Tag Archives: Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

Can I Keep An Increase In Income Inheritance and Increases In Equity In My House After Filing Chapter 13 Bankruptcy?

By Ryan C. Wood

Maybe, maybe and yes are the short answers.  Whether the chapter 13 is confirmed or approved is very important.  Below is the relevant law and Bankruptcy Code sections governing these issues when filing a chapter 13 bankruptcy case. 

Income Increases or Windfall of Income After You Confirm Your Chapter 13 Plan

A recent Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decision was published addressing this issue. 

In re Steven William Berkeley, BAP No. NC-19-1197-FBTa (April 17, 2020) 

Like many things in life timing is everything.  For Mr. Berkeley he was blessed with owning stock and then receiving $3.8 million from the stock when the company he worked for was purchased. In the real world how wonderful. In the bankruptcy world wait a minute.  The problem was the $3.8 million was received around the 57 month of the 60 month chapter 13 plan.  Mr. Berkeley only had 3 months to go and in theory he could have kept the entire $3.8 million from the stock; in theory. When the chapter 13 case was filed he was getting paid $50,000 a year.  After the chapter 13 plan was confirmed or approved by the Court he received stock options in the company he worked for.  That company was bought out resulting in Mr. Berkeley receiving the $3.8 million.  When something like this comes up notifying the chapter 13 trustee is generally recommended for proper disclosure even if you believe the windfall is not part of the bankruptcy estate.  The trustee’s office in this case argued this increase of income, or windfall, should to go the benefit of his creditors while Mr. Berkeley argued he should not have to pay any of the $3.8 million to creditors.  The lower Bankruptcy Court agreed with the chapter 13 trustee and Mr. Berkeley appealed.  The Ninth Circuit BAP affirmed the lower Bankruptcy Court’s holding that the income derived from the stock options was an increase in income and a change in circumstances.  This means the chapter 13 plan can be modified post-confirmation pursuant to Section 1329 of the Bankruptcy Code to increase the chapter 13 plan payout to creditors.  In this case Mr. Berkeley will have to pay $202,000 into the chapter 13 plan and pay 100% of his debt now.  Prior to this windfall Mr. Berkeley was paying back 1% of his nonpriority general unsecured debts.

Section 1329(a) provides that, “[a]t any time after confirmation of the plan but before the completion of payments under such plan, the plan may be modified” to “increase or reduce the amount of payments on claims of a particular class provided for by the plan[.]” § 1329(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Increases in income can be captured by creditors by filing a motion to modify the confirmed chapter 13 plan.  Danielson v. Flores (In re Flores), 735 F.3d 855 (9th Cir. 2013) 

Of course the motion to modify can be opposed by the bankruptcy filer and their bankruptcy attorney.  It is within the Court’s discretion whether the motion to modify is granted or not.  In this appeal Mr. Berkeley was arguing the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion by granting the motion to modify to include the $3.8 million. 

A wrinkle is the revesting of property of the bankruptcy estate upon confirmation of the chapter 13 plan.  The revesting of the bankruptcy estate to the debtor terminates the bankruptcy estate.  This is true, but

Increase In Value of Houses or Real Property During A Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case 

In a recent Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate decision, Black v. Leavitt (In re Black), 609 B.R. 518 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Ninth Circuit BAP held and reaffirmed that the estate terminates at confirmation.  The Court provide that “the revesting provision of the confirmed plan means that the debtor owns the property outright and that the debtor is entitled to any post-petition appreciation.”  This means a chapter 13 bankruptcy filer can after confirmation of their chapter 13 plan sell their house, keep the equity, and continue with the chapter 13 plan payments to fulfill their obligation under the confirmed terms of the plan or payoff the chapter 13 plan and receive their discharge early.  This issue has been more of a problem when a chapter 13 is converted to chapter 7.  Section 348 of the Bankruptcy Code, Effect of Conversion, governs this issues though and the plain language of Section 348(f)(2) is not ambiguous regarding this issues.  Section 348(f)(2) provides: (2) “If the debtor converts a case under chapter 13 of this title to a case under another chapter under this title in bad faith, the property of the estate in the converted case shall consist of the property of the estate as of the date of conversion.”  If for some reason it is determine the conversion from chapter 13 to chapter 7 is in bad faith, then and only then, is the property of the estate what exists at the time of conversion.  Otherwise property of the bankruptcy reverts back to the original date the chapter 13 case was filed.  This has been a major issue when converting from chapter 13 to chapter 7 and overzealous chapter 7 trustees seeking to sell homes upon conversion to chapter 7. 

The problem is the misunderstood language in Section 348(f)(1)(B).

Section 348(f)(1) provides: Except as provided in paragraph (2), when a case under chapter 13 of this title is converted to a case under another chapter under this title—

(A) property of the estate in the converted case shall consist of property of the estate, as of the date of filing of the petition, that remains in the possession of or is under the control of the debtor on the date of conversion; (B) valuations of property and of allowed secured claims in the chapter 13 case shall apply only in a case converted to a case under chapter 11 or 12, but not in a case converted to a case under chapter 7, with allowed secured claims in cases under chapters 11 and 12 reduced to the extent that they have been paid in accordance with the chapter 13 plan; and

