Call for a professional consult today 734.281.2050

All posts tagged Chapter 7

Posted:
April 25, 2013
Tags:
Comments:
Comments Off on Bankruptcy Cases in the News: Federal and State Exemptions

Bankruptcy Cases in the News: Federal and State Exemptions

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Federal and State Exemptions

     Under the Bankruptcy Court, a debtor may elected between two sets of exemptions in a Chapter 7 case, the Federal exemptions, or (in Michigan) the Michigan exemptions. Generally, the Federal exemptions give the greatest coverage of property to the debtor. Exempt property is property that the debtor gets to keep from creditors and the trustee, which forms the basis of his or her fresh start going forward.

     In certain interesting circumstances, however, the Michigan exemptions are more favorable to the Chapter 7 debtor and should be elected. For instance, under the Federal exemptions, exemptions about $42,000.00 in home equity can be exempted by a married couple. However, if the home is jointly owned as entireties property (husband and wife) either may file individually a bankruptcy and exempt their entire equity, no matter how great, from all individual creditors.

     That is because the historical purposes of the state law favors protecting an innocent spouse from the debts of his or her spouse to preserve their primary residence. This concepts has been explored and defined in several published court decisions. For instance, see: In re: Trickett, 14 Br 85 (Bank W.D. Michigan) 1981; and, In re: Grosslight, 757 F2d 773 (6th Cir. 1985).

     One of the keys to this relief is the absence of joint indebtedness. So, if the non-filing debtor is jointly responsible on some of the incurred debt, the trustee may argue that it should be allowed to administer the estate (sell the martital home) to the extent of the joint obligations. Still, this type of harsh relief must be examined on a case-by-case basis as noted by Judge McIvor in In re: Edwin Harlin, 325 BR 184, 189 (Bank E.D. Mich) 2005:

“As a general rule, courts have been very reluctant to apply 11 USC §363 (h) to allow the sale of entireties property owned by the debtor, and a non-debtor spouse. The case law is well summarized in Collier on Bankruptcy as follows: Disputes over the applicability of a section (h) to tenancies by the entireties have created the largest number of reported cases under section, perhaps because of the unique nature of the ownership interest, the variations among the states as to the nature of the interest and the rather draconian remedy that section 363(h) gives the trustee, contrary to the deep historical roots of the form of title, which is supposed to protect each spouse from the unilateral action of the other… Thus, although generally speaking property held by the debtor as tenant by entirety is subject to sale under section 363(h), courts have erected various obstacles to such sale.”

     This suggests, of course, that married couples should strongly consider never co-signing for the other and avoid all joint debt. Also, they might consider making sure to concentrate payments to reduce and eliminate joint debt as a priority over individual debt, in the ordinary of their payments.

     If you or a loved one are considering whether bankruptcy relief would be helpful for you, please make sure to consult a qualified debt relief agency/attorney. Guy Vining is available for a no-charge initial bankruptcy consultation and would be pleased to meet with you.

Guy Vining, a bankruptcy attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in Taylor, Michigan where he serves the downriver communities of Monroe, South Rockwood, Gibraltar, Brownstown Township, Grosse Ile, Woodhaven, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Westland, Wayne, and Ecorse. If you or a family member of friend would like a no-obligation no cost consultation/financial analysis, just call or E-mail Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, P.L.C to schedule a meeting.]

Posted:
August 28, 2012
Tags:
Comments:
0

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Early in August 2012, local Bankruptcy Court Judge Walter Shapero decided an interesting case that sheds light for lay-persons interested in debt relief and for local practitioners, too. This case is In re Kenneth C. Farkas and may be found at Case No.: 11-59772.

In this case a young-ish debtor with a sizeable 401(k) had taken loans against his 401(k) which required payments of around $850.00 to repay the 401(k) loans. On his Schedule I, debtor scheduled monthly loan repayment and that the net income after this and other expenses was less than $20.00. According to debtor therefore he was qualified for Chapter 7 relief – but, the Trustee objected and argued that under 11 USC 707(b)(3) and the totality of the circumstances that this deduction was unfair and should be considered disposable income to be shared with all creditors. Judge Shapero on the facts of this case agreed with the United States Trustee, noting:

    “Disposable income” is defined under the Bankruptcy Code as income received by the debtor which is not reasonably necessary for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor. 11 U.S.C. §1325(b)(2)(A)(i). This Court has explicitly rejected adopting a per se rule requiring the inclusion of 401(k) contributions in disposable income. In re Beckerman, 381 B.R. 841, 848 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2008). Instead, as is required by the plain language of §707 (b)(3) and this Court’s interpretation of the Sixth Circuit precedent, the reasonableness of the debtor’s expenses, including payments made into a 401(k), must be determined on a case-by-case basis looking at the totality of the debtor’s individual circumstances. Id at 848. In this case, the amount of Debtor’s existing retirement savings, as well as his age and time left until retirement, persuades the Court that his 401(k) loan repayments are not reasonably necessary for his maintenance or support, and are therefore includable in his disposable income.

