If you are contemplating filing for bankruptcy in Pennsylvania, you don’t have to worry that going to court will consume much of your time. Laws of civil procedure govern bankruptcy filings in different ways than traditional civil cases. The U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides a structure where court appearances are situation-specific. Hearings requiring a client’s presence […] The post Do I Need to Go to Court If I File for Bankruptcy in Pennsylvania? appeared first on .

  In a fight which was likely more a matter of principle than finances in the given case, a Puerto Rico bankruptcy court disallowed $150 in fees requested by Banco Popular de Puerto Rico for filing a notice of mortgage payment change in In re Marzan, 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 499 Case #17-06250 (ESL) (Bankr. D.Puerto Rico, Feb 20, 2019).   The mortgage payment change was based on an escrow account payment adjustment of $208.94.  The debtors initially objected to the Notice of Postpetition Mortgage Fees, Expenses, and Charges on the basis that it was devoid of itemized information as mandated by Rule 3002.1(c).  The bank filed an amended notice noting that $50 corresponded to attorneys fees and expenses regarding the notice of postpetition mortgage payment change,m and $100 corresponded to attorney fees and expenses regarding the Notice of Postpetition Mortgage Fees, Expenses, and Charges.  Debtor's also alleged that the escrow change resulted from interest rate and escrow adjustments, which notices are subject to a disclosure requirement pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate Procedures Act; and that federal law forbids the bank from assessing charges for the preparation of escrow analysis and reports.1   Rule 3002.1 was intended to provide a procedural device for bankruptcy courts to resolve how much a chapter 13 debtor owes on a residential mortgage and prevent 'unexpected deficiencies' prior to the closing of these cases.  Rule 3002.1(b) requires a secured creditor holding a lien over the residence of a chapter 13 debtor to give notice to the debtor, debtor's counsel, and the chapter 13 trustee of any post-petition change to the mortgage payment at least 21 days before the new payment is due.  Rule 3002.1(c) requires that any recoverable fees, charge, or expense must be notified within 180 days from the date it was incurred and must be detailed and itemized.  Rule 3002.1(d) requires use of an official form, and provides that there is no presumption of validity of such charges.  Rule 3002.1(e) allows 1 year for the debtor to challenge any itemized fee, charge or expense.    The court concluded that a notice of postpetition mortgage fees, expenses, and charges is a business function that does not require the assistance of counsel.  If there are specific reasons why the assistance of counsel is needed, the need must be included in the notice for there to be an entitlement to a fee. 1 Debtors supported their arguments in In Re Carr, 468 B.R. 806 (Bankr. E.D.Va. 2012) (Denying fees charged by creditor for its response pursuant to Rule 3002.1(g)) and In Re Adams, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 1943, 2012 WL 1570054, (Bank. E.D. NC 2012) (Determining that mortgage companies have routinely serve notices of mortgage payment change and that the creditor had failed to show that the services provided required the assistance of an attorney)↩Michael Barnett506 N Armenia Ave.Tampa, FL 33609www.hillsboroughbankruptcy.com

