. One of the biggest complaints has to do with the mechanical nature of means testing. To run a means test, I have to gather pay stubs from the past 6 months. I then create a monthly average, which represents available income. Next I prepare a means test budget, but I do not use actual expense amounts. Instead, the means test tells me how much my clients are allowed to spend for food, medicine, utilities, etc. And where do these budget numbers come from? Means test numbers are based on IRS budgets used in delinquent tax repayment plans. In other words, the means test budget allocations are not especially generous.More on Supreme Court Issues Important Ruling About Chapter 13
Filed under Chapter 13 issues, Means Test issues, Trustee objections in Chapter 13 by
Not surprisingly, I get calls from small business owners who are contemplating personal bankruptcy when their businesses fail. There are many issues that arise in these types of cases but I would like to focus on one problem that, more than any other, can force the business owner into bankruptcy.
Generally when the owner of a small business leases retail space, the landlord will demand a personal guarantee. This means, of course, that in the event of a default, the business (which may be a corporation or LLC) faces liability and the business owner personally faces liability.
Given this reality, every small business owner should seek counsel to discussion asset protection options before starting his business, but that is a topic for another day.
If the business fails you might be surprised to learn that the landlord does not necessarily have to take any steps to “mitigate damages” by releasing the retail space. Instead, the landlord can demand payment for the full value of the lease from the business owner personally. If the business owner has a house with $100,000 of equity, that equity is therefore at risk, and given that Georgia’s bankruptcy exemption statute is stingy ($10,000 for an individual or $20,000 for a married couple filing jointly), bankruptcy may not offer much protection.More on Does Your Landlord have any Obligations to Mitigate Damages if You Breach Your Lease?
Filed under General consumer bankruptcy info, Georgia Bankruptcy, Protected property issues by
