Why student loan debt is ballooning for those 50 and upFrom: USA Today.comBy: Susan Tompor  Detroit Free Presshttps://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/12/29/retirees-student-loans-debt/2769065001/

Seeking to resolve a 5-3 split among the Courts of Appeals, the Supreme Court will consider whether a creditor which passively retains property of the estate violates the automatic stay.  Case No. 19-357, City of Chicago v. Fulton. The Second, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have ruled that retaining possession or control of property of the debtor violates the stay. The Third, Tenth and D.C. Circuits have held that passive retention of property is not an "act" to exercise control over property of the estate.  Two Code SectionsThe case turns on how to reconcile two provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a)(3) prohibits "any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate." Because the statute is written in the conjunctive, either an act to obtain possession of property of the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate will violate the statute. Because the word "act" modifies both clauses, there is a fair argument that the offended party must point to a post-petition "act" before the stay is violated.However, 11 U.S.C.Sec.542(a) says that "an entity . . . in possession, custody, or control during the case of property that the trustee may use, sell, or lease ... or that the debtor may exempt ... shall deliver to the trustee, and account for, such property or the value of such property, unless such property is of inconsequential value or benefit to the estate." Thus, an entity having control over property of the estate must turn over that property to the trustee unless the property is of inconsequential value. Because a person in control of property of the estate "shall" turn such property over, there is an argument that failing to do so is an act to exercise control over property of the estate.Two ApproachesTwo cases from 2019 help to explain how the competing theories work in practice.In re Fulton, 926 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2019) is a case where the City of Chicago impounded cars for failure to  pay traffic fines. The City refused to return the vehicles claiming that it would lose its possessory lien if it did so. In four separate cases, bankruptcy courts found that the City had violated the automatic stay by exercising control. In two cases, the City returned the vehicles but only after it had been held in contempt and a request for stay pending appeal had been denied. In a third case, the City returned the vehicle prior to being held in contempt. In a fourth case, the debtor's bankruptcy case was dismissed and the City disposed of the vehicle. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the finding that the stay had been violated.Meanwhile, the Third Circuit found no violation of the stay under similar facts in In re Denby-Peterson, 941 F.3d 115 (3rd Cir. 2019). Joy Denby-Peterson bought a 2008 Chevrolet Corvette. She agreed to make a down payment of $3,000, a "deferred" down payment of $2,491 some three weeks later and 212 weekly payments of $200. When she did not pay the deferred down payment, the creditor repossessed the vehicle. She then filed Chapter 13 and demanded that the car be returned to her. When the creditor failed to return the car, she filed a motion for turnover and for sanctions. The Bankruptcy Court granted turnover but denied sanctions on the basis that the creditor had not committed an "act" to exercise control over the vehicle. The District Court and Third Circuit affirmed the finding that there had been no stay violation.  The Courts found that passively retaining collateral was not an "act." They also held that the turnover provision of Sec. 542(a) was not self-executing because a creditor might have a defense to turnover. Why It Matters There are legitimate reasons why a creditor would not want to return a car to a debtor. For example, if the debtor did not have insurance and liked to drive at 100 mph in the rain, a creditor might be reticent about returning the vehicle. The lender may have read on the debtor's Facebook page that he planned to permanently move to Mexico the following week. Or the debtor may be a repeat chapter 13 filer with no income and the lender may object to extending the automatic stay (assuming that the debtor timely files the motion).  The lender is not without remedies in these understandable situations. Under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(d), the court may terminate, annul, modify or condition the automatic stay on request from a creditor. Thus, if a creditor learns of the bankruptcy on the date of filing and files a motion to annul the stay the next day, the court could retroactively annul the stay so that the stay was deemed never to have gone into effect. The court could also condition the stay on the debtor providing proof of full coverage insurance and agreeing not to leave the country.The practical consequence of this dispute is establishing which party has the requirement to seek relief first. Under the Seventh Circuit's position, the creditor has the burden to request that the automatic stay be annulled or conditioned in order to avoid violating it. Under the Third Circuit's view, the debtor must seek turnover unless the creditor takes some affirmative action post-petition. For example, if the vehicle was parked in front of the debtor's home and the creditor used a kill switch to disable the car after learning of the bankruptcy, that would be an act to exercise control. Under the Third Circuit's view there must be some act occurring post-petition which alters the status quo ante. I prefer the majority position. The purpose of the automatic stay with respect to property is to allow the debtor to be able to use the property. Withholding a vehicle means that the debtor cannot use it to take his kids to school or drive to work. While that may not be a problem in a city with robust mass transit, such as New York or Washington, D.C., it is a major burden in a state like Texas where a working vehicle is a necessity. In my view, if the debtor requests the property back and the creditor says no (or fails to respond), that is an act which violates the stay.On a final note, the Fulton case will be well argued in the Supreme Court. Veteran Supreme Court litigator Craig Goldblatt represents the City while former Bankruptcy Judge Gene Wedoff represents the Debtors. Thanks to Brit Suttell who sent me the Denby-Peterson case.

