From: New York PostBy: John Aidan Byrnehttps://nypost.com/2019/08/11/bankruptcy-filings-rising-across-the-country-and-it-could-get-worse/

From: Business InsiderBy: Hillary Hoffowerhttps://www.businessinsider.com/more-baby-boomers-in-debt-filing-for-bankruptcy-2019-8

from Courthouse News Servicehttps://www.courthousenews.com/nyc-cap-on-ride-hail-vehicles-made-permanent/

Pennsylvania has a “look-back” period of four years, giving bankruptcy trustees ample time to undo or “clawback” a transaction considered a “fraudulent conveyance.” Having to defend a transaction that occurred four years preceding a bankruptcy filing can cause stress to anyone. Here, Young Marr & Associates explain the inner workings of the look-back period in […] The post What is the Look-Back Period in Pennsylvania Bankruptcy? appeared first on .

   Debtor's counsel often do not have much experience in dealing with reverse mortgages in bankruptcy.  A recent case raised a couple of issues on these, when the reverse mortgage was initially in the debtor's mother's name, and transferred to him shortly before her death.  The debtor then filed a chapter 13 plan to reduce the debt to the value of the property, and pay this value through the plan.  The court denied the request to lift stay by the mortgage in In re Winstead, 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 2408, Case #19-50307-KMS (Bankr. S.D. Miss. 31 July 2019).    Winstead's mother executed the note and deed of trust for the mortgage in December 2008.  In June 2018 she quitclaimed the property to Winstead, and died a few weeks later.  Winstead filed for relief under chapter 13 in February 2019 at which time he was residing in the property, but was not on the note.  The chapter 13 plan proposed to refinance the property sometime during the 60 month plan, and then pay the tax appraisal of $76,040 to the mortgage holder, and make Till  interest only adequate protection payments in the meantime at $428/month.  The plan also provided for a 100% dividend to unsecured claims.  The mortgage holder asserted a fully secured claim for $100,793.32.  Two issues were raised by the motion for relief from stay.  Whether the mortgage can be included in the plan despite a lack of privity; and whether the claim must be paid in full through the plan.  As to the privity issue, the Supreme Court has held that "a creditor who ... has a claim enforceable only against the debtor's property nonetheless has a 'claim against the debtor' for purposes of the [Bankruptcy] Code."1  As to payment in full, the mortgage company cited 11 U.S.C. 1322(b)(2), which prohibits modification of  'a claim secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor's principal residence.'  However, §1322(c)(2) sets out an exception to this rule 'when  the last payment on the original payment schedule is due before the date on which the final payment under the plan is due.'  As reverse mortgages come due upon the death of the borrower, this exception applies to exclude the debt from the limitation of §1322(b)(2).  Thus, the debtor may provide for a modification and bifurcation of the claim into secured and unsecured components crammed down pursuant to §1325(a)(5).    The court did not address satisfaction of §§1322(c)(2) and 1325(a)(5), leaving those issues for confirmation.  It would be interesting to see whether the plan will be confirmed, and proof as to feasibility, as well as value would likely be required.1 Johnson v. Home state Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 85, 111 S. Ct. 2150, 115 L. Ed. 2d 66 (1991) (quoting 11 U.S.C. § 102(2))↩Michael BarnettMichael Barnett, PA506 N Armenia Ave.Tampa, FL 33609-1703813 870-3100mbarnett@tampabankruptcy.comwww.hillsboroughbankruptcy.com

If your home is facing a foreclosure, filing for emergency bankruptcy could be your only option. Emergency bankruptcies must be handled with caution because of the potential for providing the court and creditors incorrect information. However, if you do not have much time to save your home from foreclosure, an emergency bankruptcy could be worth […] The post Can an Emergency Bankruptcy Filing Stop Home Mortgage Foreclosures in Pennsylvania? appeared first on .

