Call for a professional consult today 734.281.2050

All posts tagged 11 USC

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 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:
March 29, 2012
Tags:
Comments:
0

Top Ten Bankruptcy Mistakes: Bankruptcy Misconduct

TOP TEN BANKRUPTCY MISTAKES

 

      #7

             Bankruptcy Misconduct

 

In earlier postings it has been discussed that bankruptcy relief is available to the honest debtor. In a recent unpublished case by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals this concept was illustrated. The debtor, a businessman obtained significant loans based upon personal financial statements which were untrue. The Bankruptcy Court denied discharge, as to the defrauded creditor, and the Court of Appeals affirmed (agreed with) that decision. The Court of Appeals analysis, in part, follows:

    The principal purpose of the Bankruptcy Code is to afford a “fresh start” to the “honest but unfortunate debtor.” Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 286-87 (1991). The discharge of prepetition debts provided under § 727(b) and the discharge injunction of § 524(a) effectuate the debtor’s fresh start. See Green v. Welsh, 956 F.2d 30, 33 (3d Cir. 1992).

    (“The protection afforded by the discharge injunction… furthers one of the primary purposes of the Bankruptcy Code – that the debtor have the opportunity to make a financial fresh start.”). Some debts, however, are “nondischargeable,” such that the debtor’s liability continues even after emerging  from bankruptcy protection. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code specifies these exceptions, which include, among others, debt obtained through fraud. Section 523(a)(2)(B) addresses debt obtained by certain false statements in writing.

    For a debt to be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(B), four conditions must be met: the debtor must have sought “money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit” by use of a writing (1) “that is materially false;” (2) concerning “the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition;” (3) “on which the creditor… reasonably relied; and” (4) “that the debtor caused to be made or published with intent to deceive…” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Make sure to discuss with your attorney candidly any skeletons which may be in your closet. In the attorney-client relationship all conversations are privileged and confidential. Your attorney can not effectively counsel or represent you when you are not forth coming with all information, pro and con. There are other kinds of misconduct that may also result in denial of a discharge for obtained debt.

 

[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.]