Many clients have contacted us regarding the discharge of taxes in bankruptcy,offers in compromise and installment agreements with IRS and recently  penaltiesassessed by IRS.The IRS offers 3 types of penalty relief:1. Reasonable Cause-this appears to be our best chance  to abate penalties2. Administrative Waiver and First Time Penalty Abatement3. Statutory Exception for example a taxpayer  got bad advice from IRS Reasonable cause is relief we may grant when a taxpayer exercises ordinary business care and prudence in determiningtheir tax obligations but is unable to comply with those obligations due to circumstances beyond their control.Reasonable Cause is based on all the facts and circumstances in your situation. The IRS will consider any reason which establishes that you used all ordinary business care and prudence to meet yourFederal tax obligations but were nevertheless unable to do so.Typical fact patterns involving reasonable cause for failure to file a tax return, make a deposit, or pay tax when due include:1. Fire, casualty, natural disaster or other disturbances2. Inability to obtain records3. Death, serious illness, incapacitation or unavoidable absence of the taxpayer or a member of the taxpayer’s immediate familyJim Shenwick, Esq. has an LLM in Taxation from New York University Law School

The Last Will and Testament and other forms of the Will were covered in our most recent article. Often going alongside a Will is one or more trusts. A revocable living trust is the tool in the Estate Planning Toolbox for holding and distributing a person’s assets to avoid probate. In its simplest definition, the Trust is an entity separate from you that allows you pass assets anyone designated in the trust. First, a word about probate. Probate is a court process that oversees the administration and distribution of the assets of a deceased person. As part of the process, the court system validates a person’s Last Will and Testament, if they have one. While the probate process is not “scary,” it can eat up a lot of time and money. That is all the more reason to turn to an experienced Estate Planning attorney for help in how to avoid that unnecessary cost and delay. A Trust skips the probate process How does a Trust skip the probate process? A Trust is an entity separate from you that holds your assets while your alive and sets forth how you want your assets handled after your passing. Since a Trust is a separate entity from personally, when you pass away your Trust continues. Since a Trust cannot “pass away” anything titled in the name of the Trust would not be subject to the probate process. Properly titling assets in the name of a Trust, often referred to as “funding,” avoids probate on those assets. This is why an experienced attorney will talk you through the process of retitling assets into your Trust. Listing assets, changing titles After the Trust is set up, the Trust ‘owns’ the property. A Trust is only worth the assets that are titled into it. This is the step that trips up many who don’t use an attorney for the trust. For many things – jewelry or collections as examples – the trust simply lists the assets in detail. Real estate is a bit different in that the deed or title (see related article) has to be changed to list the trust as the actual owner of the property. This isn’t complicated. Still, when this step is overlooked, your assets could end up in probate. Avoid double counting and under counting Your retirement plans and insurance policies already have beneficiaries. This money doesn’t end up in probate, but the assets also don’t flow into a trust, unless you’ve set the trust as the beneficiary. That tactic can seem confusing, but it points out the importance of looking at beneficiaries of things like life insurance and IR As at the same time as the trust is created. You might have even forgotten who you listed as the beneficiary over the years since opening the IRA or policy. In the last article, we covered the Pourover Will. The pourover helps you take care of assets you may have overlooked by sweeping them into a trust. In our next article, we’re going to cover Powers of Attorney that will help you take care of yourself. The post Your Estate Planning Toolbox: Trusts appeared first on Wynn at Law, LLC.

