Call for a professional consult today 734.281.2050

All posts tagged debtor

Posted:
May 16, 2013
Tags:
Comments:
Comments Off on Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

             The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Michigan) issued a very important decision in Richardson v. Schafer, 689 F.3d 601 (6th Cir., 2012). The case is noteworthy because it is of assistance to debtors in their bankruptcy case by allowing them to retain more property.

In this case, the debtor elected to exempt property under the Michigan State Bankruptcy Exemptions instead of the Federal Exemptions. The selection was probably because the debtor had a great deal of home equity protectable as tennants by the entireties (marital home) laws and little joint debt. The trustee, to unlock value for unsecured creditors argued that the Michigan Bankruptcy Exemptions were unconstitutional and that the debtor was only allowed the lesser exemptions provided by the general exemptions statute in Michigan.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. It held that Michigan debtors were allowed to use either set, i.e., the general exemptions under MCL 600.6023 or the Bankruptcy Exemptions under MCL 600.5451. Generally speaking the latter is more generous to debtors. This allows the debtor to retain more property for his/her fresh start. The bottom line was that the Michigan Legislature did not violate the Constitution by intruding in a Federal law.

Proper exemption planning is critical to a successful outcome in a bankruptcy case. If you or a loved one would like information concerning protection from creditors and obtaining a fresh start, just call Guy Vining. Guy Vining is pleased to discuss your situation confidentially, and without initial charge.

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:
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:
September 5, 2012
Tags:
Comments:
0

Bankruptcy Cases in the News: 11 USC § 522: The Residence Exemption

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

11 USC § 522: Residence Exemption

    This past August has had a bumper crop of interesting cases. In re Demeter, Case no.: 12-44593 local Bankruptcy Court Judge, (Easter District of Michigan) Thomas J. Tucker, decided a very interesting and helpful case to individual debtors. In this case, he was called upon to decide because of a trustee’s objection to the debtor’s exemptions whether a second home could qualify as a residence under the federal exemption, giving this debtor couple, up to $53,250.00 in exempt property or whether the exemption could only be applied to a so-called “primary” residence. Although, this other home was in foreclosure and had no equity, whatsoever.

 

In the end, Judge Tucker over ruled the trustee’s objection because the statute did not have a requirement that the residence exemption had to apply to a “primary” residence. In the blog which follows, we will look at some of the rules of statutory construction, employed by Judge Tucker. For our purposes here it is sufficient to say that Judge Tucker found that the debtors did have a significant connection with both houses, used both year round and never rented out. In addition, he reasoned that because 11 USC § 522 (d)(1)(d) did not use the word “primary” that he would not read it into the statute, as the statute only spoke of “real property…that the debtor uses as a residence…”

 

Also, in reaching his decision the Judge noted that his construction of the statute was also consistent with major purposes of the Bankruptcy Court. In doing so, the Court noted:

 

    “Under the Bankruptcy Code, there is an overriding federal interest in providing Debtors with “a fresh start.” See, e.g., In re W.R. Grace & Co., No. 11-199, 2012 WL 2130991, at *72 (D. Del. June 11, 2012)(listing a “fresh start” for a debtor as one of the important countervailing federal interests that could override state contract law); In re Buckley, 404 B.R. 877, 887 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2009)(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)(stating that “the overriding goal of the Bankruptcy Code [is] to provide a “fresh start” for the debtor”); In re Spears, 308 B.R. 793, 825 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2004) rev’d on other grounds, 313 B.R. 212 (W.D. Mich. 2004)(“Providing an individual debtor with a “fresh start” is a fundamental objective of the Bankruptcy Code.”) By providing debtors with the right to exempt certain property from the claims of creditors so that debtors have basic necessities to begin again, the exemption scheme under § 522 (d) is crucial to, and an integral part of a debtor’s “fresh start.” Schwab v. Reilly, 130 S. Ct. 2652, 2667 (2010)(“We agree that ‘exemption in bankruptcy cases are part and parcel of the fundamental bankruptcy concept of a “fresh start.”); Spears, 308 B.R. at 825 (“Congress enacted the exemption scheme set forth in Section 522 in order to provide an individual debtor with the fresh start it contemplated.”); 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶522.01[5], at 522-14 (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer, eds., 16th ed. 2012) (“A fundamental component of an individual debtor’s fresh start in bankruptcy is the debtor’s ability to set aside certain property as exempt form the claims of creditors.”).