   In Shearer v Titus (In re Titus), 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 4938 (3rd Cir. 20 February 2019) the Court found that when an insolvent attorney, Titus, facing wage garnishment bypassed the garnished bank account, and had his wages transferred directly to a tenancy by the entireties account with his wife, both the attorney and his spouse were liable for fraudulent transfer of such funds.  The debt arose from the dissolution of the attorney's prior law firm, resulting in a multi-million dollar judgment for unpaid rent against the attorney and other partners of the dissolved law firm.  In an apparent attempt to avoid garnishment of such funds, Titus deposited the funds in the joint account with his spouse.  The landlord then brought a fraudulent transfer action against Titus and his spouse, resulting in an involuntary bankruptcy against Mr. Titus; whereupon the bankruptcy trustee took over the fraudulent transfer claim.  The bankruptcy court concluded that direct deposit of the wages into the joint account was a fraudulent transfer subject to recovery against either spouse.  As to the amount recoverable, the issue became what portion of the transfers were spent on necessary expenses (ie lawnmower and batteries) and non-necessary expenses (ie their grandson's application fee to Notre Dame).  To the extent the funds were used for necessary expenses, they were not recoverable.  The court used the Pennsylvania Uniform Transfer Act (PUFTA), 12 PA. Cons. Stat. §5107(a)(1) to support the claim.  The statute allows a trustee to avoid any fraudulent transfer to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor's claim.  §544(b)(1) in turn allows the bankruptcy trustee to avoid any transfer that is voidable under applicable law by a creditor.  Finding first that the payment of wages into the joint account was a transfer, the 3rd Circuit found that the wages began as an asset of Mr. Titus, but ceased to be his asset once deposited into the entireties account, since under PUFTA the definition of asset excludes property held in by tenancy by the entireties.  A number of cases have held that the spouse of an insolvent debtor is also personally liable for such transfer.1  Mr. Titus is liable both as transferor and transferee of the funds.  The method of computing the liability was subject of substantial discussion in he decisions.  The starting point of the discussion is that under PUFTA a transfer is not fraudulent if the wages deposited into the entireties account is used to pay for reasonable and necessary household expenses.   The Third Circuit proposed a general rule that it would presume that wages were not spent on necessities, requiring the debtor to rebut the presumption by producing some evidence as to uses of the funds in the entireties account.  This serves an information-forcing purpose to require the defendants to come forward with information about how they used the funds transferred into the account.  Once the defendants have met this burden, the trustee bears the burden of persuasion as to all elements of a constructive fraudulent-transfer claim under PUFTA, including showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the wages were not spent on necessities.  When fraudulent transfer funds and other funds are commingled in an account courts have created a presumption that all nonwage (non-fraudulent) deposits were spent on non-necessities before any wage (fraudulent transfer) deposits were spent on non-necessities.2    As the trustee did not raise this issue on appeal, any challenge to the method used at the lower court was waived.  In future cases the 3rd Circuit posited that a better approach would be to presume that the amount of wage and nonwage income spent on necessities should be in proportion to the total amount of wage and nonwage deposits in the account.  Finally, the court found that the Titus would have to produce evidence as to the source of all non-wage deposits  in order to obtain the reduction of liability from such deposits.   1 Garden State Standardbred Sales Co. v. Seese, 417 Pa. Super. 15, 611 A.2d 1243, 1243 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992)↩2 Titus v. Shearer (Titus IV), No. AP 10-2338, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193547, 2017 WL 5467712, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2017)↩Michael Barnett506 N Armenia Ave.Tampa, FL 33609-1703www.hillsboroughbankruptcy.com

The January 2019 New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) sales results have been released to the public. And as is our practice, provided below are Jim Shenwick’s comments about those sales results.1. The volume of transfers fell from December. In January, there were 94 unrestricted taxi medallion sales.2. 79 of the 94 sales were foreclosure sales (84%), which means that the medallion owner defaulted on the bank loan and the banks were foreclosing to obtain possession of the medallion. One sale was an estate sale. We disregard these transfers in our analysis of the data, because we believe that they are outliers and not indicative of the true value of the medallion, which is a sale between a buyer and a seller under no pressure to sell (fair market value). 3. The large volume of foreclosure sales (approximately 84%) is in our opinion evidence of the continued weakness in the taxi medallion market. 4. The 14 regular sales for consideration ranged from a low of $135,000 (one medallion) to $175,000 (one medallion), $210,000 (one medallion), $228,000 (one medallion), $340,000 (two medallions), $350,000 (six medallions) and a high of $373,337.02 (two medallions) for a median value of $350,000, a 106% increase from December’s median value of $170,000.  5.  The fact that 84% of all transfers in January 2019 were foreclosure sales shows continued weakness in the taxi medallion market and no sign of a correction. 6. At Shenwick & Associates we believe that the value of a medallion is approximately $162,000+ and dropping. Please continue to read our blog to see what happens to medallion pricing in the future. Any individuals or businesses with questions about taxi medallion valuations or workouts should contact Jim Shenwick at (212) 541-6224 or via email at jshenwick@gmail.com.