So 348(f)(1)(A) first provides the property of the estate consists of property of the estate, as of the date of the filing of the petition, original petition, that remains of or is under the control of the debtor on the date of conversion; consistent and the same as 348(f)(2).  The wrinkle and misunderstood language is underlined above regarding valuations of property and of allowed secured claims in the chapter 13 case shall apply only in a case converted to a case under Chapter 11  or Chapter 12, but not in a case converted to a case under chapter 7.  Valuations mean valuations of purposes of reducing the amount a secured creditors claim as part of the plan of reorganization.  In plans of reorganization a secured creditors claim is only secured up to the value of the collateral.  We routinely file motions to value property pursuant to Section 506 of the Bankruptcy Code to reduce the amount of a secured claim to the value of the collateral, not what was owed at the time the case was filed.  A motion to value a car results in a valuation of the car paid via the plan of reorganization.  If the valuation is ordered before the conversion to another chapter that is a reorganization chapter, such as chapter 11 or chapter 12, naturally and according to 348(f)(1)(B) above you would not have to file another motion to value the same collateral.  The valuation already determined would be applicable for purposes of the chapter 11 plan or chapter 12 plan.  However, chapter 7 is not reorganization of debts but liquidation.  So the valuation previously obtained would not be apply in the chapter 7 liquidation.  This unfortunately is mistakenly interpreted as the value of a house in a chapter 13 case is not the value to be used in a case converted from chapter 13 to a chapter 7.  The value of a house  reverts back to when the case was filed when a chapter 13 plan is confirmed and then the case is converted to chapter 7, unless pursuant to Section 348(f)(2) the conversion was in bad faith.  It is all there and makes perfect sense.  Many bankruptcy attorneys fail to understand this dynamic and chapter 7 and judges do not given understand given they have not practiced chapter 13 bankruptcy prior to becoming a chapter 7 trustee or judge.  It is a huge problem.

Inheritance Received After Chapter 13 Case Commenced 

First we must start with the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 541(a)(5) provides in relevant part: (a) The commencement of a case under . . . this title creates an estate.  Such estate is comprised of all the following property, wherever located and by whomever held: . . . . (5) Any interest in property that would have been property of the estate if such interest had been an interest of the debtor on the date of the filing of the petition, and that the debtor acquires or becomes entitled to acquire within 180 days after such date – (A) by bequest, devise, or inheritance.

But then in addition for Chapter 13 case we have Section 1306(a)(1) to consider which provides: (a) Property of the estate includes, in addition to the property specified in section 541 of this title (1) all property of the kind specified in such section that the debtor acquires after the commencement of the case but before the case is closed, dismissed, or converted to a case under chapter 7, 11, or 12 of this title, whichever occurs first.

So does the language in Section 1306 expand the 180 day limitation provided in Section 541(a)(5)?  Courts have overwhelming said yes based upon the legislative history.  So property of the estate in a chapter 13 case is expanded to include property specified in section 541 but without any of the timing limitations.  In a chapter 13 case property of the estate includes property of the kind specified in Section 541 after the commencement of the chapter 13 case but before the chapter 13 case is closed, dismissed or converted to chapter 7, 11 or 12; whichever occurs first as provided above in Section 1306(a).

This issues boils down to statutory interpretation as well.  Section 541 is a general provision governing bankruptcy case while Section 1306 is a specific section dedicated to chapter 13 bankruptcy cases.  If the big umbrella of Section 541 already blocks the rain, the 180 day period, how does the Section 1306 umbrella even get rain that is already blocked and become relevant as to this issue?  I argue that Section 1306 incorporates the 180 day limitation.  So Section 1306 makes the limitation in Section 541 meaningless.  The 180 day limitation and other such limitations are to prevent bankruptcy filers from gaming the system or timing the bankruptcy filing to not include an asset such as inheritance.  If someone knows they have a sick family member and they will receive inheritance timing the bankruptcy is difficult or not possible given the 180 day limitation.  The 180 day limitation is to prevent abuse.  This goal of Section 541 is now rendered meaningless in chapter 13 cases?  

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and Escrow Payments and Projected Escrow Shortages

By

Let the insanity begin. What I will be discussing today are mortgage payments that include property taxes and insurance. The property tax and insurance have been “impounded” as part of the normal monthly mortgage payment and is traditionally called an escrow account. So this type of mortgage payment includes principal, interest, property tax and insurance. Before discussing how this has become extremely frustrating when filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case in the Northern District of California let us look at why this situation exists to begin with.

Why Are Property Taxes and Insurance Not Paid Directly By The Borrower

Lenders need to protect their investment. Fine, so as part of that lenders need to ensure property taxes are paid timely and the home is insured. No problem. Here in California lenders cannot force an impound escrow account unless the borrower’s loan to value ratio exceeds 80 percent. I believe this is the most common reason why impound accounts exist. A house is purchased via some favorable program that allows less than a 20% down payment at the time of purchase resulting in a ratio 80% or more. So if you put 20% or more as a down payment then the mortgage company cannot force you into an escrow or impound account. A lender or loan officer could also suggest the borrower have an impound escrow account and the borrower then would voluntarily agree to it.

Also here in California servicers and lenders are required to pay 2% interest to borrowers on funds held in escrow accounts. See Cal. Civ. Code Section 2954.80.

Pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) the servicer or mortgage company must review the property taxes and insurance each year to make sure they are not holding a surplus. At the same time RESPA allows the servicer or lender to collect up to two additional months of escrow payments as a cushion or reserve to protect the servicer or lender in the event a borrower misses monthly mortgage payments. See 12 U.S.C §2609(a)(1).

This is where the problem is created.

How Can A Borrower Have A Projected Escrow Shortage If They Paid All Mortgage Payments When Filing a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case?