After bankruptcy credit card offers come faster than you think Have you heard the lie? The lie that filing filing bankruptcy means seven years with bad credit. You after bankruptcy credit will be better than most people expect.   The truth about after bankruptcy credit.  The truth is the opposite of that bad credit lie.  […] The post Credit Card Offers Come Faster Than You Expect by Robert Weed appeared first on Robert Weed - AE.

Just in time for the holidays, the Fifth Circuit has released THE MOST BIZARRE OPINION OF THE YEAR. A lawyer claiming to be a Deity and a Monarch brought suit against the United States and the State of Louisiana on behalf of the Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation. The District Court sensibly dismissed the suit based on sovereign immunity. However, the Fifth Circuit chose to affirm the decision on the ground that the suit was so completely frivolous that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction to even entertain it. Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation, No. 19-30032 (5th Cir. 12/10/19), which can be found here.According to the Court:This action was originally brought as a habeas corpus proceeding by Edward Moses, Jr., a lawyer who calls himself the trustee of the “Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation.” This group is not a federally recognized Indian tribe, and its precise nature is unclear. See Indian Entities Recognized by and Eligible To Receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 84 Fed. Reg. 1200 (Feb. 1, 2019). The initial complaint alleged the Atakapa “are being held as wards of the State through the Louisiana Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs” and “in pupilage under the United States,” and sought formal recognition as “indigenous to Louisiana.” The claims were based on a gumbo of federal and state laws, including eighteenth-century federal treaties with France and Spain, as well as sources such as the “Pactum De Singularis Caelum, [or] the Covenant of One Heaven.” The plaintiff subsequently filed something resembling an amended complaint, which sought to reclassify the action as a “libel suit” under maritime jurisdiction.Opinion, p. 2. According to the very patient court:Some claims are so insubstantial, implausible or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy. Federal courts lack power to entertain these wholly insubstantial and frivolous claims. Determining whether a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous requires asking whether it is obviously without merit or whether the claim’s unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of (the Supreme Court) as to foreclose the subject. (cleaned up). Opinion, p. 3.  The Court's answer in the present case was "Well, duh!" They did not actually use those words although that was the gist of the opinion.The pleadings speak for themselves. To begin with, the Atakapa’s counsel, Edward Moses, Jr.—who appears to be the real plaintiff—refers to himself throughout under such titles as: “His Majesty,” “[T]he Christian King de Orleans,” “[T]he God of the Earth Realm,” and the “Trust Protector of the American Indian Tribe of הֶשׁמ Moses” (bold and Hebrew script in original).The plaintiff’s claims are no less bizarre. For instance, the original complaint alleges, without any explanation, that the Atakapa are being held in “pupilage” by the United States and as “wards” of Louisiana. The first amended complaint seeks a “declaration of rights guaranteed . . . by the 1795 Spanish Treaty with the Catholic Majesty of Spain and the 1800 French Treaty with the former Christian Majesty of France.” The proposed second amended complaint attempts to name these additional defendants: Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, King Felipe VI of Spain, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, President Emmanuel Macron of France, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, Prime Minister Theresa May of the United Kingdom, Pope Francis, President Xi Jinping of China, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt, Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj of Libya, President George Weah of Liberia, Prime Minister Antonio Costa of Portugal, and President Donald J. Trump. That same document also alleges that the United States and Louisiana seek to monopolize “intergalactic foreign trade.” This was no typographical error: the plaintiff continues to argue on appeal that the defendants are attempting to “monopoliz[e] . . . domestic, international and intergalactic commercial markets.”We will not try to decipher what any of this means. To do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit. Despite all this, jurisdiction would still lie if the plaintiff presented a non-frivolous federal question. We find none. For example, the plaintiff asserts various antitrust violations, but fails to allege any colorable basis for them. The best he can do