 

This determination is therefore good news for debtors looking to get their fresh start and retain as much property as is provided by the federal exemption. As Judge Tucker stated in Demeter: “Thus, §522(d)(1) permits a debtor to exempt a residence that is not the principal residence. And this interpretation is consistent with the requirement that bankruptcy courts must construe exemption liberally in favor of the debtor.”

 

If you have any questions about bankruptcy law or exemption planning please feel free to call bankruptcy attorney Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group. All initial telephone conference and office meetings are free of charge.


[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 29, 2012
Tags:
Comments:
0

Bankruptcy Cases in the News: State Exemptions #2

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

State Exemptions #2

In a recent blog which discussed that in the Schafer case (6th Cir., 11-1340) that the Michigan bankruptcy statute was approved by the appellate court as passing constitutional muster. Their decision not only is of assistance to Michigan debtors but was a blessing to the local bankruptcy attorneys and judges as it clarifies the law and resolves conflicting opinions. Now bankruptcy attorneys can give their client more definitive advice on exemption planning. It also assists the debtors and bankruptcy attorneys by avoiding litigation within the Bankruptcy Court, in relation to exemptions saving financial and judicial resources.

 

All of this, however, begs the question of what the important distinctions are with respect to exemption planning. This is a deep subject and well beyond the scope of a blog posting. However, there are some immediately apparent benefits for Michigan debtors that they can discuss with their bankruptcy attorney. First, across the board it appears that for unmarried Michigan debtors, who have home equity to be sheltered/exempted, that more can be accomplished under the Michigan Statute. See: MCL 600.5451 and compare to 11 USC § 522(d)(1). In addition, if the Michigan debtor is also a handicapped or elderly individual, the exemptions increase even higher.

 

If you are a Michigan resident contemplating a bankruptcy you should discuss these matters in detail with your bankruptcy attorney. Exemption planning is essential for you to receive the very best outcome in your case. As noted in the Schafer case (citing Grogan v. Garner, 589 U.S. 279 (1991)), the so-called Michigan bankruptcy exemptions statute’s broader exemptions will allow “bankruptcy debtors in Michigan…(to be better met) to achieve a fresh start and to obtain a new opportunity in life with a clear field… unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of preexisting debt.”

 

If you have any questions about exemption planning please feel free to call Guy Vining for a free consultation or another qualified bankruptcy attorney.

[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 29, 2012
Tags:
Comments:
0

Bankruptcy Cases in the News: State Exemptions #1

Bankruptcy Cases in the News
State Exemptions #1

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decided a very interesting and debtor friendly case recently. In re: Steven M. Schafer, Case No.: 11-13401387, the 6th Circuit Court reversed lower court holdings that had determined that Michigan’s so-called “bankruptcy exemptions” were unconstitutional.

This is pretty esoteric stuff, but the bottom line is that Michigan has a general exemption statute and the so-called bankruptcy exemptions statute, the latter of which provide more generous exemptions for debtors. In filing a case a debtor in a state like Michigan (which has it’s own statute) must elect to proceed under federal or state exemptions. Earlier rulings struck down the so-called state bankruptcy statute holding in essence that it was an impermissible conflict of state and federal law for Michigan to have “bankruptcy” exemptions because only the U.S. Congress could create these laws as it is to do so under the U.S. Constitution and controls the entire bankruptcy field. One of the main arguments advanced for federal control was to give uniformity and not create conflicts from state to state.

