Supreme Court Says Being Listed as a Terrorist is ‘No harm.’ Last Friday, in a case called TransUnion v Ramirez, the Supreme Court said the Fair Credit Reporting Act cannot give you the right to sue TransUnion for putting your name on their OFAC terrorist warning list. Led by Justice Brent Kavanaugh, a 5 to […] The post Supreme Court Says Being Listed as a Terrorist is ‘No harm.’ by Robert Weed appeared first on Northern VA Bankruptcy Lawyer Robert Weed.

How The End Of Mortgage Forbearance Will Impact Bankruptcy Filings What Happens When a Mortgage Forbearance Ends? During a mortgage forbearance, you may stop or reduce your monthly mortgage payments without action by your loan provider. For how every many months the forbearance lasts, your mortgage provider won’t initiate a foreclosure action due to missed payments. During times of financial strain, this can be a huge relief. However, the forbearance doesn’t eliminate the past-due balance. At the end of the forbearance, you will still owe any payments you didn’t make during that period, albeit without any late fees or other penalties you would typically be charged. If you’ve been taking advantage of a mortgage forbearance due to COVID-19, you may be wondering what to do once the forbearance ends. Options After Mortgage Forbearance You should start formulating a game plan for your mortgage balance about a month before the forbearance ends. If your mortgage provider doesn’t reach out to work out an arrangement then, you should contact your mortgage provider yourself. One of the factors that will determine what options are available to you is whether your mortgage is government-backed. An option that must be given to you at the end of your forbearance is to reinstate your mortgage. This means paying the full balance that you didn’t pay during the forbearance at once. Upon reinstatement, you will go back to making your usual monthly payments. This may simply not be possible for those who take advantage of a mortgage forbearance due to financial hardship. One option your mortgage provider may offer you is a repayment plan. The amount you didn’t pay during the forbearance period will be spread out over a number of months, in addition to your usual monthly mortgage payments. Usually, your mortgage provider will give you 6 to 12 months to resolve the balance. This might be a great option for you if this is the only debt you need to catch up on at the end of the forbearance period. If this type of arrangement isn’t feasible, your mortgage provider may offer for you to defer your forbearance balance. With this option, your mortgage lender may require you to pay your forbearance balance in one lump sum at the end of your mortgage term. You may also be given the option to extend your payment plan as opposed to a lump sum payment. However, this type of arrangement can cause issues if you sell the home before paying off your mortgage. A final option your mortgage provider may offer is a loan modification. This is a permanent change to the terms of your original mortgage agreement. The term of your loan may be changed, or your monthly payments or your interest rate. You will most likely be required to complete a trial period of at least a few months before your modification can be finalized. Your lender may not offer you all of these options, and the ones available might not work for you. Giving your home back to your mortgage provider isn’t your last option in these circumstances. Bankruptcy protects your assets from your creditors, and Chapter 13 bankruptcy provides a more realistic means for many to catch up on past-due mortgage payments. There will be several other advantages to filing bankruptcy if you struggle with other debts. Can Bankruptcy Stop a Foreclosure in Arizona? The moment a bankruptcy petition is filed, the debtor is protected by the “automatic stay.” The automatic stay freezes the assets of someone in an active bankruptcy so that they are safe from creditors. Creditors may not proceed with utility shutoffs, repossessions, wage garnishments, bank levies, and most importantly here, home foreclosures, while the automatic stay is in place. The automatic stay will generally be active until the case is discharged or dismissed. However, creditors may request an exemption from the stay through a Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay. If granted, the creditor may proceed with their chosen collection method, but other creditors are still precluded from pursuing payment from the debtor. Multiple filings could subject the debtor to an exploding stay, which expires after 30 days. Forbearance & Bankruptcy The two most common forms of consumer bankruptcy are Chapter 7 bankruptcy and Chapter 13. Both chapters trigger the automatic stay upon filing. However, Chapter 7 may not be as effective as Chapter 13 in stopping a foreclosure after a forbearance. You must remain current on payments for all financed assets that you want to keep in Chapter 7. You will only have 4-6 months, or how long a Chapter 7 bankruptcy typically lasts, to resolve the forbearance balance. If you are unsuccessful, you may end up with a home foreclosure, possibly a deficiency balance, and you will be disqualified from filing bankruptcy again for a certain number of years. Forbearance & Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Chapter 13 bankruptcy will give you much more time to address your forbearance balance than Chapter 7. Chapter 13 bankruptcy reorganizes your debts into a payment plan that lasts 3 years if you make less than your state’s median income, and 5 years if you make more. While most secured debts (e.g., your car loan) will need to be paid in full in your plan, your mortgage is excluded from this requirement. Your typical monthly mortgage payment will be rolled into your plan, as well as the remaining balance from your forbearance. When spread out over 3-5 years, it can be much more realistic to catch up on your past-due balance while remaining current on monthly payments. Chapter 13 provides several other benefits besides giving you time to catch up on past-due mortgage payments. Depending on how much of your debt can be paid with your disposable monthly income, your unsecured debts (including some taxes) may be discharged with minimal repayment. Just like Chapter 13 can help you avoid a foreclosure, it can help you avoid a repossession of any item used as collateral for a loan, such as your car. You may also qualify to discharge junior mortgages on your home. Learn About Your Options, Besides What Your Mortgage Company Tells You If you’re one of the millions of people who have struggled due to loss of income during the pandemic, you may have been relying on a mortgage forbearance for several months. Your lender may be willing to work with you, or you may be left with limited options. Especially if you struggle with other debts, bankruptcy could be a fruitful course of action after a mortgage forbearance. Contact Arizona’s Leading Bankruptcy Law Firm To learn more about the benefits of bankruptcy, and receive a quote for Chapter 13 plan payments and legal representation, schedule your free consultation with our firm today. Our experienced Arizona bankruptcy attorneys have a thorough understanding of bankruptcy, and will represent you with the care and dedication to discharge your debts as efficiently as possible. Call or use our online form to schedule your free consultation today.   Arizona Offices: Mesa Location: 1731 West Baseline Rd., Suite #100 Mesa, AZ 85202 Office: (480) 448-9800 Email: info@myazlawyers.com Website: https://myazlawyers.com/ Phoenix Location: 343 West Roosevelt, Suite #100 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Office: (602) 609-7000 Glendale Location: 20325 N 51st Avenue Suite #134, Building 5 Glendale, AZ 85308 Office: (602) 509-0955 Tucson Location: 2 East Congress St., Suite #900-6A Tucson, AZ 85701 Office: (520) 441-1450 Avondale Location: 12725 W. Indian School Rd., Ste E, #101 Avondale, AZ 85392 Office: (623) 469-6603 The post How The End Of Mortgage Forbearance Will Impact Bankruptcy Filings appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.