is to allege anticompetitive behavior by Thompson Reuters. He seeks an injunction, not to stop anything defendants are doing to the Atakapa, but instead to “restrain[ ] the Doctrine of Discovery and the Doctrine of Conquest more commonly known as the Doctrine of White Supremacy.” Many of the arguments depend, not on the alleged violation of any federal statute or rule, but instead on the assertion that “[t]he 1803 Louisiana Purchase Treaty is not ‘Law of the Land.’” (partially cleaned up).Opinion, pp. 3-4.The opinion was written by Stuart Duncan Kyle, a Trump appointee who was confirmed on a party line vote. Some pundits and Senators were concerned that his prior work on religious liberty issues might lead to bias on the bench. However, those concerns were clearly unwarranted in this case. I also like Judge Kyle because he uses the "cleaned up" parenthetical which I have started using in my own writing.While it is fun to revel in the sheer silliness of this opinion, it does raise an important question. The trial court had warned the Plaintiff that he was in danger of being sanctioned under Rule 11. However, if the Court never had subject matter jurisdiction to begin with, did it have the power to impose sanctions? As it turns out, the Supreme Court has answered this question. A court which lacks subject matter jurisdiction may impose Rule 11 sanctions, although it may not find a party in civil contempt. The Court explained:A final determination of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction of a case in a federal court, of course, precludes further adjudication of it. But such a determination does not automatically wipe out all proceedings had in the district court at a time when the district court operated under the misapprehension that it had jurisdiction.*** An imposition of a Rule 11 sanction is not a judgment on the merits of an action. Rather, it requires the determination of a collateral issue: whether the attorney has abused the judicial process, and, if so, what sanction would be appropriate. Such an order implicates no constitutional concern because it does not signify a district court's assessment of the legal merits of the complaint. It therefore does not raise the issue of a district court adjudicating the merits of a "case or controversy" over which it lacks jurisdiction. (cleaned up) Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 137, 138 (1992). 

Will My Bankruptcy Show Up on a Background Check? A lot of people worry that if they file for bankruptcy in Arizona, they won’t ever be able to get credit again. They know that bankruptcy can stay on their credit report for a long time, and that can make them seem like poor candidates for credit with future lenders. What many people don’t realize, however, is that bankruptcy can also be an impediment to getting future jobs. Many employers run a comprehensive background check on prospective employees, which includes a criminal history, a credit check, and a public records check, and bankruptcy is included on the latter two. A bankruptcy filing can give employers pause, indicating that you may not be a person who makes good decisions or who is responsible. Bankruptcy could also indicate to a prospective employer that you have a lot going on in your life that will distract you from work or cause you to call out often. If you are applying for a job that handles finance, a bankruptcy filing could indicate that you aren’t very good with finances. Some employers just run a criminal background check, which would not include a bankruptcy filing. In other cases, you could also run out the clock on your bankruptcy filing. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy in Arizona stays on your credit record for 10 years, and an Arizona Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing stays on your record for seven years. Consequences for Employment of Not Filing for Bankruptcy All that may make bankruptcy sound very ominous and deter you from talking to a bankruptcy lawyer around Arizona when you need the debt relief. But the consequences of not filing for bankruptcy can be severe for your job search and other aspects of your life. If you don’t file for bankruptcy, that means you are going to continue struggling with debt. You may use your credit cards to pay for the things you need, and as your balances climb higher, your credit score will lower. You may continue to pay things late or be unable to pay them at all, and that will leave your credit history littered with late payments and delinquencies. The longer that goes on, the longer your credit check will make you seem like a risk to employers. Filing for bankruptcy puts an end to that and starts the clock sooner for your negative credit history to expire. Take Proactive Measures If an employer runs a background check on you and finds any negative information, including a bankruptcy, you may be passed over for the position without even knowing why. If the employer