The 6th Circuit disagreed, holding:

    Indeed, on an as-applied basis, the Michigan statute actually furthers, rather than frustrates, national bankruptcy policy. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly noted, the goal of the Bankruptcy Code is to provide debtors in bankruptcy with a fresh start. Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass., 549 U.S. 365, 367 (2007) (“The principal purpose of the Bankruptcy Code is to grant a fresh start to the honest but unfortunate debtor.”) By permitting debtors in bankruptcy a higher homestead exemption than either the general state exemption statute or the federal exemption statute allow, bankruptcy debtors in Michigan are better able to achieve a fresh start and to obtain “a new opportunity in life with a clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of preexisting debt.” Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 286 (1991). Accordingly, Michigan’s bankruptcy-specific exemption statute frustrates the full effectiveness of national bankruptcy policy no more than other statutory frameworks that have survived our scrutiny.

As noted in Schafer the so-called bankruptcy exemptions under MCL 600.5451 are substantially more generous to the debtor than it’s federal counterpart in 11 USC 522 (d)(1) or the general exemption statute MCL 600.6023. Indeed, with respect to home equity for an individual debtor (or homestead) it is double the federal statute for a 65 year old debtor or handicapped debtor. This is pretty good news for the debtor but makes things more difficult for the Trustee whose compensation is largely contingent upon the amount of money collected.

The bottom line is that elderly and handicapped debtors are really aided by this decision. These honest but unfortunate individuals will get a larger nest egg to embark on their fresh start with.

[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 2, 2012
Tags:
Comments:
0

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

In previous blog postings we have discussed on many occasions the basic tenet that the honest debtor is entitled to relief of a discharge in bankruptcy. But what about those debtors that are dishonest or engage in risky behavior that implicate or harm others. The Bankruptcy Code provides for these types of cases in 11 USC 523 as exceptions to the general rule that in exchange for full disclosures and non-exempt assets that a debtor can obtain a complete discharge and a fresh start. In addition, a body of judge made decisions had also developed interpreting the various parts of 11 USC 523.

Most of the exceptions to discharge are common sense and are not surprising. For instance, debts arising from fraud, false pretenses, misrepresentations, luxury charges made on the eve of filing bankruptcy, child support, alimony, taxes and other types of intentional injuries. These are matters which evidence dishonorable conduct or a bad actor that should not be assisted.

In a very recent case Judge Walter Shapero of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District, Southern Division of Michigan decided a very interesting case. In that case it was fairly undisputed that the debtor was a very reckless driver of an automobile which led to an automobile crash causing personal injuries. When the debtor filed her bankruptcy In re Gumprecht, Case No.: 11-47982; Ad. Pro. No. 11-05909, the injured party objected to the discharge as being unfair based upon 11 USC 523(a)(6) a willfully caused injury. As mentioned the evidence showed that the debtor’s driving was horrendous but there was nothing to show that an injury was specifically intended or willful and malicious. Judge Sharpero held that the case must be reviewed under the standards announced in Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (1998) and in re Markowitz, 190 F3d 455 (6th Cir. 1999). As such, he stated:

    Until 1999, the Sixth Circuit’s standard for § 523(a)(6)’s “willful” requirement was rather lenient. As long as a debtor could be shown to have intentionally committed an act which led to an injury, he would be found to have acted “willfully” under § 523(a)(6), regardless of whether or not he actually intended the injury. Perkins v. Scharffe, 817 F.2d 392, 394 (6th Cir. 1987). Perkins was overruled in 1998 by the U.S. Supreme Court case of [Geiger]. In Geiger, the Supreme Court held that only acts done with the intent to cause the actually injury will rise to the level of a “willful and malicious injury” as used in § 523(a)(6): We now hold that unless “the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or… believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it,” he has not committed a “willful and malicious injury” as defined under § 523(a)(6). [Markowitz, 190 F.3d at 464.]