Are There Furniture Exemptions When You File For Bankruptcy? Does Filing For Bankruptcy Means I Can Lose All My Belongings? When you file for bankruptcy, the court will take a close look at your finances to determine if you qualify for bankruptcy and whether you are able to pay anything to your creditors. The court will look at your income, as well as your routine expenses and what you owe your creditors. If you are determined to have enough disposable income to pay your creditors, the court will likely disqualify you from filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and put you on a repayment plan under a Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing. Under the law, creditors also have the right to take legal action to recover what you owe them, including seizing your personal property or goods. When the bankruptcy court assesses your ability to pay your creditors, it will also look at what assets you might have to liquidate to pay even part of what you owe. That has some people worried that they could lose important belongings, such as their home, their vehicle, or even their furniture. State Exemptions For Furniture & Other Goods You don’t have to worry: You likely won’t have to tally up and sell everything you own to pay your creditors after you file for bankruptcy. In most cases, you won’t have to lose anything except the debt that has been holding you down for too long. Bankruptcy law includes many exemptions for your personal property, from the big things like your house to the smaller things like your household goods and clothing. Each state has its own exemptions. In Arizona, you can exempt up to $6,000 worth of household furnishings and goods. If you are a married couple filing bankruptcy jointly, you can exempt up to $12,000. Unless you have high-end furniture, original artwork, or a lot of electronics, you likely will not exceed these exemption limits. Federal Exemptions For Furniture & Other Goods Federal law provides some additional bankruptcy exemptions that may be useful for protecting your personal goods. Federal law does not provide a specific exemption for furniture or other goods, but it does provide a wildcard exemption that you can apply to any personal items. If you don’t need to use the wildcard exemption for your home or other items that you deem more important, you can apply it to your furniture and personal belongings. The federal wildcard exemption is currently $1,325. You can apply all or part of that to your furniture. For example, if you have antique furniture that exceeds the state’s exemption for furniture and personal goods by $1,000, you can use $1,000 of the federal wildcard exemption to cover it and still have $325 to apply to something else. Typically, states also have their own wildcard exemption that you could apply in this way. However, Arizona does not provide for a wildcard exemption. You will have to work with your bankruptcy attorney to find the best application of the federal wildcard exemption to protect all the things that you want to keep in your bankruptcy filing. You do not have to lose anything in your bankruptcy filing. Most people are able to exempt their personal property from their bankruptcy discharge, including their homes, their cars, and their personal items. If you own luxury goods, you’ll need to talk with a Mesa bankruptcy attorney about how these will be treated in the bankruptcy and whether they can be protected. If you find out that certain items are not protected, be careful in weighing their value against what you would gain from the bankruptcy. If you are able to get your debt discharged, you will free up the finances to purchase anything you may have lost later. Hire An Experienced Bankruptcy Lawyer In Phoenix If you are struggling with debt, call My AZ Lawyers to talk with one of our experienced bankruptcy lawyers about how bankruptcy may provide the debt relief you need. We represent clients in both Chapter 7 bankruptcy and Chapter 13 bankruptcy. We’ll talk with you about your goals and then thoroughly review your finances to determine what bankruptcy strategy would give you the most benefits. We serve clients throughout the Phoenix area. Contact us today to schedule your free consultation with a bankruptcy attorney and learn more.   Arizona Offices: Mesa Location: 1731 West Baseline Rd., Suite #100 Mesa, AZ 85202 Office: (480) 448-9800 Email: info@myazlawyers.com Website: https://myazlawyers.com/ Phoenix Location: 343 West Roosevelt, Suite #100 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Office: (602) 609-7000 Glendale Location: 20325 N 51st Avenue Suite #134, Building 5 Glendale, AZ 85308 Office: (602) 509-0955 Tucson Location: 2 East Congress St., Suite #900-6A Tucson, AZ 85701 Office: (520) 441-1450 Avondale Location: 12725 W. Indian School Rd., Ste E, #101 Avondale, AZ 85392 Office: (623) 469-6603 The post Are There Furniture Exemptions When You File For Bankruptcy? appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.