lets you know that your background check was a problem, you may be able to explain. However, in many circumstances, you will never get that chance to explain and potentially persuade. It’s far better if you take proactive action and let prospective employers know that you have a bankruptcy before they even run the background check. That way, you can be sure you get a chance to explain the circumstances behind the bankruptcy, such as a divorce, a sudden layoff, or an illness. You can assure the employer that the bankruptcy was unavoidable and that you are a responsible person who has since developed a plan for moving forward. Repair Your Credit Maybe you don’t have an “acceptable” explanation for your bankruptcy. Maybe you really did shop too much and fail to budget properly and you found yourself in over your head. You don’t have to wait for your bankruptcy to drop off your credit record to start making amends. You can repair your credit quickly after a bankruptcy by making good choices and using credit wisely. You can get a credit card in as little as a year after your bankruptcy filing. If you use that credit card appropriately, you can start building up your score and creating a positive credit history again. Prospective employers will look at your credit history and see that you made a mistake but that you have learned from it and are making good choices – exactly what they would want to see in an employee. Yes, an Arizona bankruptcy can show up on a background check for employment, for renting a new apartment, or for any other reason that a background check is required. That doesn’t have to mean that you are out of the running, nor does it have to mean that you should avoid bankruptcy because of potential future consequences. The consequences of not filing for bankruptcy can be much more severe and long-lasting. You can easily rebuild your credit and start rebuilding your life after a bankruptcy by making the right choices and working with the right advisers. Talk to the bankruptcy attorneys at My AZ Lawyers if you are struggling with debt. They can help you understand how a Chapter 7 bankruptcy or a Chapter 13 bankruptcy may be able to give you the debt relief you so desperately need. Our attorneys serve clients in Mesa, Glendale, Tucson, and Phoenix, and they are committed to providing fast debt relief for all who qualify. Call our bankruptcy law office today to get started! My AZ Lawyers Mesa Location: 1731 West Baseline Rd., Suite #100 Mesa, AZ 85202 Office: (480) 448-9800 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 The post Will My Bankruptcy Show Up on a Background Check? appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.

Many people are collecting Social Security disability benefits in Pennsylvania. Some of them, due to the unfortunate death of a spouse, may become eligible for survivor benefits as well. So, can someone receive both disability and survivor benefits at the same time in PA? Our Pennsylvania disability attorneys at Young, Marr & Associates outline Social […] The post Can You Get Disability and Survivor Benefits at the Same Time in PA? appeared first on .

The Epic Rise and Hard Fall of NewYork's Taxi KingBy Brian M. Rosenthal.Dec. 5, 2019Evgeny A. Freidman in his garage in Long Island City, Queens. Sasha MaslovThe man known as the Taxi King arrived at his 2014 holiday party in a $384,000 Ferrari, wearing a custom Italian suit. He told the guestswhom he had invited to an upscale Manhattan club - including executives, politicians and celebrities - that he had flown in from SaintJean-Cap-Ferrat, a town in the French Riviera where he owned two villas.Five years later, that man, Evgeny A. Freidman, stood in a mostly empty courtroom in Albany, N.Y., as a judge sentenced him to probationfor tax fraud. In a hushed voice, he said he had lost everything."I'm trying to be remorseful and understanding for anybody I might have harmed;' he told the judge at the hearing in October. "I'm veryhumbled by what has happened."For more than a decade, New York taxi industry leaders got rich by creating a bubble in the market for the city permits, known asmedallions, that allow people to own and operate cabs.In several articles this year, an mvest1gat10n by I he New York limes found that government officials stood by as mdustry leadersartmciio~tiji\laAe~~$Uiffia§atr!d5:hanneled immigrant drivers into loans they could not afford to purchase the permits. The lea(iersreaped hundreds of millions of dollars before the bubble burst, wiping out thousands of buyers who are still mired in debt today.And no one embodies the glittery rise, unfettered recklessness and spectacular collapse of the industry more than Mr. Freidman.A Russian immigrant and a cabdriver's son who got his nickname by building the city's biggest fleet, Mr. Freidman was a primaryarchitect of some of the tactics used to build the bubble, according to records and interviews. At the height of the market, he