The key words here are “projected escrow shortage” at the time the chapter 13 bankruptcy case is filed by the bankruptcy attorney of the borrow. So yeah, property taxes change and so do insurance premiums, but not that much. When a borrower files for relief under chapter 13 and is current with all mortgage payments at the time of filing the petition the bankruptcy filer normally just keeps paying the servicer or mortgage company directly just like prior to the filing of the chapter 13 since there are no missed mortgage payments. If no missed payments then no problem; life goes on regarding the loan even though the chapter 13 petition is filed. The chapter 13 should have no effect on the servicer or mortgage lender or the borrower as the bankruptcy filer. The servicer or mortgage lender is a secured creditor and normally files a proof of claim in the chapter 13 bankruptcy case providing the amount of the total secured debt owed and that there are no mortgage arrears or missed payments prior to the case being filed.

Here is when there are more and more problems because of escrow or impound accounts and alleged shortages. Proof of claims are being filed for escrow shortages or projected escrow shortages even though the bankruptcy filer has paid the servicer or mortgage lender all mortgage payments as required.

If the shortage is projected the shortage does not yet exist until some future date? If it does not exist how can this projected shortage be part of a proof of claim? Or if there is future projected escrow shortfall the only way for the servicer or mortgage company to obtain the shortfall is supposed to be by increasing the future escrow payments after the bankruptcy case is filed just like if no chapter 13 had been filed in the first place.

But wait just a second. So now this touches on what is a “claim” in bankruptcy? The Supreme Court of the United States provides “right to payment” in the definition of “claim” meant “nothing more nor less than an enforceable obligation[.]” Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 83, 111 S.Ct. 2150, 115 L.Ed.2d 66 (1991). “Congress intended by this language to adopt the broadest available definition of `claim.'” Id; see also FCC v. NextWave Pers. Commc’ns Inc., 537 U.S. 293, 302, 123 S.Ct. 832, 154 L.Ed.2d 863 (2003). So applying these definitions to a projected escrow shortage we can all agree the shortage is a “right to payment” pursuant to RESPA and the cushion of two escrow payments and can be part of a proof of claim.

Why is this happening though? The servicer of mortgage company is not properly calculating their RESPA cushion prior to the chapter 13 being filed. After the servicer or mortgage company pays a borrower’s property tax there should be a balance in the escrow account representing two escrow payments, the RESPA cushion. This is not happening and when the chapter 13 case is filed it triggers a review of the escrow account and behold there is a projected shortage.

I am not sure why this has become an issue when this dynamic of escrow accounts and RESPA cushion have existed for a very long time, but it is a problem now. Creditors referring to other Circuit opinions that provide that the collecting of pre-petition projected escrow shortages through post-petition mortgage payments is a violation of the automatic stay and arguably opens the creditor to possible sanctions for the violation of the automatic stay. There are a number of potential solutions to the problem, but the one that makes the most sense is that servicers and mortgage companies just properly calculate the RESPA cushion upon review of escrow accounts like they are supposed and this should never be a problem upon the filing of a bankruptcy case. After all, the borrower has made all payments as required by the servicer or mortgage loan company. What more can the borrower to make sure this is not a problem but make the payment requested each month on time?

Another solution is the include language in the chapter 13 plan that provides the service or mortgage lender may collect a pre-petition escrow shortfall from post-petition payments and not be in violation of the automatic stay. This will most likely trigger the necessity of having a confirmation hearing regarding the chapter 13 plan when a hearing would not normally be necessary. This is a waste of judicial resources, the chapter 13 trustee’s time and the attorney for the debtor’s time given the servicer or mortgage loan company did not properly calculate the escrow payment prior to the chapter 13 being filed.

Another solution is to stipulate that the creditor may collect pre-petition projected escrow shortages from post-petition mortgage payments. There is no guarantee that the trustee’s office will sign-off on this stipulation and again could end up with a hearing regarding confirmation of the chapter 13 plan that normally would not have to take place.

To be fair I could also provide any number of scenarios that a debtor or their bankruptcy attorney creates in the course of seeking confirmation of a chapter 13 plan that creditors, the Court and trustee’s office believe to waste their time over and over again so ………… I am just writing about this issue from a bankruptcy filer’s perspective and their attorney.

Why Is It Difficult to Project Escrow Account Funds?

Here in California we have Proposition 13 that limits how much property taxes can increase each year. You would think this would allow servicers and mortgage companies to easily estimate future property taxes and property insurance payments year after year so that there are no issues. Again, I get how sometimes getting numbers right is difficult even when a good faith effort is made to get the numbers right.

It just appears the escrow analysis that is required by law is not happening until the chapter 13 case is filed and the projected escrow shortage is created. If the chapter 13 case was never filed the servicer or mortgage lender would just continue to send statements with a monthly dollar amount owed and the borrower would just keep making the payment each month and there would be no issues. The part of the monthly escrow payment would increase or decrease depending upon the whim of the servicer or mortgage company ……….

Update Regarding Paul Teutul’s Chapter 13 Bankruptcy May 8 2018

By

Since the last time I took a look at American Chopper star Paul Teutul’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing a lot happened. Again, as a fan of American Chopper I am saddened by Mr. Teutul’s bankruptcy filing. At the same time and I am a huge advocate for second chances and our right to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Code as Congress wrote it and the President of the United States of America signed into law. I am hopeful Paul Teutul, Sr., can get the relief he desires and save his home from foreclosure. Since my last update I learned that Paul Tuetul, Sr. is actually legally a junior and that is why the bankruptcy petition provides Paul Teutul, Jr. filed for bankruptcy protection and that appears to be legally correct. Who knew?