Do you remember where you were when you learned that Covid was going to change your life? I was sitting in my office. A week or so before, the Mayor cancelled the South by Southwest Festival and everyone thought he had lost his mind. Then out of the blue came the news that we would have to close the office starting the following Monday. That was in mid-March 2020. I had just been in New York a few weeks earlier and was completely oblivious to the fact that a highly contagious virus was already causing people to fall ill and would ultimately kill over 600,000 people in this country. Now, in June 2021, the threat of Covid is receding but our lives have been changed. I would like to share a few of my experiences. If you would like to share your own, email them to ssather@bn-lawyers.comand I will add them to the end of this post. People’s Lockdown Experiences Have Been Different My office was only closed for about six weeks. During that time, I would make the six-foot walk from my bed to the computer in my bedroom to start my workday. I remember discussing trial strategy with a client while walking the dog simply because I was home and had that freedom. I would still go into the office at least once a week to sign checks, but we had a rule that no more than three people could be present at one time. In May 2020, the County Judge lifted the ban on offices being open and we returned to work. For the first few weeks, we provided lunch to the staff so they wouldn’t have to go out. When we returned, we put up barriers in the office, wiped down surfaces, took our own temperatures and wore masks when meeting in person. Other people’s experiences have been different. When I attend Webex hearings by video, I see some attorneys still working from home. For me personally, the structure of going into the office is useful. However, I know that some (many?) people have successfully made the move to working remotely. Covid Has Changed the Way We Do Court The last time I appeared in court physically was on March 12, 2020. Beginning July 2021, the Western District of Texas is going to give judges the option of having in-person hearings. When Covid started, I had used a webcam to Skype with my parents a few times. However, my webcam tended to disappear and end up in one of my kids’ rooms. I had to quickly get used to appearing on camera. One of the phrases I have heard the most over the past year has been “your line is muted.”  The Courtroom Deputies have made it their practice to test participants’ connections before court begins and solve feedback loops when someone has their phone and computer audio on at the same time. Instead of handing an exhibit book to the courtroom deputy before the beginning of the hearing, we’ve had to learn which judges prefer paper copies and which judges are electronic only. We have had to master the intricacies of screen sharing and making sure that we are sharing the screen with only the exhibit and not our notes for the hearing. Trials are shorter now because some judges require that direct testimony be submitted by proffer. This eliminates a lot of gamesmanship in making objections to try to keep testimony out but it also results in parties being able to admit inadmissible testimony as well. With remote appearances there are new opportunities for coaching. I had one trial where two witnesses (who were married) were testifying from the same webcam. The judge had to caution them to stop talking to each other while one was testifying. We have had to deal with technical issues. During one trial, the internet in my building went out just as I was about to cross examine a witness. We had to take a break while I struggled to set up a hot spot on my phone. Fortunately, the internet came back before too long. In another case, the court had to recess testimony for the day and order a witness to find out why her internet signal was not consistent. This is a reminder that we are dealing not just with our own technology, but that of witnesses and clients as well. We have also learned that being on time means logging in fifteen minutes before a hearing begins. It really annoys the court when a party joins a hearing after it has started. I have seen a judge disconnect someone who logged in late. Online hearings also allow for third parties to anonymously monitor hearings. In one case, a malevolent actor took a screen shot of a witness who was testifying and posted it on the internet. Covid Has Changed the Way We Dress for Work Prior to Covid, if I knew that I had a court hearing, I would put on a suit before I left home. Even if I didn’t have court, I would wear khakis and a dress shirt in case I was unexpectedly called to court. Now, I keep a court shirt and tie at the office.  I put my court clothes on five minutes before I log in and then change again once court is over. I did make an exception for two trials of adversary proceedings I did remotely. In both cases, I put on my good suit and wore it all day. I wanted to feel like I was in the lawyer zone and it felt right to me even if no one else could see below my shoulders. On the other side of the spectrum, I had an expedited hearing set while I was on vacation. I put on a polo shirt and tried my best to aim the camera from the chin up. The other day one of my associates wore a dress to work. She mentioned that after wearing jeans so long, she just wanted to feel “professional.” Covid has Changed the Way We Mourn Prior to Covid, funerals were times for the bankruptcy community to gather at a church and offer each other support. In particular, I recall the funerals for former judges Larry Kelly and Glen Ayers.  In both cases, the church service was followed by a reception at which friends and colleagues could mingle, share stories and share condolences. I don’t know whether or not this is unique to me, but sometimes it seems like news about losses to our bankruptcy community does not flow as well as it used to. I will give three examples from this year. My friend, Jim Hoeffner, succumbed to cancer on March 6, 2021. He was only 67. His family set up a memorial for him on Zoom in May and it was beautiful. His nephew, who is a pastor, gave a beautiful sermon. Family members from all over the country gave eulogies. Finally, they opened the floor up for anyone who wanted to say a few words. I was really struck by the impact that Jim had on the lives of his children’s friends. Multiple friends spoke about how Jim had supported them and been a part of their lives.  In some respects, it reminded me of the one Jewish shiva I attended because of the communal sharing of memories. Judge Mike Lynn passed away in April. I found out about his passing from the Facebook page of another former judge. There was a celebration of his life at his home (outdoors with social distancing). Unfortunately, I did not know about his passing at the time and was not able to attend. I am passing this on for the benefit of anyone else who missed the news.  Donations can be made to savinghoperescue.org in his memory. I also found a link to this obituary: https://bondsellis.com/attorney/d-michael-lynn/ Finally, Austin bankruptcy attorney Thomas Alvis passed away on June 1, 2021. I learned about his passing from cancer from reading the obituaries in my local newspaper. Tom’s passing was particularly tragic because his brother, John Alvis, who was also a longtime bankruptcy practitioner, had also succumbed to cancer some years back. While the deaths of Jim Hoeffner, Judge Lynn and Tom Alvis were not caused by Covid, they came amidst the overwhelming grief caused by Covid. I feel that the disruption to our lives caused by this pandemic has made it harder to recognize the people who have left us.    What Have Your Experiences Been Like? I would love to hear from you and will share them here.

If you owe back rent due to the COVID pandemic, you may be eligible for relief under the New York State Rental Assistance Program.