hadaccumulated $525 million in assets. He befriended the filmmaker Spike Lee, the baseball star Mo Vaughn and Mayor Bill de Blasio. Hisoutsize antics and lavish spending often landed him on Page Six, the New York Post's gossip column.As a generation of cabdrivers became trapped in overwhelming debt, Mr. Freidman created offshore trusts that protected some of hismoney when the bubble burst, records show. While his business partners lost millions because of his tax fraud, Mr. Freidman avoidedprison by cooperating with a federal investigation into one of his partners, Michael D. Cohen, President Trump's former lawyer."He hurt so many people in so many different ways;' said David Pollack, the former head of the Committee for Taxi Safety, an associationof fleet owners that once included Mr. Freidman. "Your headline could be: 'The man who brought down the taxi industry.'"Mr. Freidman did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Government officials declined to answers questions on why they did notintervene sooner.This account is based on interviews with more than 20 of Mr. Freidman's former associates and a review of thousands of pages of courtrecords and other documents.Mr. Freidman is now cooperating with prosecutors who started investigating the taxi industry after The Times published its series thisyear on the exploitative tactics that drove medallion prices to soar past $1 million by 2014 from $200,000 in 2002. He has met with themthree times so far.'I'm in , you 'r e out'Mr. Freidman, 49, who is known as Gene, likes to portray himself as a scrappy fighter who rose from first-generation immigrant tomultimillionaire solely through his wits and fists.But like everything involving Mr. Freidman, the reality is more complicated.He was born in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1970, an only child. Six years later, his family emigrated to New York, he has said in interviews.His father, who Mr. Freidman said had been a thermonuclear engineer, got a job as a cabdriver but soon began buying medallions andbuilding a fleet, records show.Mr. Freidman attended the Bronx High School of Science, Skidmore College and Cardozo Law School. Afterward, he has said, he moved toRussia to work in private investing.Mr. Freidman has said in speeches that he returned to the United States in 1996 at the request of his father, who had become a successfuland respected fleet owner. During the flight home, he crafted a plan to use what he learned in Russia to revolutionize the taxi industry.His idea was straightforward: He wanted the industry to take more risks to increase profits.Specifically, Mr. Freidman has said he wanted lenders to allow medallion purchasers to borrow more money, with smaller down paymentsand longer repayment periods. Former associates said he believed this strategy would allow him and others to buy more medallions,enable lenders to increase profits and, mostly, drive up medallion values. He believed that would spur more purchases, more loans, moreprofits and even higher medallion values."I walked in and took over;' he later recalled. "I told my dad, 'I'm in, you're out.'"Prominent - and polarizingMr. Freidman was 26. He was cocky, but he needed help. He turned to the small nonprofit that had lent to his father, Progressive CreditUnion, and its chief executive, who had become a family friend, Robert Familant.Between 1997 and 2004, Progressive's loans enabled Mr. Freidman to buy about 100 medallions to expand his fleet, according to cityrecords and former associates.At the same time, Mr. Freidman became a licensed broker and helped some drivers purchase medallions, mostly using loans fromOther industry leaders used similar tactics. But few were as aggressive as Mr. Freidman.More Mr Freidman's success emboldened others, and helped encourage lenders to push low-incomedrivers to take on massive loans to buy medallions."He changed the market:' said Ira Goldstein, a former chief of staff at the city commission that oversees the industry. "People copied him,and it affected everybody, including the driver-owners."Mr. Familant did not respond to requests for comment.As Mr. Freidman expanded his fleet, he became increasingly prominent - and polarizing.To his allies, Mr. Freidman was charming and passionate, with a perspective that improved a long-stagnant industry. He put his fleet inseveral neighborhoods, making it more accessible for his drivers. He worked long hours. He embraced energy efficiency, becoming thefirst to use hybrid cabs.Others saw him as vindictive and vulgar. Lawsuits have accused him of cheating his drivers, clients and partners. Last year, he wasordered to pay $1.3 million to an assistant who sued him for sexual harassment. On his desk, he kept a snow globe sprouting a middlefinger.The highest bidderMr. Freidman unleashed his most radical idea on June 16, 2006, at an auction where the city sold new medallions.At the time, a medallion cost $350,000 on the private