Paul Teutul, Sr. Has Changed Attorneys

The first noteworthy occurrence was Paul Teutul, Sr. changed bankruptcy attorneys from Michael A. Koplen to Erica a. Aisner on or around April 5, 2018. There are any number of reasons to change bankruptcy attorneys and it would be improper to speculate as to why. Every bankruptcy filer has the right to represent themselves in bankruptcy or hire an attorney of their choosing to represent their interests in a bankruptcy case. See Section 527 of the Bankruptcy Code for more information on that.

Motion For Relief From Stay Filed By JTM Motorsports, LLC

The backbone of the bankruptcy process is the automatic stay that goes into effect as soon as a bankruptcy case is filed enjoining or stopping any and all collection activity such as foreclosures, repossession, lawsuits, wage garnishments and other debt collection activity. A creditor, or party that is owed money or has a claim at the time the case is filed may request the bankruptcy court grant relief from the automatic stay under certain circumstances. Relief from the stay gives that creditor or claimant holder bankruptcy court permission to continue to enforce their state law rights against the bankruptcy filer to collect on the debt or alleged claim owed to them. The most common reason for a creditor to seek relief from stay is unpaid mortgage payments or unpaid vehicle loan payments. These are secured debts so the creditor will want relief from stay to continue to enforce their rights against the collateral securing their debt by beginning or continuing a foreclosure action on real property or repossess personal property like a vehicle.

Paul Teutul, Sr. listed a 2009 Corvette ZR1 as an asset and JTM Motorsports alleges they have a lien, or garagemans’s lien, against the 2009 Corvette ZR1, securing a debt owed to them by Paul Teutul, Sr. The Amended Chapter 13 Plan Paul Teutul, Sr. filed does not provide a treatment for JTM Motorsports, LLC’s alleged secured claim against the 2009 Corvette ZR1, the collateral securing the alleged lien. I say alleged claim given Paul Teutul, Sr. may be able to object to the claim being secured. JTM Mortorsports, LLC, is saying either pay us through the Chapter 13 Plan or give us our collateral back, the 2009 Corvette ZR1. Time will tell how this all plays out.

JTM Motorsports LLC’s Objection to Confirmation of Paul Teutul Sr.’s Chapter 13 Plan

When a secured debt is not listed in a Chapter 13 Plan a creditor does normally object to confirmation or approval of the Chapter 13 Plan of reorganization for this reason. Confirmation of a chapter 13 plan means approval of the terms of the chapter 13 plan pursuant to Section 1325 of the Bankruptcy Code. As the motion for relief from stay filed by JTM Motorsports, LLC, also alleges, the Paul Teutul Sr.’s Amended Chapter 13 Plan does not provide for payment to allegedly secured creditor JTM Motorsports, LLC. The hearing on JTM Motorsports, LLC’s motion for relief from stay is schedule for June 5, 2018. Again, time will tell what happens.

Amendments of Petition and Statements

Paul Teutul, Sr. recently amended his schedules to include many more vehicles and all-terrain vehicles to his assets with values listed. This is 54 pages of changes and provides a clearer picture of Paul Teutul Sr.’s assets. This is not uncommon given for most filing for bankruptcy is a last resort to preserve assets. Again, I hope Paul Teutul, Sr. gets the relief he wishes and saves his home from foreclosure.
That is it for now. I hope to next provide an update that the case is moving along, not dismissed and relief is just around the corner.

If You Are Having A Problem With Your Home Loan Payment Call a Bankruptcy Attorney

Leave a reply

By

One of the most frustrating parts of my job is over and over again talking to people that file Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases to stop a foreclosure or eviction without proper legal advice from an actual bankruptcy attorney. By the time they speak to me there is usually too much water under the bridge for me to get involved and actually obtain them relief under the Bankruptcy Code they are entitled to. I say entitled to because the Bankruptcy Code is the law. You just have to follow it and get relief. Most skeleton Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions should never have been filed to begin with.

Five Steps To Help Prevent Getting Scammed

These five steps cannot guarantee you will not get scammed, but they will limit your risk to getting scammed, losing your house and paying too much for the services provided to you.

1. Never ever wait until the last minute to start getting information; the problem did not come up overnight, so the solution will not come overnight either….
2. Make sure the person helping you signs the documents filed with the court; not you;
3. Only do business with someone that is local in your area and not hundreds of miles away;
4. Only do business with someone you have actually met in person and they have an office you can walk into if you want;
5. Google the phone number, fax number, email address, name of person or business name you are dealing with … basically Google each and every bit of identifying information you are given . . . most likely someone has already complained about them and Google will find it for you.

The Automatic Stay is a Jewel to be Coveted, Not Abused

The automatic stay is the backbone of the bankruptcy process and is the single most important and precious jewel to be coveted, not abused. Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code provides the very lengthy law of how the automatic stay is implemented. A general description is the automatic stay stops almost all collection activity by creditors to give the bankruptcy filer breathing room to figure things out and reorganize or discharge their debts according to the Bankruptcy Code. That includes lawsuits, repossession, foreclosure, wage garnishment, levies, phone calls, letter and on and on. The automatic stay is the most powerful tool for a Bankruptcy Attorney to help people or businesses in financial distress. There are many limits in the automatic stay and for purposes of this article I will focus on the people filing their own cases with advice from the wrong people. What I find is multiple bankruptcy petitions filed by people trying to save a house more often than not. The first petition filed for relief they receive an unlimited automatic stay. There are no timing restrictions as long as the case remains open and not dismissed. This is what everyone should want, the bankruptcy case, whether Chapter 13, Chapter 7 or some other chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, to progress properly and the bankruptcy filer is not in jeopardy of the automatic stay not being in place. The single best way to ensure this is retaining an experienced bankruptcy attorney to file your case. If your home is in jeopardy do not trust a realtor or some other non-bankruptcy professional to help you.