 What Debts can a debtor discharge in Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing? A recent article in the American Bar Association Journal discussed a disbarred attorney who attempted to file chapter 7 bankruptcy to discharge the debts he owed to the State  Bar Association for restitution to clients. The article and the decision can be found at https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/disbarred-lawyer-cant-discharge-debt-he-owes-state-for-reimbursing-his-ex-clients-bankruptcy-judge-says?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_emailIn that case, the Bankruptcy Judge held that the disbarred lawyer's restitution obligations were fines, penalties, or forfeitures payable to and for the benefit of a government unit and non dischargeable under section  § 523(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code.What debts are dischargeable in chapter 7 bankruptcy? Clients and attorneys representing debtors often ask us this question.As many readers know Bankruptcy is a code-oriented area of the law and the sections  pertaining to a debtor's discharge are 523 and 727 of the Bankruptcy Code. Similarly to the analysis in the disbarred attorney case discussed above, an experienced bankruptcy attorney needs to understand the facts regarding a debt and how that debt would be characterized or treated under Section 523 and 727 of the Bankruptcy Code.What types of debts are generally dischargeable?Business and consumer loans, guaranties and good guy guaranties, credit card debt, medical bills, store purchases, phone bills, mortgage debt and car loans (providing that the debtor surrenders the collateral securing those loans)What debts generally are non dischargeable?Recent taxes, trust fund taxes such as sales tax, alimony or child support, fines or penalties owed to a government agency,  injury caused from drunk driving or driving while under the influence of drugsAnyone with questions about which debts are dischargeable in chapter 7  bankruptcy should contact Jim Shenwick   212 541 6224  jshenwick@gmail.com 

    In In re Elias, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 1554, Case No. 20-10334 (Bankr. D.Vt. 10 June 2021) US Bank filed a motion for leave to file a late mortgage claim in a chapter 13 case on the claims bar date, 6 January 2021.  The debtor objected to such request, and the court determined the matter with briefs filed by the parties.  In the motion to extend time, the bank asserted an estimated claim of $36,430.54, and asserted that the failure to timely file a claim was based on excusable neglect due to a computer system error related to the debtor having filed a prior chapter 13 case which had not closed when the instant case was filed.  In the amended motion by the bank the estimated claim increased to $232.395.21 including a pre-petition arrearage of $25,710.44.     Rule 9006(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure generally allows enlargement of time to complete an act when the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.  However, section 9006(b)(3) limits application of subsection (b)(1) under certain specific provisions, and allows enlargement under these sections only to the extent and under the conditions stated in such rules.  One of these exceptions is Rule 3002(c) governing the time for filing a proof of claim in a chapter 13 case.  Rule 3002(c) provides that a claim in a chapter 13 case must be filed within 70 days after the order for relief, and in subsection (c)(6) permits enlargement only if (A) the notice was insufficient under the circumstances to give the creditor reasonable time to file a proof of claim because the debtor failed to timely file the list of creditors' names and addresses required by Rule 1007(a) or (B) the notice was insufficient under the circumstances to give the creditor a reasonable time to file a proof of claim, and the notice was mailed to the creditor at a foreign address.  US Bank has not asserted that it meets either of these exceptions, and the court noted that the  debtor scheduled the debt at US Bank's servicer at a domestic address.  Therefor the court denied the request to file a late claim.  US Bank also objected to the good faith of the plan noting that plan provided for only $1,061.02 though schedule D showed the debt at $157,055.27.  Debtor responded that the $1,061.02 figure was based on the most recent statement from the bank, and that they amended the plan to $36,430.54 based on the amount asserted in the initial motion to extend time.  Debtor indicated she declined to amend to the $232,935 figure because 'this creditor's numbers have been absolutely all over the books for the last fifteen years.'  US Bank could cite no cases to support that this would be a basis to find bad faith.  The court thus found that US Bank failed to establish any basis for an enlargement of time based on the court's equitable powers.  The court rightly then speculated on the ultimate result of disallowance of a secured claim through the chapter 13 process.  The court noted a ruling in In re Williams, 622 B.R. 54, 59 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2020) that assuming the bank could prove to the satisfaction of a state court that it owns the note and mortgage, it will be able to reassert its lien against the residence once the case is complete or the stay is lifted, though would not be able to pursue a deficiency judgment if the debtor receives a discharge.  The court set a status hearing to explain how the parties wish to proceed in the absence of a claim by US Bank.  The case raises the question of what Debtor intends to do with the arrearage to retain the property.  At one point they appeared willing to pay the $36,430 arrearage, and the case is not clear whether the $157,055.27 is an enlarged arrearage or the payoff on the debt.  Debtor's may have been better able to litigate the allowance of an apparently excessive arrearage in bankruptcy court than dealing with it after the case is over.Michael Barnett, Esq.Michael Barnett, PA506 N Armenia Ave,.Tampa, FL 33609-1703813 870-3100https://hillsboroughbankruptcy.com