Since the debtor had a sizeable retirement account and many years before his retirement the inclusion of the loan as a form of monthly disposable income was determined to be unfair to other creditors. Judge Shapero calculated that in a Chapter 13 plan the creditors would be more fairly treated and would receive about an 18% dividend. He noted that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in re Behlke, 358 F.3d 429, 434 (6th Cir. 2004) had earlier determined that even a 14% dividend was a meaningful dividend.

Therefore, it was determined that the case must be dismissed – for ability to pay – or converted to a Chapter 13. It, again, bears nothing that the Bankruptcy Rules are designed to provide equitable treatment to all the actors. Therefore, where disposable income is being spent is fanciful ways or ways which discriminate against other creditors a discharge may be challenged as abusive. In such ceases, the debtor’s fresh start and discharge may be conditioned upon providing some disposable income via a Chapter 13 plan to all unsecured creditors over a period of 60 months.

[Guy Vining, a bankruptcy attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in Taylor, Michigan, where he serves the downriver communities of Monroe, South Rockwood, Gibraltar, Brownstown Township, Grosse Ile, Woodhaven, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Westland, Wayne, and Ecorse. If you or a family member of friend would like a no-obligation no cost consultation/financial analysis, just call or E-mail Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, P.L.C to schedule a meeting.]

Posted:
August 27, 2012
Tags:
Comments:
0

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

In a recent case, local Bankruptcy Court Judge Walter Shapero granted the Trustee’s Motion to dismiss a debtors’ case under 11 USC 707 (b)(3). The reason was that the debtors with “some belt tightening” should not have been in a Chapter 7 but had sufficient income to pay a dividend to unsecured creditors and so would have to elect to dismiss or proceed in a Chapter 13.

The case is Meletios Golematis, Case No.: 11-52238 out of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Michigan. The case turned upon whether the debtors were sufficiently needy – although technically qualified – for Chapter 7 relief. In other words, it was not alleged that the Debtors were dishonest or did anything wrong but argued whether they had an ability to repay some unsecured non-priority creditors going forward. The Court framed the inquiry as follows.

Authority to dismiss a case under Chapter 7 for abuse is derived from §707 (b)(1), which provides in part:

“After notice and hearing, the court, on its own motion or on a motion by the United States trustee, trustee (or bankruptcy administrator, if any), or any party in interest, may dismiss a case filed by an individual debtor under this chapter whose debts are primarily consumer debts, or, with the debtor’s consent, convert such a case to a case under Chapter 11 or 13 of this title, if it finds that the granting of relief would be an abuse of the provisions of this chapter.”

Under §707 (b)(3)(B), when bad faith is not a factor, courts examine the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the debtor’s financial situation constitutes abuse warranting dismissal. The UST carries the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the applicability of this ground for dismissal. In the Sixth Circuit a totality of the circumstances inquiry under §707 (b)(3)(B) involves an analysis of whether the debtor displays a lack of honesty or want of need, either of which alone may provide sufficient justification for dismissal. In re Krohn, 886 F.2d 123, 126 (6th Cir. 1989) In this case, the UST does not allege that Debtors display a lack of honesty. Instead, the UST questions whether Debtors are in need of relief under Chapter 7.

In determining whether a debtor is sufficiently needy to justify granting relief under Chapter 7, this Court analyzes whether the debtor has an ability to repay its unsecured non-priority creditors. Krohn, 886 F.2d at 126.

The case offers an excellent guide to lawyers and lay-people contemplating bankruptcies as to what are reasonable and necessary expenses for: private school tuition, children’s activities and sports, 401(K) contributions, home maintenance and overall abilities to fund a Chapter 13 plan. If you have these types of expenses you might wish to give this case a read to see how they are viewed locally – a genuine family expense or temporary luxury to be forgone for a while.

Again, the goal is equitable treatment to debtors and creditors. This is the way to a debtor’s fresh start and bankruptcy discharge. This case points out that it is not equitable to schedule unreasonably high costs of living to the creditors who would otherwise enjoy a little dividend on the debt owed to them.

[Guy Vining, a bankruptcy attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in Taylor, Michigan, where he serves the downriver communities of Monroe, South Rockwood, Gibraltar, Brownstown Township, Grosse Ile, Woodhaven, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Westland, Wayne, and Ecorse. If you or a family member of friend would like a no-obligation no cost consultation/financial analysis, just call or E-mail Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, P.L.C to schedule a meeting.]