Danger of Multiple Bankruptcy Filings

What I see over and over again with bankruptcy filers getting bad information is there case is just dismissed for not filing the proper documents in the beginning or not timely filing the proper documents after the case is filed. What the unscrupulous realtor, attorney or company will do is tell you or give you the basic forms to file a skeleton bankruptcy petition to obtain the automatic stay. That includes the voluntary petition, statement of social security number, creditor matrix and most likely an application to pay the $310 court filing fee in payments. The really horrible people will not even tell you about the application to pay the court filing fee in payments and make you waste the entire $310 even though they know the case will just be dismissed. They know the case will be dismissed because the forms described above are all they are going to help you with. That is it. You will have 14 days from when the court enters an order for you to file the rest of the documents to actually complete the petition. So the bankruptcy filer is now representing themselves and has only filed the basic forms to get the case started and does not know what to do next…… The bankruptcy filer will have paid whatever the unscrupulous person charge, usually well over a thousand dollars or more, plus the court filing fee of $310 and the Chapter 13 bankruptcy case is dismissed usually within three weeks.

If your first case is dismissed for some reason and you file a second case within a year you only get a 30 days automatic stay unless the stay is extended within that 30 days. There is no guarantee the court will extend the automatic stay and if a creditor objects to the extension it is even less likely the automatic stay will be extended. The third case filed within a year gets absolutely no automatic stay unless the automatic stay is imposed. Again, there is no guarantee the court will impose the automatic stay.

Required Credit Counseling Course Completion Prior to Filing a Bankruptcy Case

Another trap that realtors and unscrupulous people do not tell the bankruptcy filer is that they must complete the credit counseling course prior to filing for bankruptcy. The credit counseling only takes a few hours to complete and should cost less than $10.00 to complete. Skeleton Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition after skeleton bankruptcy petition is filed without the bankruptcy filer completing the credit counseling course prior to the filing of the case. I am a Bankruptcy Attorney that has either filed or been involved in literally thousands of bankruptcy cases and I only know of one or two circumstances in which the court allowed someone to take the credit counseling course after the bankruptcy case was filed or waived the requirement entirely. Since 2005 BACPA changes to the Bankruptcy Code, Section 109(h)(1) requires the completion of credit counseling within the 180-day period prior to the filing of the petition. Section 109(h)(3) provides a temporary exemption from that requirement if the bankruptcy filer submits a certification that: (i) describes exigent circumstances that merit a waiver of the requirements of [section 109(h)(1)]; (ii) states that the bankruptcy filer requested credit counseling services from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency, but was unable to obtain the services referred to in [section 109(h)(1)] during the 7-day period beginning on the date on which the debtor made that request; and (iii) is satisfactory to the court. Section 109(h)(4) provides a total waiver if the Court determined, upon notice and hearing, that the debtor is unable to complete the credit counseling requirement due to incapacity, disability, or active military duty in a military combat zone. If you have in jeopardy of losing your home just complete the credit counseling course before filing the bankruptcy case and do not play around with attempting have the court give you more time or waive the requirement. It is just not worth it.

Do Not Fall For the Mortgage Litigation Scam

The mortgage litigation scam is only a ploy for criminals to get around the laws making it a criminal act to take money upfront to do a loan modification and a ploy to get around only charging you $150 as a bankruptcy petition preparer. I keep writing about this and it keeps happening. I do not know what the solution is. I try and educate people to enforce their rights and apparently they do not take my advice. Or there are just more and more of these unscrupulous people replacing the ones that go away. If you missed mortgage payments and owe thousands and thousands of dollars because you did not make the mortgage payments rarely are there issues for you to litigate. Especially if you are a consumer and this is regarding your home. We keep finding people in the Bay Area doing business with businesses in Southern California to litigate mortgage issues that appear to be purely scams. If you are litigating a mortgage problem that is legitimate you should not be directed to file a skeleton bankruptcy petition that you sign and file yourself. That makes no sense. When an attorney takes your money to do something they are supposed to sign and file the documents on your behalf because they are representing you and take on the liability for their work. That is how it is supposed to work. Also, why do business with someone that is hundreds of miles away that will most likely never give you your money back when you figure out it was a scam? Are you going to sue them for the $1,000 – $4,000 you gave them already? I seriously doubt it and I have yet to see it.

What Not To Do If You Know You Will Receive A Significant Inheritance When Filing Bankruptcy

By

The definition of property of the estate under Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code is very broad. So if you know you are going to get a significant inheritance why file bankruptcy? Like everything I guess “significant” could mean something different depending upon the circumstances. If you only have $50,000 in debt and know you will receive $100,000 from someone’s estate that has already passed, that is a significant inheritance in my opinion. An argument could be made for still filing for bankruptcy protection, but be careful. The inheritance is part of the bankruptcy estate, must be disclosed and held for the benefit of your creditors if you file bankruptcy. The following is a rundown of what not to do if you know you will receive a significant inheritance when filing bankruptcy. This Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel case deals with what happened to a debtor that received a significant inheritance right before filing for bankruptcy protection in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California. See: Jason Scott Brown v. Thomas H. Billingslea, Jr., Chapter 13 Trustee; 9th Cir. BAP No. SC-14-1388-JuKlPa. After discussing the initial Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing and then Mr. Brown’s appeal, this article concludes with what is currently taking place after this appeal (spoiler alert) in the Chapter 7 case. What did the Chapter 7 Trustee do upon conversion for the benefit of Mr. Brown’s creditors?