Does Filing For Bankruptcy Target Your Disposable Income? Bankruptcy Lawyers Explain How Your Income & Assets Will Be Treated In a Bankruptcy Filing You may be thinking of filing for bankruptcy to get needed debt relief, but you may be worried that in addition to wiping out your debts, bankruptcy can also wipe out your disposable income. You may worry that you will start “fresh” with nothing to your name – no debt, but no house, no car, and no savings either. While it’s true that the bankruptcy trustee will look at your ability to pay and will expect you to use your resources to satisfy your debts if possible, that does mean that you will have to drain your resources. In many cases, your disposable income and other assets can be exempted in the bankruptcy. You will need to talk to a bankruptcy attorney to determine how your income and assets will be treated in a bankruptcy filing, but here’s some general information about how disposable income is treated: What Disposable Income Is? Your idea of what your “disposable income” is and the court’s idea of what your disposable income is are likely to be two very different things. You may have expenses that you consider very important but the court deems unnecessary. Or you may have plans for the money you have available, while the court may feel the money can be used to pay debt. The court decides what your disposable income is by looking at your total income and then subtracting all your necessary expenses, such as your rent, utilities, food, health care, taxes, and so on. For some of these expenses, like your rent or mortgage, you will deduct the exact amount, and you will be required to show proof of what you pay. For some of the other expenses, like food or clothing, you would be given a standard deduction, and that amount would be subtracted from your income, not the actual amount you spend. What’s left over after these expenses and deductions are subtracted is usually considered your disposable income, which the court would consider able to be paid toward creditors. The Means Test Most people would want to file for bankruptcy, want to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which completely discharges unsecured debts like credit card debt. However, not everyone is eligible to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. You have to pass a means test to qualify to file. The means test compares your income to the state’s median income for your household size. The test looks at the last six months of income. If you have lost a job or have been struggling to work enough hours, that can be good for you. The test also subtracts expenses and deductions to determine your disposable income. If your income is under the threshold and you have a limited disposable income (or none), you are likely to qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Actual Income & Expenses Quiz A secondary test will be applied to your income and assets, known as the Actual Income and Expenses Test. This test looks at what your income is likely to be going forward. So, even if you lost your job and had low income the past six months, this test would look at whether you recently got a new job and your income is now increasing or is likely to increase, among other things. Several other schedules are included in this test that look at your personal property and other assets. Many exemptions are allowed for a certain amount of equity in property or other assets. But the test creates a more comprehensive picture of your income and your ability to pay your debts, and it can be used to override the means test and disqualify you from filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Chapter 13 Bankruptcy If you are found to have too much disposable income to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you will still be able to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which restructures your debt into a payment plan that you can afford. That payment plan is determined based on your disposable income. The court decides how much you are able to pay to your debts each month, and it creates a three- to five-year payment plan based on that. At the end of the repayment period, it is possible that some of your debt can be discharged. Determining disposable income for bankruptcy can be a bit complex. Rather than trying to use online worksheets or schedules, it is important that you talk to a bankruptcy attorney to review your finances together and get a better understanding of how bankruptcy law will apply to your circumstances specifically. An attorney can help you understand what’s possible based on the different deductions and exemptions. Hire a Qualified Bankruptcy Lawyer In Glendale, AZ The bankruptcy attorneys at My AZ Lawyers are ready to help you determine the best bankruptcy filing to get the maximum debt relief possible. We’ll review your finances and talk to you about your goals for bankruptcy, and we’ll recommend the best course of action. An attorney will then prepare your filing and all the schedules required to help you get the best possible outcome. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation with a bankruptcy attorney and learn more.   Arizona Offices: Mesa Location: 1731 West Baseline Rd., Suite #100 Mesa, AZ 85202 Office: (480) 448-9800 Email: info@myazlawyers.com Website: https://myazlawyers.com/ Phoenix Location: 343 West Roosevelt, Suite #100 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Office: (602) 609-7000 Glendale Location: 20325 N 51st Avenue Suite #134, Building 5 Glendale, AZ 85308 Office: (602) 509-0955 Tucson Location: 2 East Congress St., Suite #900-6A Tucson, AZ 85701 Office: (520) 441-1450 Avondale Location: 12725 W. Indian School Rd., Ste E, #101 Avondale, AZ 85392 Office: (623) 469-6603 The post Does Filing For Bankruptcy Target Your Disposable Income? appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.

 You Can’t Find a Cab. Uber Prices Are Soaring. Here’s Why.The number of drivers and for-hire cars on the streets plunged during the pandemic, frustrating those seeking rides as the city starts to recover.90Less than half of the city’s 13,500 taxis are operating, with many drivers saying there is not enough demand to justify returning to work yet.Credit...Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesBy Winnie Hu, Patrick McGeehan and Sean PiccoliJune 15, 2021Updated 6:42 a.m. ET The taxi line at La Guardia Airport had barely budged.There were no cabs in sight, and the grumbling was getting louder. People scanned the road for any glimpse of yellow. A dispatcher grimaced.Finally, a lone taxi rolled up for a waiting passenger. Then it was gone.“I haven’t seen it like this,” said Alex Hyken, 28, who lives in Brooklyn and had just returned from visiting relatives in St. Louis, only to find herself stuck behind 40 people who were also trying to get a taxi. Ten minutes later, she whirled off with her suitcase in search of an Uber or Lyft.When the pandemic shut down New York, it all but wiped out the city’s taxi industry, as commuters worked from home, tourists stayed home and businesses closed. Fleet owners reduced operations or suspended them altogether. Many drivers found other jobs, including driving trucks or making Amazon deliveries.Now, as the city starts to recover, buoyed by low virus rates and widespread vaccinations, yellow taxis are largely missing from many street corners and airport arrival areas.There are about 6,000 cabs on the road currently, according to industry analysts. That represents fewer than half of the total pool of 13,500 medallions, the city-issued permits required to operate a yellow taxi. Some 5,700 of those that are not working were taken out of service indefinitely by owners who put them into storage voluntarily and returned the license plates.The shortage is the latest setback for an industry that has struggled amid an influx of ride-hailing services and a spate of suicides among taxi owners and for-hire drivers. Even before the pandemic, some taxi owners faced financial ruin after being lured into taking on reckless loans to buy medallions at artificially inflated