market, according to a Times analysis. But at the auction, Mr. Freidman and hisassociates bid $477,666.50 apiece.They won all 54 medallions sold.The results reshaped the small medallion market. In effect, Mr. Freidman single-handedly had increased the value of all medallions,including ones he had owned for years - and also increased prices for everyone, making it harder for drivers to buy without enormousloans.Years later, Mr. Freidman admitted he had intentionally overpaid to inflate the values of medallions he owned. He said in a 2012 speechthat he used the values to persuade lenders to loan him more money."I would bid crazy prices. People would look at me like I'm crazy, and I wouldn't care:' he said, "because I would look at the prices and say,'This is market value."'Mr. Freidman repeated the strategy at three other auctions, records show. In all, he bought more medallions at auctions than anyone elsein city history.Riches and powerThe medallion bubble turned Mr. Freidman into a remarkably rich man.His fleet had about 900 of the city's 13,587 medallions. Most were owned by others who charged him a fee for the right to operate their cabsand keep the profits. He personally owned about 250 permits, and at the height of the market, each was worth $1.3 million, although theywere mortgaged, records show.Mr. Freidman knew the prices would not last, according to five former associates. So he used the medallions as collateral to borrow moneythat he invested elsewhere.He bought 20 commercial properties, records show. He opened locations of a French whimsical pajama store in New York, Arizona,California, Georgia and Washington state. He acquired medallions in Chicago and Philadelphia, helping to spike prices in those cities.He bought a 4,000-square-foot townhouse on Manhattan's Upper East Side, an estate in the Hamptons and a condo in Chicago, in additionto the French villas.He also invested in politics. He donated to former Representative Anthony Weiner's 2013 mayoral campaign and to Mr. de Blasio. Later, hebragged to associates that Mr. de Blasio placed one of his friends at the taxi commission.Mayoral spokeswoman Freddi Goldstein rejected that notion. "Any suggestion that we hired anyone at his request is a blatant lie;• She said that "The mayor ceased contact with Gene Freidman as soon as he realized he was a bad guy."Mr. Freidman also began managing Mr. Cohen's medallions. They became friends; during Mr. Freidman's divorce.Several of Mr. Freidman's former associates said as he became wealthier, he stopped paying his debts.During the bubble, when Mr. Freidman was worth millions, he was sued or otherwise accused of failing to fully pay his drivers, employees,clients, partners, lawyers, contractors, landlords, lenders, an accountant and a car dealer as well as child support payments, associationdues, insurance premiums and taxes.Between 2013 and 2016, the state ordered him to pay nearly $1.5 million for cheating drivers. But he has failed to fulfill that order, too,records show.The aftermathNow that the bubble has burst, Mr. Freidman is awash in lawsuits and eviction notices.A judge ruled in 2016 that he transferred more than $60 million into trusts in Belize, Nevis and the Cook Islands in order to avoid payingcreditors. Mr. Freidman had defended the transfers as part of estate planning. "It is impossible to conclude that the timing of the transfersis merely coincidence;' the judge wrote in ordering the trusts to pay the creditors.The tax fraud case, filed in 2017, involved two surcharges collected by cabs that Mr. Freidman owned and ones he managed for others: a50-cent fee for regional transit improvements, and a 30-cent fee for more wheelchair-accessible taxis.Officials initially accused Mr. Freidman of pocketing more than $30 million.But after agreeing to cooperate against Mr. Cohen, he ultimately repaid $1 million to the state and $826,000 to the city. In addition to fiveyears of probation, he had to exit the industry and authorize officials to seek $4 million more in the future. (Mr. Cohen is now serving athree-year sentence for campaign finance violations and other crimes.)"He no longer has any involvement whatsoever in taxi operations in New York City. He's done;• said Allan J. Fromberg, a spokesman forthe city Taxi and Limousine Commission.The city and the state have also demanded millions from the owners who entrusted medallions to Mr. Freidman's fleet, even though theydid not know about the scheme or benefit from it. The taxi commission did not respond to questions about the collections. The stateattorney general's office, which prosecuted the tax fraud case, declined to comment, citing its ongoing investigation into the industry."It's unbelievable;' said one owner, Robert Rosen, 72.Mr. Rosen, who said he committed his medallion to Mr. Freidman because he knew his father, lost $30,000. "The things the governmenthas let this crook get away with. It's shocking!'Susan Beachy contributed research.