In this case the debtor, Jason Scott Brown, filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy petition on December 13, 2013, three days before the closing of the sale of a property he inherited when his father, Herbet D. Brown, who passed away July 20, 2012. The sale of the inherited property closed on December 16, 2013, and Mr. Brown received $65,812 in proceeds. I do not really know why Mr. Brown filed for bankruptcy knowing he was entitled to over $65,000 from the sale of the property. I will not begin to speculate because there may be a very legitimate and reasonable reason why. I just do not know what it is. What I do know is what happened next in his Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. Mr. Brown represented in his Schedule B that he was only going to receive $2,500 in inheritance and his Schedule F listed $33,499 in general unsecured debts. Also upon receiving the probate funds Mr. Brown did not amend his schedules.

At the Section 341 meeting of the creditors the Chapter 13 Trustee and Mr. Brown entered into a pre-confirmation modification of the Chapter 13 Plan requiring Mr. Brown to turn over to the trustee for the benefit of his creditors $3,224 in probate proceeds within 45 days of receiving the funds. Why $3,224 instead of the $2,500 he listed in this schedules is unknown. At some point the Chapter 13 Trustee found out about the actual amount of the proceeds Mr. Brown was receiving from the sale of his deceased father’s house via probate. In April 2014 the Chapter 13 Trustee moved for dismissal of the case and objection to confirmation arguing that $37,569 should be turned over to the trustee for the benefit of unsecured creditors.

The Chapter 13 trustee’s objection to confirmation included documents from the probate proceeding and sale of the house. Again for some unknown reason Mr. Brown’s brothers assigned him their beneficial interest in the inheritance from their father’s estate on August 7, 2013. At some point in May 2014, Mr. Brown changed Bankruptcy Lawyers and immediately amended his schedules to allege his share of his father’s estate was only $12,372 and fully exempt from creditors. Mr. Brown alleged that his three brothers were each entitled to 25% of the inheritance. After some more legal wrangling the Chapter 13 Trustee also requested the case be converted to Chapter 7 given Mr. Brown did not disclose the inheritance and this was an abuse of the bankruptcy process. See: Rosson v. Fitzgerald (In re Rosson), 545 F.3d 764, 767 (9th Cir. 2008).

In another strange turn of events, Mr. Brown’s Bankruptcy Attorneys on his behalf on June 17, 2014, filed a status report telling the court that Mr. Brown misunderstood that the inheritance was property of the bankruptcy estate. Therefore to make it right Mr. Brown would pay 100% of his unsecured debts in the Chapter 13 Plan after objecting to a claim of a creditor. See section below about the Chapter 7 case regarding this objection to claim.

At the hearing on the Chapter 13 Trustee’s objection to confirmation on July 8, 2014, Mr. Brown informed the court that his part of the inheritance was put into his business and the rest of the inheritance as paid in CASH to two brothers and by check to a third brother. At this hearing the Bankruptcy Court noted that given the source of payment for creditors, the inheritance was gone, continuing to pursue Chapter 13 reorganization was not in good faith. The Bankruptcy Court also found based upon the facts that cause existed to convert the Chapter 13 case to Chapter 7 so that a Chapter 7 Trustee could seek return of the inherited funds via fraudulent transfer or transfer avoidance powers for the benefit of creditors. Mr. Brown timely appealed the conversion of his case to Chapter 7.

Cause To Convert The Case To Chapter 7

On appeal the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel found the Bankruptcy Court’s finding of cause was not clearly erroneous. The Ninth Circuit BAP also noted that Mr. Brown’s appeal focused on the fact that Mr. Brown proposed a 100% Chapter 13 Plan and not that the Bankruptcy Court’s findings were erroneous. Also cleverly noted is that Mr. Brown never actually filed an amended plan or motion to modify the confirmed chapter 13 plan to pay creditors 100%. Mr. Brown only orally alleged he would propose a 100% chapter 13 plan upon objecting to a creditor’s claim. If successful with the claim objection Mr. Brown “believed” he would be able to pay unsecured creditors 100%. How could this be possible though? Mr. Brown’s income was only social security and was not sufficient to fund a 100% Chapter 13 Plan and he used and gave away all of the inheritance . . . . so.

The 9th Circuit BAP also noted that Mr. Brown’s case was pending for seven months and Mr. Brown could have paid all of his unsecured creditors in full with the inheritance and did not even though the Chapter 13 Trustee requested him to turn over the inherited funds. Mr. Brown instead used the inheritance for his business and paid the inheritance to his brothers. Mr. Brown’s creditors suffered prejudice from the loss of the money.

Conversion of the Chapter 13 to Chapter 7

A case can be converted to Chapter 7 for cause, including the failure to make Chapter 13 Plan payments. In Mr. Brown’s case he did not pay the Chapter 13 Trustee the $3,224 of the inheritance he agreed to turn over in the pre-confirmation modification agreement he signed. Section 1307(c)(4) applies to debtors when Chapter 13 Plan payments commence and then the debtor pays less than what the Chapter 13 Plan on file requires. See: In re Mallory, 444 B.R. 553, 558 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (citing In re Jenkins, 2010 WL 56003, at *2 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2010). Mr. Brown argued he did not turn over the $3,224 on advice of this counsel.