prices.In New York, Chicago, Las Vegas and other cities, demand for taxis and ride-hail cars has rebounded sharply from pandemic lows, outpacing the return of both drivers and cars. That has led to frustrating waits for riders, when taxis are even available.With drivers slow to return to work, the lack of for-hire cars has also pushed up the fares charged by ride-hailing apps like Uber that switch to so-called surge pricing when demand peaks.Many taxi owners are wary about how soon business will rebound. Demand is inconsistent and could be diluted if more cabs come rushing back to the streets, they said. The industry’s immediate future also depends on how soon workers return to their offices, and how soon tourists and business travelers come back to New York in big numbers.Editors’ PicksDon’t Play With Your Kids. Seriously.The Most Exciting Place to Eat in Los Angeles Is ChinatownYou May Not Want to Get Your Beauty Tips From TikTokContinue reading the main storyRichard Wissak, whose family operates 140 taxis, took his cars out of service last year as the coronavirus shut down the city. He later put the entire fleet into storage to save thousands of dollars in insurance, taxes and fees.“The city was in awful shape,” he said. “No airport work, no office work, and that’s the heartbeat of the yellow taxi industry.”ImageMany drivers for Uber and other ride-hailing services have also been slow to return to work, contributing to an increase in fares. Credit...Amr Alfiky/The New York TimesMr. Wissak wants to get his taxis back on the road, but he worries that there is not enough business yet. “Why are we going to put our toe back in the water if we’re not going to be able to survive?” he said.Many owners of single medallions also received a temporary reprieve on their loan payments during the pandemic. Once they start working again, the payments may restart again too, without a guarantee that the owners can earn enough to afford them, said Bhairavi Desai, the executive director of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance.“They don’t want to go back to work before there’s substantial debt restructuring,” said Ms. Desai, whose group has started a fund to help taxi owners pay off their medallions in cash at lower prices.Another thing causing the shortage of available taxis is that some drivers who qualified for expanded unemployment benefits during the pandemic have not yet come back to work. Others have moved away or taken other jobs.Mohammad Hossain, 45, a driver from Queens, said that two of his friends — one who drove taxis, the other who drove for Uber — continue to collect unemployment, though “I’ve tried to tell them our business is a little bit better.”About 6,000 taxi drivers were working in April, according to Bruce Schaller, a transportation analyst. That was up from 2,200 in April 2020, at the pandemic’s height, but far below the 20,000 who were working in February, Mr. Schaller found.Many fleet owners have tried to attract more drivers by slashing leasing rates for taxis to make it easier for drivers to make money.The Taxi and Limousine Commission, which oversees the industry, is working closely with taxi operators to ensure there are enough taxis to meet demand and trying to help drivers by streamlining the regulatory process, said Allan Fromberg, a commission spokesman.The lack of drivers and cars has also affected ride-hailing services. About 54,000 worked for the services in New York in April, compared with 79,000 in February 2020, Mr. Schaller said. Across the United States, a ride with such a service costs as much as 40 percent more than it did a year ago, according to the research firm Rakuten Intelligence.Uber has dangled $250 million in bonuses and incentives to recruit more drivers around the county. In New York, the result has been more drivers and fewer rides at surge-pricing levels. “Drivers are returning to Uber in force to take advantage of higher earnings opportunities from our driver stimulus,” said Alix Anfang, an Uber spokeswoman.The shortage is a temporary problem that should be resolved as more drivers answer the demand for rides, Mr. Schaller said. But while the availability of cars may return to prepandemic levels, he added, Uber and Lyft fares may remain high, in part because customers are willing to pay them.“It’s like restaurants, it’s like Broadway, it takes a while to put things back in place,” said Mr. Schaller. “And things will go back differently than before.”Sunny Madra, who visited New York from California in late May, tweeted that an Uber from Midtown Manhattan to Kennedy International Airport had cost him $248, or nearly as much as his $262 plane ticket.“We all have this prepandemic muscle memory: You walk out, you hail an Uber and it’s reasonably priced,” Mr. Madra said in an interview. “A $200-plus Uber, you sort of say, ‘What happened here?’”Elizabeth Halem, 43, said she wanted to support taxi drivers by taking cabs but that even before the pandemic, she never saw them in her neighborhood, Greenpoint in Brooklyn.“Sighting a cab would be like sighting Bigfoot,” she said. “Cabs are sort of mythical beings here.”Instead, Ms. Halem ends up ordering cars using Lyft, which can cost nearly $50 for a ride, or almost twice what she paid before the pandemic.On a Thursday in Downtown Brooklyn this month, shoppers loaded with heavy bags waved down passing taxis. One woman, Lissette Carter, 41, said she was occasionally forced to settle for an Uber even if it cost more. “It’s painful, but you’ve got to get around when you don’t have a car, especially if you’ve got small children and it’s raining,’’ she said.The taxi shortage has led to long lines at La Guardia, where there is no direct link to the subway or commuter rail lines. Supply and demand can fluctuate, with taxis outnumbering passengers at times since there are still fewer air travelers than before the pandemic.“It’s almost impossible to survive,” said Stephen Benesoczky, 70, a taxi driver who waited close to an hour to pick up a fare. He spends nearly $200 a day to lease the taxi and cover his gas and expenses. If he makes $400 in fares, he said, “that’s a good day.”ImageThere were about 54,000 ride-hail drivers working in April, compared with 79,000 in February 2020, one transportation analyst found. Credit...Mark Abramson for The New York TimesThe Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs La Guardia and Kennedy, has taken steps to try to bring in more cabs, including sending regular updates to drivers through the taxi network’s internal messaging system. The authority has also created Twitter feeds to post information about airport hold lots, where cabs wait to be dispatched to a terminal.At terminal curbs, airport workers have even urged people waiting for taxis to try ride-hailing services instead.