By Andrew J. HawkinsUber filed a lawsuit on Friday to overturn New York City’s first-in-the-nation law capping the number of ride-hail drivers that operate on its streets. The law, which went into effect last August, paused the issuance of new licenses to drivers for 12 months. But Uber wants the law overturned for fear that the city will ultimately make the cap permanent. The law was part of a sweeping legislative package passed by the New York City Council last summer to give regulators more control over e-hail companies. In addition to the cap, the city council also approved a minimum pay standard among drivers, with the goal of reducing how much time empty cars spend on the road.Supporters claimed the cap is necessary to examine the impact of app-based cars on worsening traffic congestion in the city. But the cap amounts to a “ban first, study later” approach, Uber argues. According to the suit filed in the New York Supreme Court: Rather than rely on alternatives supported by transportation experts and economists, the City chose to significantly restrict service, growth and competition by the for-hire vehicle industry, which will have a disproportionate impact on residents outside of Manhattan who have long been underserved by yellow taxis and mass transit. The City made this choice in the absence of any evidence that doing so would meaningfully impact congestion, the problem the City was ostensibly acting to solve.While wildly popular among riders, Uber and Lyft have been a source of almost constant grief for policymakers, disability advocates, taxi medallion holders, and driver groups. Critics complain that Uber and Lyft have been allowed to dominate the market without having to follow many of the same rules that apply to taxis. This has led to a glut of drivers that has outstripped demand, driving down wages and increasing traffic congestion. At the time, New York City’s law capping the number of drivers was held up as a potential model for other cities that want to rein in the ride-hail industry. For NYC mayor Bill de Blasio, the cap was also an opportunity for a do-over. He first proposed to limit the number of new Uber and Lyft vehicles in 2015, but ultimately dropped it after a bruising public relations battle with the app companies. Finding success his second time around, de Blasio has said publicly he’s inclined to keep the cap in place after the 12-month period expires. “We’re going to put ongoing caps in place on the for-hire vehicles and we’re going to work to increase the wages and benefits [of] the drivers,” he said in a recent radio interview. Uber says this amounts to a “‘post hoc rationalization’ of a remedy the City appears to have already selected,” according to the suit. A spokesperson for de Blasio did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the city’s Law Department declined to comment until the lawsuit had been filed. An Uber spokesperson said the cap blocks new drivers from receiving the benefits from the wage hike. “The City Council’s new law guarantees a living wage for drivers, and the administration should not have blocked New Yorkers from taking advantage of it by imposing a cap,” the spokesperson said. “We agree that fighting congestion is a priority, which is why we support the state’s vision for congestion pricing, the only evidence-based plan to reduce traffic and fund mass transit.”The number of new app-based vehicles in New York City has surged in the past few years, growing from 63,000 in 2015 to over 100,000 today. These new vehicles have added an unprecedented number of new miles driven in New York City, according to a recent analysis by traffic analyst Bruce Schaller. Trip volumes have tripled in the last year and a half, and 600 million driving miles were added citywide. In addition, Schaller found evidence that ridership was shifting from public transportation to ride-hailing apps. Meanwhile, taxi medallion owners have seen the value of their licenses drop steadily since Uber’s arrival. Saddled with debt, some taxis drivers have committed suicide — six in as many months. “Uber thinks it is above the law,” said Bhairavi Desai, the executive director of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance. “The company wants the right to add more and more cars to our streets without limit. But there is a very human cost to Uber’s business practices.” The cap was originally presented along with a proposal to increase wages for ride-hail drivers. That law, which went into effect on February 1st, mandates the wage floor of $17.22 per hour after expenses for drivers, or $26.51 per hour before expenses. Lyft filed a lawsuit to block the implementation of the wage law, but it later confirmed it would pay its drivers the increased rates. Uber’s lawsuit came a day after Amazon stunned the city by pulling out of its deal to build a second headquarters in the borough of Queens. Julie Samuels, executive director of Tech:NYC, a nonprofit that helps grow tech companies in the city, said she’s concerned that these combined events will send the message that New York’s elected officials are “putting a target on tech’s back.” “I’m not worried about Uber,” Samuels said. “I’m worried about the next company that will think twice before coming here.” © 2019 Vox Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 