  When a chapter 13 bankruptcy is filed when a debtor is behind on the mortgage payments, generally there are two plan options to keep the house.  The cheapest monthly payment is usually allowed by seeking mortgage modification mediation through the bankruptcy.  Many bankruptcy courts, including that in the Southern District of Florida, provide mortgage modification programs.  However, a successful modification mediation requires that the parties reach an agreed modification.  If not, then the debtor must revert to the 2nd option, a cure an reinstate plan.  Under this option, the debtor continues to pay the ongoing mortgage payment, and catch up the missed payments over time.  The problem arises when the debtor had made a number of payments at a lower monthly rate, then switches midstream to a cure and reinstate plan, as the debtor is already behind on the on-going post-petition mortgage payments.  This was the situation facing the debtor in In re Edwards, 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 2395, Case #13-25698-EPK (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1 August 2019).   The initial plans provided for an ongoing payment on the Wells Fargo mortgage of $500/month.  This payment continued for 12 months during the mediation process.  When the mortgage mediation was unsuccessful, the debtor amended the plan to provide for a cure and reinstate option, with on-going mortgage payments for months 13-60 of $1,181.29; which was $136.26 higher than the contractual mortgage payment as reflected in Wells Fargo's claim, in order to cure the deficiency in the first 12 postpetition mortgage payments.  This plan was confirmed by the court without objection.  A couple of modifications to the confirmed plan affecting Wells Fargo were filed, both appearing to represent unintended typographical errors by counsel for debtor.  The second of these modifications resulted in payment to Wells Fargo that was insufficient to cure the delinquency in the first 12 months of payments.  The motion did not note the change in the treatment of Wells Fargo mortgage, and neither the court or the trustee recognized the modification to Wells Fargo's treatment.  The modification, and order approving such modification were both served on Wells Fargo, who did not object or seek reconsideration.  Wells Fargo also filed 4 notices of change of mortgage payments, all of which were lower than the payment due as of filing, and none of which reflected the shortfall from the initial 12 monthly payments.  On 5 July 2018 the trustee filed the notice of plan completion of notice of final cure payment.  Wells Fargo objected noting that the debtor was not current on post-petition payments, instead asserting a $4,810.37 delinquency.   The computation was not disputed by debtor, but asserted that as all payments under the confirmed plan as modified were made, believed she should not be required to pay the shortfall.  Debtor filed a motion to requesting the court to deem the mortgage current as of the final payment by the trustee on the mortgage, July 2018.  In May 2019 the court had granted the debtor's request to deem the mortgage current based on United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinoza, 559 U.S. 260 (2010) holding that a confirmed chapter 13 plan is binding on all parties in interest with adequate notice.  Wells Fargo then filed a motion for reconsideration, but did not cite any rule or legal standard in support of the request. Wells Fargo raised new arguments in the request for reconsideration.  The possible applicable rules, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b), made applicable in bankruptcy by bankruptcy rules 9023 and 9024 respectively, do not permit a party to raise arguments that could have been raised prior to the initial decision, but were not.1  Wells Fargo argues that the 11th Circuit's prior panel precedent rule applies to require the bankruptcy court to apply the standard from Universal Am. Mortg. Co. v Batement (In re Bateman), 331 F.3d 821 (11th Cir. 2003) which had held that the anti-modification language of §1322(b)(2) prevails over the binding effect of a plan under §1327(a).  This rule of the 11th Circuit was designed to minimize the risk that two or more panels of the court could issue decisions directly at odds with each other.  If a panel has previously ruled on an issue, the later panel is bound to follow it; subject to en banc review.  Further, Wells Fargo argues that Espinoza does not apply because it did not receive adequate notice of the modification reducing the payment on its claim.  The court rejected this argument, finding that while the text of the motion did not set forth the changes to Wells Fargo's claim, the plan itself and the order confirming such modification clearly noted the changed treatment.  Wells Fargo's failure to review these documents does not allow a later collateral attack on the modification.  Wells Fargo and the court next turned to Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1, which avoids the need to modify a confirmed plan every time a mortgage payment changes due to escrow or interest changes.  This section applies to claims secured solely by a debtor's principal residence, whether payments are made through the chapter 13 trustee or directly by the debtor.  It requires a holder of such claim to file and service a notice of any payment change at least 21 days before the change is to take effect.  Within 30 days after completion of plan payments by the debtor, the trustee is is required to file a notice that the debtor has paid in full the amount required to cure any default on the mortgage claim.  Within 21 days after service of that notice, the holder of the secured claim may file an objection, either as to the cure of the prepetition arrearage, or as to whether the debtor is otherwise current on all payments due on the claim.  Wells Fargo asserts that this provision allows it to complain that all post-petition payments were not paid.  The court disagreed, finding that rather than requiring the court to re-analyse what the amount of payments due were, the section only provides a mechanism to resolve disputes as to the accounting.  Rather, §1329 provides the exclusive method for modification of a plan after confirmation.  Finally, nothing in the Bankruptcy Code suggest that a creditor may collaterally attack a confirmation order, otherwise final and no longer subject to appeal, by a procedure provided in Rule 3002.1.    There are at least two morals to the story.  It appears the procedure to provide for increased on-going mortgage payments post-confirmation to cure a post-petition pre-confirmation delinquency due to reduced mortgage mediation adequate protection payments may be a good way for debtors to retain their homes after a failed mortgage mediation.  Second, it is incumbent on secured creditors to review any proposed modifications to confirmed plans to see if the documents reflect changes not apparent from the title or initial paragraphs of such motions.  Note, in our local jurisdiction (Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division) normally an amended plan would not be attached to a motion to modify.  This case reflects the advantage of having only one document to review rather than a multi-page plan to seek out any changes.1 Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009).↩Michael BarnettMichael Barnett, PA506 N Armenia Ave.Tampa, FL 33609-1703813 870-3100mbarnett@tampabankruptcy.comwww.hillsboroughbankruptcy.com