“There clearly is a shortage of taxi drivers,” said Rick Cotton, the authority’s executive director. “Part of the coming back from the pandemic is the taxi drivers were decimated and they need to see that the passenger volume has come back to return to the roads.”Sergio Cabrera, 57, who has owned and driven taxis for more than 20 years, was already hurting financially before the pandemic, losing passengers to the ride-hail cars that, he said, officials allowed to flood New York’s streets.Mr. Cabrera said he had also been laid up for three months after getting sick with Covid-19. When he was able to return to driving, he said, he went hours without a passenger. He made grocery deliveries and took out a pandemic-related loan meant to help small businesses.Mr. Cabrera said he was picking up about 10 passengers a day now, half of what he did before the outbreak.“I’ve lost my motivation for this business,” he said. “I wish I didn’t have to drive. I wish I didn’t have this burden on my shoulders.”Winnie Hu is a reporter on the Metro desk, focusing on transportation and infrastructure stories. She has also covered education, politics in City Hall and Albany, and the Bronx and upstate New York since joining The Times in 1999. @WinnHuPatrick McGeehan writes about transportation and infrastructure for the Metro section. He has been a reporter for the Times since 1999 and has covered Wall Street, executive pay, transportation, the New York City economy and New Jersey. @NY Tpatrick

Bankruptcy and arbitration are both intended to provide a quick and relatively efficient resolution to disputes between a debtor and his creditors. Both allow adjudication without a jury. Both systems should be able to move more swiftly than a court of general jurisdiction because there are no competing priorities, such as in criminal cases subject to the requirement of a speedy trial. Both are recognized by federal law, specifically the Federal Arbitration Act and the Bankruptcy Code. So what happens when a party to a bankruptcy proceeding requests permission to proceed with arbitration? The Court in In re McPherson, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 1487 (Bankr. D. Md. 6/2/21) grappled this issue with frustrating results. What Happened The Debtor and Camac Fund, L.P. ("Camac") entered into a Litigation Funding Agreement (the "Funding Agreement"). Under the Funding Agreement, Camac would advance money to the Debtor in return for a percentage the debtor’s interest in any recoveries from certain whistleblower lawsuits. Under the Funding Agreement, Camac was to extend financing to the Debtor in exchange for a percentage of the Debtor's interest in certain whistleblower litigation cases. Disputes arose between the parties under the Funding Agreement, and Camac invoked its rights under the Funding Agreement's arbitration clause. The Debtor filed a response disputing, among other things, the validity of the arbitration and asserting counterclaims against Camac. A hearing was scheduled in the arbitration proceeding but was stayed by the filing of this Chapter 11 case. Opinion, pp. 3-4. After the bankruptcy was filed, the lawyers got busy. Camac filed a Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay seeking to proceed with the arbitration. The Debtor filed an adversary proceeding against Camac. Camac filed an adversary proceeding to determine dischargeability against the Debtor. Camac asked the Court to abstain from hearing the Debtor’s suit. The Bankruptcy Court found that there were several types of claims involved: (i) claims concerning the parties' performance under, and alleged breaches of, the Funding Agreement (the "Contract Claims"); (ii) claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and state law allegedly governing the Funding Agreement (the "Non-Bankruptcy Claims"); and (iii) claims under sections 502, 510, 523, 543, 544, 547, and 553 of the Code (the "Bankruptcy Claims" Who Gets to Decide? The Bankruptcy Court is the gatekeeper which gets to decide where the ultimate issue will be decided. The automatic stay prevents actions in other forums absent bankruptcy court permission, while the broad grant of jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. §1334 allows most disputes to be heard in the Bankruptcy Court. Thus, with limited exceptions, unless the Bankruptcy Court lifts the automatic stay and abstains from hearing the dispute itself, the matter will proceed in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court has a second gatekeeper function, which is to determine “arbitrability.” As the Bankruptcy Court explained: [F]irst, it must determine whether the parties agree to arbitrate; second, it must determine the scope of that agreement; third, if federal statutory claims are asserted, it must consider whether Congress intended those claims to be nonarbitrable; and fourth, if the court concludes that some, but not all, of the claims in the case are arbitrable, it must then decide whether to stay the balance of the proceedings pending arbitration. Opinion, pp. 15-16. Although the Bankruptcy Court didn’t get there until page 15 of its opinion, the decision whether to allow arbitration is really a two-step process. First, the Court decides whether the parties intended this particular dispute to be subject to arbitration. Then it decides how to exercise its discretion as to whether to allow arbitration. The Bankruptcy Court’s position as gatekeeper should provide the debtor with an important home field advantage in keeping the dispute in the debtor’s chosen forum. However, in Shearson/American Exp., Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 226 (1987), the Supreme Court found that "the party seeking to prevent enforcement of an arbitration agreement [must] show that 'Congress has evinced an intention to preclude waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue.'” Opinion. p. 9. Therefore, the rule is that the Court should allow arbitration unless there are important bankruptcy reasons not to. Fortunately, Congress has provided guidance on what disputes are most important to the bankruptcy process. In 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(2)(B), Congress has defined certain bankruptcy disputes as “core” proceedings. These include such matters as allowing proofs of claim, selling property and deciding whether the stay should apply. The Supreme Court has further provided that some, but not all, core proceedings are “constitutional core” proceedings meaning that the Bankruptcy Court has authority to enter a final judgment without the consent of the parties. See Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011) and the Supreme Court’s subsequent decisions. Thus, if a decision is a “constitutional core” proceeding, there are good grounds for retaining the suit. So, is there a hard and fast rule? No. As explained by the Bankruptcy Court: If a claim is a constitutionally core proceeding, the bankruptcy court has the discretion to retain the proceeding and not enforce the terms of the parties' arbitration agreement. See, e.g.,Taylor, 420 F. Supp. 3d at 448 ("Arbitration of constitutionally core claims 'inherently conflict[s] with the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code,' and therefore a bankruptcy court is generally well within its discretion to refuse arbitration of constitutionally core claims.") (citation omitted). Again, this discretion arises from the inherent conflict in allowing an arbitrator to resolve proceedings that are grounded in the Code itself or that are integral to the debtor's reorganization efforts. A bankruptcy court's discretion is far more limited with respect to non-constitutionally core or non-core proceedings. Opinion, p. 12. Essentially, the Bankruptcy Court has a lot of discretion to retain a constitutionally core matter and a little bit of discretion to retain anything else. While the “constitutional core” distinction is helpful, the decision still comes down to the Bankruptcy Court’s discretion. The Bankruptcy Court was following Fourth Circuit precedent in Moses v. CashCall, Inc., 781 F.3d 63 (4thCir. 