How to Legally Unfreeze a Frozen Bank Account Why Bank Accounts Get Frozen If you in arrears to a creditor, they have the right to request a legal judgment from a state court awarding them powers to collect what they are owed. Common collection tactics can include wage garnishments and property liens. One particularly powerful tool for enforcing court judgments is the ability to freeze a debtor’s bank accounts. Banks, credit card companies, hospitals, and other large creditors can easily discover where a person is banking. Once a debtor’s bank is located, and a judgment is in hand, the creditor can demand that the bank freeze the debtor’s accounts. Creditors can place a hold on the account for as much as double the actual judgment. The initial freeze is more than a scare tactic. It can be a devastating experience in which all or most of your liquid assets are unavailable. That means you can’t write checks or make payments with the money you earn. Worse still, any money that gets deposited in the account after it is frozen will also become frozen. David M. Offen has spent over 20 years practicing bankruptcy law in Philadelphia. He has helped more than 10,000 clients through the bankruptcy process. Call (215) 625-9600 for a free consultation on how bankruptcy can help improve your financial life. What happens after accounts get frozen? Freezing an account does not, by itself, pay the creditor. The writ of execution has frozen the bank account.  The bank will report to the creditor the money that is in the account which can be taken by the creditor. If the balance of the account is less than what is owed, the creditor can continue to levy different accounts until the judgment is satisfied. This means that absent any intervention, you will lose access to banking services with those accounts until the judgment against you is paid in full. There are ways to get accounts unfrozen and to escape crushing judgments, but such actions must be taken quickly to protect your remaining assets.. What funds can be frozen? Any personal funds in an account must be frozen once a bank is presented with proper court documents. Wages can be frozen. Savings can be frozen. Money deposited from trusts or court awards can be frozen. Dividends from investments can be frozen. The only funds which have some automatic protections are government benefits. Directly deposited social security benefits received in the two months prior to a judgment cannot be frozen or garnished. It’s important to understand that automatic protection only applies to benefits received as direct deposits. Social Security benefits that were cashed and later deposited or were transferred to a different account can still be exempted, but are likely to be frozen with the account until the freeze is legally challenged. An important nuance to the Social Security exemption is the protection’s scope: the value of Social Security benefits are protected, but not specifically the funds themselves. So if you received direct deposits of $2500 in SS benefits over two months, the first $2500 in the receiving account would be automatically protected from being frozen, regardless of where the actual funds came from. Funds held in joint accounts can also be frozen. If your money is held in joint accounts with a spouse or close family member, their debt can get your money frozen, and vice versa.   How can bank accounts be unfrozen? Once a bank account is frozen, many people panic, feeling as though their hands are tied. While a frozen account is certainly a serious obstacle, acting swiftly with the aid of a bankruptcy attorney can get your funds released. Filing Bankruptcy As previously mentioned, money is not automatically withdrawn when your account is frozen for unpaid debts. This can be used to your advantage if you file bankruptcy as soon as you are notified that your creditor intends to levy your account. Filing bankruptcy automatically halts all collection actions. If a creditor’s endgame plan was to seize funds from your account, they will not be able to proceed with the account levy. Additionally, wage garnishments will temporarily be suspended. A bankruptcy filing will not automatically unfreeze a frozen account. Proof of the filing must be provided to the sheriff who processed the court order to freeze the account. Proof of the filing should also be given to the bank.  In addition, it helps to notify the Creditor’s lawyer, if any, that you have filed for bankruptcy. When the account is unfrozen, the funds will become part of the bankruptcy estate. Be aware that attempting to withdraw the funds for the purposes of hiding them or spending them recklessly could expose yourself to fraud charges and could cause a problem with your bankruptcy. Have your accounts been frozen? Events will proceed rapidly once accounts are frozen. Having a lawyer on your side can be the difference between a controlled bankruptcy filing and a personal financial disaster Creditors with a court judgment are in a position to leave you penniless. They will try to collect every last dollar they are owed including interest and fees, by seizing money from your accounts, and they have no obligation to leave you the resources to pay even basic costs of living. If your accounts have been frozen or you have received notice of a court judgment for unpaid debts in the Philadelphia area, you should request a consultation with a bankruptcy attorney ASAP. David M. Offen has spent over 20 years practicing bankruptcy law in Philadelphia. His firm has helped more than 10000 clients through the bankruptcy process. Call (215) 625-9600 to schedule a free consultation and get your questions answered. The post How to Legally Unfreeze a Frozen Bank Account appeared first on Bankruptcy Lawyer in Philadelphia PA | David M. Offen Attorney at Law.

 Reversing the bankruptcy and district courts, the 5th Circuit court of appeals held that paying a secured creditor in the plan secured by a boat was not grounds to deny confirmation for failing to meet the good faith standard.   Booker v. Johns, Case #18-30526 (5th Circuit 11 February 2019). The claim of $3,939.89 was secured by a riding lawnmower, 3 televisions, and a 1998 Procraft boat, a motor, a trolling motor, and a trailer.  The plan proposed a 4% dividend of $600 to unsecured creditors.  The elderly debtors asserted that they needed the boat for fishing, using the fish to supplement their food supply, as well as for physical and mental health.  The trustee did not oppose confirmation based on the age and condition of the boat, and no objections to confirmation were filed, but the bankruptcy judge denied confirmation nevertheless.   The district court had affirmed the bankruptcy court finding that it was in a better position to determine good faith having had a hearing on the matter and listening to testimony in that regard.  Finding that the denial of the plan was based largely on the retention of the boat while paying only 4% to unsecured creditors, and that the debtors voluntarily committed their Social Security receipts to paying off the plan in the absence of legal compulsion 1 the finding of lack of good faith was clearly erroneous.  The 5th Circuit noted the court ultimately confirmed a plan with the same dividend to unsecured but which provided for surrender of the boat and other collateral.  The 5th Circuit did note that this would be an unpublished opinion not providing precedent.  It is also interesting how the case came on procedurally.  The debtors submitted 2 plans subsequent to the one which was the subject of the order appealed, and obtained confirmation of the second of these subsequent plans.  Only after confirmation of the subsequent plan surrendering the collateral did they appeal the prior order denying confirmation.  The courts appeared to treat the matter as an appeal of a final order rather than an interlocutory appeal.1 Citing Beaulieu v. Ragos (In re Ragos), 700 F.3d 220, 223 (5th Cir. 2012). ↩Michael Barnett  506 N Armenia AveTampa, FL 33609-1703www.tampabankruptcy.com