Under the new standard the burden of proof is much higher for the creditor. For that reason Judge Shapero determined that the facts that the creditor could establish were insufficient and dismissed the objections to discharge.

[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:
May 10, 2012
Tags:
Comments:
0

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important and very interesting case recently in White v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., 617 F3d. 472 (2010). This Court is the Court of Appeals for a great number of Midwestern Bankruptcy Courts, including the State of Michigan. The White case shows the importance of full disclosure of all assets in a consumer bankruptcy case. As we have discussed in the past blog postings, failure to make full disclosure can result in the dismissal of a case, attorney fees and in some instances, criminal charges.

The White case dealt with an interesting additional concept called “judicial estoppel.” Here is what happened. When Mrs. White signed and filed her bankruptcy petition she forgot to list as a possible asset of a lawsuit against her former employer, Wyndham. Apparently, the reason she had financial problems was because she had been discharged under circumstances which were suspicious of employment discrimination. A potential lawsuit is an asset.

Neither in her plan, nor in her schedules did she disclose to the Bankruptcy Court or her creditors that she had a significant cause of action for employment discrimination against her former employer, Wyndham. After her plan was approved and before she filed suit against Wyndham, she made some attempts to modify her bankruptcy schedules regarding the employment claim. Still, the U.S. District Court dismissed her lawsuit for discrimination, at her former employer’s request, based upon judicial estoppel and the 6th Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The 6th Circuit discussed in the opinion the doctrine of judicial estoppel:

    In the bankruptcy context, this court has previously noted that “judicial estoppel” bars a party from (1) asserting a position that is contrary to one that a party has asserted under oath in a prior proceeding, where (2) the prior court adopted the contrary position either as a preliminary matter or as part of a final disposition. [Citations omitted.] Id. At 476.

The White court noted that the doctrine was “utilized in order to preserve the integrity of the courts by preventing a party from abusing the judicial process through cynical gamesmanship.” Id. The Court further noted that it is the debtor’s absolute duty to disclose all assets to the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to various statutes in the Bankruptcy Code. Further, that based upon the purposes of bankruptcy:

  “[W]hen a bankruptcy court – which must protect the interest of all creditors – approves a payment from the bankruptcy estate on the basis of a party’s assertion of a given position that in our view is sufficient ‘judicial acceptance’ to estop the party from later advancing an inconsistent position.” [Citations omitted.]. Id. At 479.

The omission to list property or the true value assets is viewed as very significant when compared to the purpose of bankruptcy law. The White court specifically noted:

    “[T]he disclosure obligations of consumer debtors are at the very core of the bankruptcy process and meeting these obligations is part of the price that debtors pay in receiving the bankruptcy discharge. [Citations Omitted.] Viewed against the backdrop of the bankruptcy system and the ends it seeks to achieve, the importance of the disclosure duty can not be over emphasized. Id. At 480.

 
Dismissal of a significant claim was a drastic remedy. However, it was a remedy necessary to protect the bankruptcy court system. Had Mrs. White disclosed the Trustee might have brought the claim and any settlement or judgment could have been used to pay her creditors which would have got her out of her plan sooner, helping her and her creditors. When you and your bankruptcy lawyer file a petition for bankruptcy, yours assets (subject to proper exemptions) are no longer yours. The trustee has a right to bring those cases for the benefit of all administrative claimants and creditors. If all these folks get paid and there is money left over, the debtor will receive the balance.

The importance of the disclosure duty can not be over emphasized. Be sure to disclose all potential claims with your bankruptcy attorney. Otherwise, you will jeopardize your fresh start.