Discharging Medical Bills with a Bankruptcy: What are the Rules? The health care system has gotten out of control, with expenses skyrocketing and insurance coverage falling steadily. More and more people are paying out of pocket for their medical expenses, or they are getting hit with giant bills for what insurance does not cover. People are maxing out their credit cards, launching Internet campaigns, and selling what they can to pay off their spiraling medical debt. Excessive medical debt is one of the top reasons that people file for bankruptcy in Arizona. Fortunately, in many cases, bankruptcy can eliminate medical debt or can make it more affordable to repay. Here’s what you need to know if you are thinking of calling a bankruptcy law office to deal with your medical debt: Organizing Debts The first thing your Mesa bankruptcy lawyer will do is assess your finances, including your debts and your assets. Your debts will be organized according to whether they are priority debts or non-priority debts. Balances like back taxes or child support are considered priority debts since they cannot be discharged. Any income or assets you have available to pay your creditors will be diverted to these debts first. Medical debt is considered non-priority debt. Unless you have a lot of assets, it’s likely that your medical debt will be discharged in a bankruptcy filing. Chapter 7 Bankruptcy A Chapter 7 bankruptcy in Mesa is considered a “clean slate” bankruptcy because it completely eliminates unsecured, or non-priority, debt such as medical bills and credit card bills. So even if you have charged some of your medical bills to your credit cards, you can still completely eliminate your medical debts with a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing. However, you must first meet eligibility criteria before you can file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. You have to show that your disposable income falls below a certain threshold and that you do not have more than the allowable assets. Chapter 13 Bankruptcy If you can’t qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you might consider filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Under Chapter 13 bankruptcy, your income and debts are analyzed to determine an affordable payment plan over a three- to five-year period. You are ordered to pay a single amount each month, which is then distributed to your creditors. The amount you pay each month under a Mesa Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan include a pro rata amount for each creditor. Your priority creditors are paid first and then your non-priority creditors. The bankruptcy trustee will determine how much you can pay, so you if you don’t make enough, you may not qualify to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. However, if you do qualify and you complete your repayment plan, whatever remains of your original debt will be discharged. It is most likely that you will end up paying very little toward your original medical debt compared with your other debts. Choosing Bankruptcy Determining whether bankruptcy is right for you, and which kind of bankruptcy might be right for you, requires you sitting down with an experienced bankruptcy lawyer and analyzing your financial situation. Your Mesa bankruptcy attorney will help you understand the different options and how each of them can help you. The goal would be to get the maximum debt relief you can under bankruptcy protection. Don’t let medical bills ruin your life. Before you start liquidating assets or running up credit cards, visit a bankruptcy law office to talk about your options. You may be able to discharge that medical debt before it has a chance to bring down your finances or sink you into greater debt. If you are struggling with medical bills or other debt, contact My AZ Lawyers to talk to an experienced bankruptcy lawyer. We’ll analyze your finances and help you understand how bankruptcy may be able to help you. We help individuals file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and we help business clients interested in bankruptcy also. We serve clients in the Mesa, Glendale, Tucson, and Phoenix areas, and we have a reputation for excellent service and efficient results. Contact us today to talk with a bankruptcy attorney about your options for bankruptcy and how you may be able to get the debt relief you need. My AZ Lawyers Mesa Location: 1731 West Baseline Rd., Suite #100 Mesa, AZ 85202 Office: (480) 448-9800 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 The post Discharging Medical Bills with a Bankruptcy: What are the Rules? appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.