Lack of Good Faith

The Bankruptcy Court found two factors of lack of good faith by Mr. Brown: (1) that Mr. Brown misrepresented facts in his petition or plan, unfairly manipulated the Bankruptcy Code, or otherwise filed his petition or plan in an inequitable manner, and (2) there was a presence of egregious behavior. In response Mr. Brown argued he never misrepresented facts in this petition or plan and he disclosed the inheritance to the court. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals discussed two cases: (1) Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass., 549 U.S. 365, 368 (2007) and (2) In re Rosson, 545 F.3d at 771; Levesque v. Shapiro (In re Levesque), 473 B.R. 331, 336 (9th Cir. BAP 2012).

In Rosson the debtor communicated to the Bankruptcy Court that he was going to receive a large arbitration award to fund his Chapter 13 Plan. When Rosson received the award he did not turn over the funds to the Chapter 13 Trustee and the Bankruptcy Court found Rosson was rebelliously horsing around with bankruptcy estate assets and therefore converted the Chapter 13 case to Chapter 7. Rosson then tried to voluntarily dismiss his Chapter 13 case and the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion. The decision was affirmed upon appeal.

In Marrama the debtor filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and allegedly misrepresented the value of a piece of real property in Maine and denied transferring the property into a trust for no value during the year prior to filing Chapter 13 to protect the property from his creditors. After the debtor admitted to the above improprieties he requested conversion to Chapter 13. His main creditor objected saying the conversion was in bad faith. In Marrama the debtor argued the information provided incorrectly about the Maine property were due to scrivener’s error and that now that he is employed he was eligible to proceed under Chapter 13. The Bankruptcy Court denied conversion to Chapter 13.

Mr. Brown on appeal tried to argue his facts are not like those in Rosson or Marrama. The 9th Circuit BAP was not convinced. They provide the following in support of a finding of bad faith:

– Mr. Brown’s failure to provide an accounting of the inheritance funds was bad faith;
– Mr. Brown’s explanation for disbursing the funds to his brothers, but found that his explanation did not justify his actions when the Chapter 13 Trustee had made demands on Debtor to place the funds in Trustee’s lockbox account or deposit the funds in his counsel’s client trust account;
– Evidence showed that Mr. Brown already had the proceeds from the sale of his father’s house at the time he filed his schedules but Mr. Brown disclosed that he anticipated receiving only $2,500 from the probate estate. There is no explanation in the record from Mr. Brown as to how he came up with the $2,500 number;
– Mr. Brown claimed his brothers were entitled to 75% of the inheritance but his brothers had filed waivers of their beneficial interests with the probate court.

Best Interest of Creditors

Another factor of consideration is the best interest of creditors when converting or dismissing a case. Mr. Brown argues that now that there are no inheritance funds to distribute to creditors the case should remain a Chapter 13 case and allow Mr. Brown to pay creditors via the Chapter 13 plan. The Bankruptcy Court correctly originally noted Mr. Brown’s income was not sufficient to fund a 100% Chapter 13 Plan and the inheritance was gone. On appeal the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel noted there was no court order allowing Mr. Brown to dispose of the inheritance. Under Section 348(f)(1)(A) Mr. Brown argues that the inheritance has been eliminated from the bankruptcy estate therefore making the Chapter 7 case a “no asset” case.

This is a strange argument given that if it were true, then any Chapter 13 debtor could file Chapter 13 after disposing property of the bankruptcy estate fraudulently, then convert to Chapter 7 and creditors would get nothing? Mr. Brown is making this argument in an attempt to remain in Chapter 13 and not face being sued for fraudulent transfer of the inheritance or have his brother’s potentially sued for the turnover of the inheritance funds their received by the Chapter 7 trustee upon conversion. That is the whole point in converting the case really. Chapter 13 Trustee’s traditionally do not seek to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers of assets. The 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel provides Section 348(f)(1)(A) is not a “safe harbor” for debtors that fraudulently dispose of property of the bankruptcy estate while in Chapter 13. See: Wyss v. Fobber (In re Fobber), 256 B.R. 268, 279 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2000).

Mr. Brown also argues that upon dismissal creditor would be free to collect against Mr. Brown from his potential assets. Mr. Brown is arguing creditors would be worse off with conversion to Chapter 7. More or less Mr. Brown wants to stay in Chapter 13 and try and pay his creditors via the Chapter 13 Plan 100%. The problem again is that Mr. Brown’s income is not sufficient to pay creditors 100% and Mr. Brown never actually filed a motion to modify his plan to pay creditors 100% of the allowed claims. The Ninth Circuit BAP noted there is no evidence that Mr. Brown’s creditors would receive any prompt payment if the Chapter 13 case was dismissed and held there was no error in Bankruptcy Court’s conversion to Chapter 7.

Absolute Right To Dismiss Chapter 13 Case

There kind of used to be an absolute right to dismiss a Chapter 13 case. Section 1307(b) provides: On request of the debtor at any time, if the case has not been converted under section 706, 1112, or 1208 of this title, the court shall dismiss a case under this chapter. Any waiver of the right to dismiss under this subsection is unenforceable. There was a split in authority between different circuit courts whether this was an absolute right. In cases where there was improper conduct of the debtor some circuit courts held a debtor should not be able to dismiss the Chapter 13 case. In other circuits court held that Section 1307(b) does not provide for a good faith or bad faith component but says on request of the debtor at any time the court shall dismiss a case. The 9th Circuit BAP cites In re Rosson, 545 F.3d at 771, 774. The right to convert pursuant to Section 1307(b) is not absolute but a qualified right to prevent an abuse of the process pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 105(a). Section 105(a) provides: The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No provision 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.