[Guy Vining, a bankruptcy attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in the city of 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:
May 8, 2012
Tags:
Comments:
0

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Judge Thomas Tucker of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently issued an interesting and important decision in the Mehlhose case (11-64190), the lengthy opinion discusses, among other things, the inherent power of the Bankruptcy Court to sanction (punish) debtors who do not play by the rules and make dishonest disclosures. In this case the Court determined that the husband-wife debtors had significantly under reported their income and filed their case in bad faith otherwise. Specifically, Judge Tucker determined that the debtors “lied under oath” concerning their income and filed a case that could not serve a legitimate purpose as they had or should have known that their particular debts were non-dischargeable. Consequently, it was determined that the case was filed in bad faith and merely for delay. The Court set up an evidentiary hearing that the debtors did not appear to testify and explain their actions. Judge Tucker noted that a Bankruptcy Court has both the inherent and the statutory authority to sanction misconduct:

In John Richards Home Bldg. Co., L.L.C. v. Adell (In re John Richards Homes Bldg. Co., L.L.C.), 404 B.R. 220, 226-27 (E.D. Mich. 2009), the court discusses the scope of a bankruptcy court’s inherent power to issue sanctions as follows:

    Bankruptcy Courts, like all courts, have an inherent power to issue sanctions, as explained by the Untied States Supreme Court in the Chambers case. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L. Ed. 2d 27 (1991) (“Courts of justice are universally acknowledged to be vested, by their creation with power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their presence, and submissions to their lawful mandates.” (Quoting Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204, 6 Wheat. 204, 227, 5 L.Ed. 242 (1821)). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has similarly stated that “[b]ankruptcy courts, like Article III courts, enjoy inherent power to sanction parties for improper conduct.” Mapother & Mapother, P.S.C. v. Cooper (In re Downs), 103 F. 3d 472, 477 (6th Cir. 1996). … [T]he inherent power to issue sanctions is not limited to only those instances where a party violates a court order. “The federal courts’ inherent power to protect the orderly administration of justice and to maintain the authority and dignity of the court extends to a full range of litigation abuses.” Mitan v. Int’l Fid. Ins. Co., 23 Fed. Appx. 292, 298 (6th Cir. 2001) (ruling that a court can award sanctions “when bad faith occurs”).

In addition to a bankruptcy court’s inherent authority to sanction misconduct, 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) provides a bankruptcy court with statutory authority to do so. It provides:

(a)The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary;or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No provisions of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process.

In the end, the Court noted that sanctions would well include attorney fees. Debtors were sanctions by having their case dismissed, being ordered to pay reasonable attorney fees and costs and having been barred from refilling for 2 years. In filing your case, make sure to make complete and honest disclosures of debts, assets and income to the court, trustee and your creditors.

That is the trade-off. To obtain a discharge and a fresh start, the debtor must make an honest and full disclosure. Do not jeopardize your life or liberty and fresh start.

[Guy Vining, a bankruptcy attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in the city of 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:
March 29, 2012
Tags:
Comments:
0

Top Ten Bankruptcy Mistakes: Failure to Cooperate

TOP TEN BANKRUPTCY MISTAKES

 

#8

Failure to Cooperate

Under the Bankruptcy Code the debtor has significant duties to cooperate with the Trustee. At 11 USC 521 the Bankruptcy Code requires the debtor’s cooperation in assisting the appointed Trustee. The actual duties are set forth very broadly in 11 USC 704 and includes the debtor’s duties to assist the Trustee in litigation.

The debtor must also assist in turning over all books and records to the Trustee. The duty to assist further  extends to attending and cooperating at the Meeting of Creditors required by required by 11 USC 341. The scope of the examination is also quite broad and includes: “The acts, conduct, or property or to the financial condition and liabilities of the debtor, or to any matter which may affect the administration of the debtor’s estate, or the debtor’s right to a discharge.” Bankruptcy Rule 2004(b).

Under local practices in Michigan the Trustee may file a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Attend the 341 Hearing. In addition, the Trustee or creditors may request more extensive hearings and examinations.

These matters are infrequent. However, it is important for the debtor to understand his or her responsibilities. A failure to meet them could result in a dismissal of their case for failure to cooperate. As always, bankruptcy is a matter of equity and fair treatment. A debtor expecting to receive equity must do equity in return.

[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.]

 

← Older Entries