Bankruptcy Alternative: Just Don’t Pay Some people want or need an alternative to Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  Meet Henry Hudson and his wife Beth. They came to see me several years ago. Their alternative to bankruptcy was a two part plan: just don’t pay, and “call my lawyer.” Here’s why. Henry and Beth were elderly, he […] The post “Just Don’t Pay” as an Alternative to Bankruptcy by Robert Weed appeared first on Robert Weed - AE.

New York Posthttps://nypost.com/2019/07/31/nycs-bid-to-limit-uber-is-starting-to-recreate-the-taxi-medallion-system/

5 Unavoidable Causes of Bankruptcy Many people think that they would never be in a position to need to file for bankruptcy. But the reality is that anyone can find themselves in dire financial circumstances and in desperate need of debt relief. Unexpected things can happen, and we can find ourselves caught up in a spiral that we can’t seem to stop. Sometimes, filing for bankruptcy near Phoenix can be the inevitable outcome of certain circumstances. Here are just five things that can make bankruptcy seem unavoidable: Job Loss We all know that we should have an emergency fund that would cover six months of living expenses, but few of us actually have such a fund. In fact, few of us have any savings at all. Many of us live from paycheck to paycheck, even if we make a good income. The more most people make, the more they spend by increasing their quality of life, such as getting a bigger house or buying a more expensive car. So, what happens if you lose your job? You may not think that it can happen, but it can. Even people with plenty of experience and seniority can be laid off without notice. If that were to happen to you, you might have to live on credit cards or take out loans to cover your living expenses. Those debts may become uncontrollable before you can get another job, and you may need to file for a Phoenix bankruptcy. Divorce Going from two incomes to one can put a huge strain on your finances. In fact, you may not be able to cover all your expenses on your salary alone. Add to that the other expenses divorce brings – such as getting a new home, buying new furniture, and exorbitant legal fees – and you may soon find your finances situation reaching a desperate level. Filing for bankruptcy may be the only way to save some of your assets after a divorce. You could have credit card debt wiped away, freeing up money to pay other expenses. Or you could get on a repayment plan that would help you better manage your finances. Death Obviously, your own death would wipe away any financial troubles you experience forever. But the death of your spouse could bring on unexpected financial pressures that you can’t overcome. Your spouse could die suddenly in an accident or even of an underlying condition that neither of you knew existed. Even if your spouse has life insurance, it may not be enough to cover all the debts in your spouse’s name or to cover all your living expenses. You may find yourself in over your head and needing the debt relief that bankruptcy offers. Illness A long illness can pose a number of financial problems. It could mean that you or your spouse are out of work for a long time, without any pay. It could also mean huge medical bills, even numbering into the tens of thousands. Hospitals may give you a payment plan, but that doesn’t mean you can afford to keep up with it. Filing for bankruptcy can clear out medical debt completely if you qualify. Bad Financial Habits You might think that you’re good with money, but the truth is that most of us aren’t as good with money as we think. Financial problems also don’t start as obviously as they end. You can start out having problems by just being a little too liberal with the credit card. Over time, you build a habit of eating out or shopping and putting everything on your card. Those bad habits build on each other until you have a major problem and don’t know what to do about it. Bankruptcy can save you from your own bad financial habits. You’ll just need to correct them or else you’ll end up having the same problem again. Bankruptcy may not be as distant a possibility as you think. There are plenty of circumstances that can occur without warning that can leave you in dire financial straits. After situations like these, bankruptcy can almost seem inevitable. It’s important that you talk with a bankruptcy lawyer in Phoenix to explore your options and find the best choice for debt relief. My AZ Lawyers can help. Our Phoenix bankruptcy lawyers can review your financial circumstances and help you understand if bankruptcy would provide the debt relief you need. Our experienced bankruptcy attorneys can file your bankruptcy if you decide to move forward and help you resolve your financial problems quickly. Call us in Phoenix today to learn more about how bankruptcy may be able to help you. Published By: 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 Office: (623) 399-4222 The post 5 Unavoidable Causes of Bankruptcy appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.