2015), where the Court held that sending a constitutionally core proceeding to arbitration “would pose an inherent conflict with the Bankruptcy Code” while requiring arbitration of a claim which was not a constitutional core proceeding would not. Interestingly, the judge who wrote the opinion dissented from the court’s opinion as to the claims which were not constitutionally core. The judge found that the non-core claim was directly tied to the core claim and that it would be inefficient to have two tribunals adjudicate the identical issue. The Fifth Circuit, while relying on a similar standard, has concluded that dividing a case and sending some claims to arbitration “would be of disservice to the parties and defeat the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code.” Gandy v. Gandy (In re Gandy), 299 F.3d 489, 499 (5thCir. 2002).   The Court’s Ruling The Court found that the parties agreed to arbitrate disputes arising under the Funding Agreement. For reasons that are unclear to me, the Court found it unnecessary to resolve whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate the specific disputes at issue. After an extensive discussion, the Court decided to bifurcate the claims. The claims arising under the Bankruptcy Code would not be subject to arbitration while the contract and non-bankruptcy claims would go to arbitration. This is a very unsatisfactory answer although it mirrors the result in CashCall. How could the Bankruptcy Court determine allowance of Camac’s claim (a bankruptcy claim not subject to arbitration) without determining the parties’ performance under the Funding Agreement (a non-bankruptcy claim subject to arbitration)? The only thing that makes sense is sending the FDCPA claim to arbitration since this is an independent claim between the two parties. However, was that even covered by the arbitration clause? As I mentioned above, I don’t think that the FDCPA claim arose under the Funding Agreement and therefore should not have been subject to arbitration at all. Another Way to Look at This Case I found this opinion to be very confusing and the outcome to be arbitrary. I would like to suggest a simplified approach. First, decide if the contract requires arbitration. If the contract does not require arbitration, that is the end of the inquiry. If the contract does require arbitration, then consider the impact on the bankruptcy process and other parties. For example:If a contract requires arbitration of any attempt to restructure a debt, that interferes with the Court’s ability to confirm a plan and arbitration should not be allowed.If a contract requires arbitration of disputes as to lien priority and validity and there are three parties asserting a lien, two of whom do not have arbitration clauses, arbitration should not take place.If the bankruptcy case cannot proceed without resolution of the dispute and the arbitration clause refers disputes to the Mongolian Arbitration Forum which requires a minimum of three years and two gallons of yak milk to decide, arbitration should not be granted. I offer impact on the bankruptcy process and other parties as an alternate test because the whole constitutional core test doesn’t really work. Most arbitration clauses are going to decide claims between the parties. The Supreme Court has said that the authority of bankruptcy courts is greatest when “the action at issue stems from the bankruptcy itself or would necessarily be resolved in the claims allowance process.” Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. at 499. Since most arbitration clauses apply to deciding who owes what to whom, they are always likelyto involve constitutionally core claims (unless it is purely a matter of a claim by the debtor against the contract counter-party). If constitutionally core claims are the norm, it doesn’t make much sense to use this as the basis for a decision. Additionally, as shown by this case and CashCall, bifurcating claims between those that are subject to arbitration and those which are not can lead to twin forums deciding the same issues which should be a real problem. Thus, impact on the process and other parties is a much more workable test. If I were to apply my test to the case, I would probably have denied arbitration in its entirety. The parties agreed to arbitrate claims “arising under” the Funding Agreement. The FDCPA claims do not appear to arise under the Funding Agreement since the FDCPA will only apply when a debt collector is attempting to collect a debt. In Bankruptcy Court, we know the difference between “arising under” and “relating to” and these claims do not appear to “arise under” the Funding Agreement. I would also have found that the preference and fraudulent transfer claims did not arise under the Funding Agreement, since they arise under the Bankruptcy Code.  If the parties had agreed to arbitrate disputes “related to” the Funding Agreement, the result might have been different. The disputes concerning performance under the Funding Agreement certainly arise under the Funding Agreement. However, they are part and parcel of claims allowance process which arises under the Bankruptcy Code. That would take us to the second level of my analysis: what is the impact on the bankruptcy process and other parties? The opinion doesn’t really answer these questions, and in fairness, the parties may not have raised them. What I would like to have learned is how long the arbitration process would last and how would the allowance or denial of claims have affected other creditors and parties in interest. This was a Chapter 11 case. The Debtor has an exclusive period to propose a plan (or if it was a SubChapter V case, an absolute deadline to propose a plan). Would arbitration interfere with that process? How would determination of who did what to whom affect other creditors? If the only issue was how much Camac would owe the Debtor, then there probably would not have been much of an impact on other creditors. Similarly, if all the other creditors were secured creditors and Camac was the only unsecured creditor, then maybe allowance of Camac’s claim would not have affected other creditors. However, if Camac was one of several unsecured creditors and the amount payable to each unsecured creditor would depend on whether Camac had a big claim or a small claim, it might have had a lot of impact on other creditors. If there is a law professor looking for his next article, I suggest this would make a great subject.