The bankruptcy court is after all a court of equity or fairness. So, it is not fair to creditor or the bankruptcy process to make misrepresentations in your schedules, mislead the bankruptcy court and trustee, or dispose of bankruptcy estate assets without permission of the court and then try and voluntarily dismiss your Chapter 13 case.

So What Took Place In The Chapter 7 Case After Conversion?

Well first of all, something that was not brought up in the appeal, Mr. Brown on September 9, 2014, filed an objection to the claim they mentioned in their argument to stay in the Chapter 13 case and pay creditors 100%. On October 27, 2014, Mr. Brown then filed an amended objection to the claim to correct a problem in the first objection to the claim. Mr. Brown was arguing that if this claim was not allowed then he could pay his creditors 100% and the case should not be converted. The objection is meaningless given the case was converted to Chapter 7 and Mr. Brown lost the appeal. The Chapter 7 trustee will now object to claims if there are grounds to object. I just thought it interesting that Mr. Brown in fact filed the objection to the claim.

On October 14, 2014, Santander filed a motion for relief from stay to request permission from the Bankruptcy Court to repossess Mr. Brown’s 2008 Dodge Caravan for his failure to make the monthly vehicle loan payments. This is a problem when a Chapter 13 case is converted the Chapter 7. In some Chapter 13 cases the monthly vehicle loan payment is paid through the Chapter 13 Plan. Some plans call for payments on the vehicle loan before a Chapter 13 Plan is approved by the court and then the Chapter 13 Trustee makes payments to the vehicle loan company. So in Mr. Brown’s case he either stopped making his vehicle loan payments or while his Chapter 13 case was pending for the last ten months Santander did not receive any payments from the Chapter 13 Plan. On November 5, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court granted the motion for relief from stay giving Santander permission to repossess their collateral, the 2008 Dodge Caravan.

On April 21, 2015, after conclusion of the Section 341 meeting of the creditors the Chapter 7 Trustee, Christopher Barclay, filed his notice of abandonment of property of the bankruptcy estate. One of the arguments on appeal by Mr. Brown was that in the Chapter 7 case there would be no assets to distribute to creditors and the Chapter 7 case would therefore be a “no asset” case so the case should remain in Chapter 13. The filing of the notice of abandonment of property of the estate kind of confirms there are no assets. The Chapter 7 Trustee did not abandon the bankruptcy estates claim against Mr. Brown for transferring the inheritance or Mr. Brown’s brothers that received the inheritance.

Chapter 7 Adversary Proceeding

On May 19, 2015, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed an adversary lawsuit against Mr. Brown and his three brothers for conversion and requesting punitive damages, objecting to Mr. Brown receiving a discharge and/or revocation of discharge pursuant to Sections 727(a)(2(A), 727(a)(2)(B), 727(a)(3), 727(a)(4), 727(a)(5) and 727(c). The adversary lawsuit also seeks avoidance of the post-petition transfer of the inheritance pursuant to Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. Adversary Case No. 15-90085-MM. As for timing, remember the appeal was filed on August 12, 2014, and the court entered the order converting the case to Chapter 7 on July 28, 2014. The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel entered their decision on October 26, 2015, affirming the bankruptcy’s conversion of the case to Chapter 7. Sometimes an adversary lawsuit will be stopped or stayed due to an appeal being filed. In this case the court held the adversary lawsuit should continue regardless of the appeal.

Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding

On June 19, 2015, the three Brown brothers, Cutis, Kenneth and Christopher filed a motion to dismiss the adversary lawsuit against them alleging that the claims against them of the bankruptcy estate do not exist upon conversion to Chapter 7 pursuant to Section 348(f)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. Mostly the motion to dismiss alleges deficiencies in the timing of the adversary complaint and its causes of action.

Subsequent First Amended Adversary Complaint

On June 29, 2015, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed a first amended complaint and reply to the Brown Brother’s motion to dismiss the case. On July 27, 2015, the Brown Brother’s filed an answer to the first amended complaint filed against them. On August 4, 2014, the debtor, Jason Brown, filed an answer to the first amended complaint. Again, note the appeal was not decided until October 26, 2015.

So, as of right now the debtor, Jason Brown, and his three brother’s motion to dismiss the adversary complaint were denied by the court and the appeal failed to undo the conversion to Chapter 7. The Chapter 7 case will continue and so will the adversary lawsuit. The discovery deadline, the process of obtaining evidence, is January 21, 2016 and the next status conference hearing in the case is scheduled for January 16, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.

To Sum This Case Up So Far

Mr. Brown received over $50,000 in inheritance and had under $40,000 in general unsecured debts. As a result of choosing to not pay his unsecured creditors in full in the original Chapter 13 case or negotiate settlements with his creditors with lump sum cash payments from the inheritance outside of bankruptcy, Mr. Brown had to fight about the terms of his chapter 13 plan, litigated the conversion of this case to chapter 7 and lost, filed and lost an appeal regarding the conversion to Chapter 7 and is now having to litigate his alleged fraudulent transfer of the inheritance to his three brothers. Mr. Brown is also facing not receiving a discharge at all in the Chapter 7 case and more or less getting nothing from having filed bankruptcy to begin with. To really put the cherry on top the Chapter 7 Trustee is seeking punitive damages to punish Mr. Brown for his alleged misconduct via conversion. By my estimation Mr. Brown, not counting his three brother’s mounting legal fees, Mr. Brown may have incurred over $20,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs already and the adversary lawsuit is not over yet. At what point will the attorneys’ fees and costs exceed the original inheritance received by Mr. Brown?