Post Bankruptcy: Is It Possible to Rebuild Your Credit? Many people fear filing for bankruptcy because they think it means that they will never have good credit again – which also means that they will never be able to buy a new car or get qualified for a mortgage to buy a home. This can be a deal breaker for many, even though filing for bankruptcy could help them get the financial relief they need to start over and ultimately achieve those goals in the future. Fortunately, the idea that bankruptcy will ruin your credit forever is just a myth. So you can get the debt relief you need with bankruptcy and re-establish your credit, helping you to meet your goals faster than if you struggled with debt for years. You just need to know what to do. Here are a few things you can do to rebuild your credit: Get a Small, Secured Credit Card A few months after your bankruptcy is discharged, you should be able to apply for a credit card. You are most likely to get approved for cards that have a low limit, such as $200 to $300, as well as cards that are secured by another account, such as a checking or savings account. Apply for one of these cards and use it sparingly. Every month that you pay the bill on time, you will be improving your credit score. Limit yourself to one card only, and keep the spending at a minimum. Only spend what you can pay off at the end of the month. You don’t want to get into more debt and compound your problem. Continue Paying on Your Accounts If you filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you probably were able to keep your car, and you most certainly still have a student loan (if you had one to start). If you filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, you have a payment plan to repay your creditors. The point is that you have accounts that you still have to pay, and you can start rebuilding your credit by paying them consistently and on time. After just a few months, you should notice a slight uptick in your credit score. You should notice a significant improvement within a year, and you should be well on your way to good credit within two years. Keep Credit Inquiries to a Minimum Every time a creditor pulls your credit history, it takes a toll on your credit score. If you go on a frenzy of applying for credit cards or other lines of credit, you are going to bring your credit score down even more. Ditto if you check on your own credit score too much. That inquiry will be a hit on your report, which will bring down your score. Keep your credit inquires to a minimum. Just apply for one credit card at a time until you get approved for one card with a small limit. Then focus on rebuilding your credit for awhile before you pull your score. Don’t open a new phone line or do other things that would require companies to pull your score either. Filing for bankruptcy doesn’t have to mean the end of good credit. In fact, getting out from under the weight of your debt can help you free up the money to pay your bills and start fixing your credit – much faster than if you had struggled with bills you couldn’t pay. If you are struggling with debts, you should talk with a bankruptcy attorney to learn how filing for bankruptcy might help you. You may be able to get the fresh start that you need to rebuild your life. My AZ Lawyers can help you understand your bankruptcy options in Arizona. We have attorneys in Mesa, Glenda, Tucson, Avondale, and the surrounding areas. Our experienced lawyers will look at your finances and let you know if Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy could help you. They’ll help you understand the potential financial consequences, as well as the benefits. You could end up freeing yourself of unsecured debts or you could get your debts at a manageable level that you could pay under a structured plan. Call us today to schedule a free consultation and learn about your options.   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 Post Bankruptcy: Is It Possible to Rebuild Your Credit? appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.

As the new year has begun, it is time to look at the bankruptcy filing statistics from the first part of 2019 as compared to the first part of 2018. This fact will dictate where we may be heading for the rest of 2019. As expected, total bankruptcy filings in January 2019 increased 5 percent+ Read More The post Bankruptcy Filings Are Up In 2019 appeared first on David M. Siegel.

Filing for bankruptcy can be a frightening proposition if you’re concerned about the future of your personal property. You may be most concerned about whether you’ll be able to keep your car. Skilled bankruptcy attorneys get this question all the time. And as we try to explain it, we discover there are many misunderstandings as […] The post Can I Keep My Car If I File Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in Pennsylvania? appeared first on .