More and more retirees are filing for bankruptcy due to several reasons. Disappearing benefits, rising medical costs, planning inadequately, increasing caretaker expenses, and declining income are a few of the major causes. More seniors are not only filing for bankruptcy, but they also are representing a larger percentage of filers. In 1991, only 2% of bankruptcy filers were 65 years or older. Now, more than 12% of bankruptcy filers are seniors, up 10% in less than thirty years. The post More Retirees Are Filing for Bankruptcy appeared first on Tucson Bankruptcy Attorney.

Oftentimes, I am contacted by individuals who have been denied long term disability benefits. When questioned further, they are often unaware of the individual policy provisions. While many ERISA based (employer based) policies often delineate the terms providing little room for input from the employee, in some instances, parties have purchased individual policies which gives […] The post Long Term Disability (ERISA) Policies and Provisions Explained appeared first on .

Bankruptcy is a very effective means of addressing many different types of debts and collection activities. One question that frequently arises in bankruptcy is what can be done about tax debt? In determining how a tax debt will be treated in bankruptcy, your attorney will look at several things. First and foremost your bankruptcy attorney […] The post Can You File Bankruptcy on Back Taxes in Pennsylvania? appeared first on .

When: Effective January 1st, there is new help for Chapter 7 debtors who owe money to the City of Chicago for  parking tickets and related fines.  A new Ordinance, sponsored by Mayor Emanuel provides in part that: Payment Plan: An eligible bankruptcy debtor may establish a payment plan to repay fines that were incurred within+ Read More The post City of Chicago’s New Ordinance Regarding Parking Tickets appeared first on David M. Siegel.

By Matthew FlammThe Taxi and Limousine Commission made history on Tuesday morning when its commissioners voted to set the first minimum pay-rate in the nation for app-based drivers. Driver groups are declaring victory on—and claiming credit for the win—while Uber, Lyft and Juno found a lot to complain about. Only the pooled-ride service Via, which already pays its drivers better than minimum wage, applauded the changes. The rules, which will go into effect in 30 days, call for minimum gross pay of $26.51 per hour, which will boil down to $17.22 after expenses. That is the equivalent for an independent contractor of $15 per hour, including paid sick leave and payroll taxes. Most drivers, a TLC-commissioned study found, earn about $11.90 an hour. On an annual basis, the new rules will mean a raise of more than $9,000.Copyright © 1996-2018. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

By Emma G. FitzsimmonsA taxi driver named Roy Kim recently became the eighth professional driver to die by suicide in New York over the last year. The city’s taxi commissioner, Meera Joshi, has characterized the deaths as an epidemic. The stories have drawn attention to the economic despair in the industry and prompted the City Council to weigh new legislation to help taxi owners reduce their debt and to increase driver wages.Each case is different and it is difficult to know why someone decides to take their life. Most of the drivers were immigrants in their 50s and 60s, some of whom had told friends and family that they were having a difficult time making a living as Uber began to dominate the ride-hailing industry.Three of the drivers owned a taxi medallion — the aluminum plate required to drive a cab in New York that once sold for more than $1 million. It is now worth as little as $200,000.Here’s what we know about Mr. Kim and the broader crisis:Who was Roy Kim?Mr. Kim was a 58-year-old Korean immigrant who lived in Queens. He had driven a taxi for more than four years and bought a medallion last year for about $578,000 — an occasion he celebrated by having a sushi dinner with a driver he met years ago while waiting for passengers at Kennedy International Airport. But Mr. Kim had complained to friends this year that he could not find fares. He began working more often, eventually driving seven days a week. Still, his friends were surprised by his death.“There’s no other reason but the financial aspect,” said Kyung Ryong Kang, a friend and fellow driver who had celebrated at dinner with him last year. “It was harder and harder to survive.” On Nov. 5, Mr. Kim was found hanging by a belt from the doorway to his bedroom, the police said.He had an adult son who lives in South Korea. Friends have been unable to reach Mr. Kim’s son. A group of drivers recently held a vigil at Flushing Meadows Corona Park in Queens to remember him. Mr. Kang said he misses seeing Mr. Kim at the airport taxi lot.“He was a generous person and always bought coffee for us,” he said. Were the other drivers worried about their finances?Two other drivers who took their lives also owned taxi medallions: Nicanor Ochisor, who was from Romania, and Kenny Chow, who was from Burma. Both told friends they were worried about paying off their debt.In February, a black-car driver named Douglas Schifter killed himself with a shotgun in front of City Hall. He had written on Facebook that Uber had flooded the streets with vehicles and complained about having to work 100 hours a week to survive. Drivers for Uber and other car services have also raised concerns about low wages. The other drivers who died by suicide were: Fausto Luna, an Uber driver; Abdul Saleh, a taxi driver who had leased his vehicle; Danilo Castillo, a livery driver; and Alfredo Perez, a livery driver.“This tragedy underscores the importance of finding new ways for government, the industry and lenders to work in unity to address the financial challenges that are weighing so heavily on our licensees,” Ms. Joshi said in a statement after Mr. Kim’s death. What is the city doing to help drivers?In August, the City Council approved a cap on Uber and other ride-hail vehicles — the first major American city to do so. The Council is considering a separate set of bills that would establish a health fund for drivers and create “driver assistance centers” to offer mental health counseling and financial advice. Corey Johnson, the Council speaker, said the city was also looking at options to help medallion owners saddled with massive debt, from a partial bailout to a hardship fund. The New York Taxi Workers Alliance, a group that represents drivers, is urging the city to work with banks and philanthropic groups to write off 20 percent of taxi owners’ outstanding debt. At the vigil for Mr. Kim, the group’s leader Bhairavi Desai had a message for taxi drivers who are struggling: The city is finally addressing the problem and things will get better soon.“We know change is coming,” she said.After Mr. Ochisor’s death, his family raised more than $30,000 to help pay off his medallion. An anonymous donor also contacted his son Gabriel Ochisor, wanting to help longtime drivers like his father. The donor sent him a batch of money orders, each worth $1,000, to deliver to 217 owners who bought their medallion before 1990 and still drive their taxi. Mr. Ochisor is trying to reach all of the drivers to mail the gifts, which will be sent with a letter from the donor.“Please know that your 3 decades (or more!) of service are appreciated and that my life has been made better by your having worked the streets,” the letter says.© 2018 The New York Times Company.  All rights reserved.

  One of the fears of debtors filing bankruptcy is that the trustee may seek to get back funds the debtor paid for their children's tuition prior to filing the case.  This is usually under 11 U.S.C. 548, asserting that the debtor received no benefit from the transfer of funds to the schools.  The schools are now contesting these actions, and one basis for challenging the trustee's right to recover is whether the school is an initial transferee of such funds, which can be required to refund such money; or a subsequent transferee that takes the funds for value, in good faith, and without knowledge of the voidability of the transfer, which may not be required to refund such transfers.  11 U.S.C. §550(b)(1).  This issue is discussed in some depth in Pergament v. Brooklyn Law Sch., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200559, Case #1:18-CV-2204, (E.D. N.Y., 27 November 2018).  This decision involved an appeal from a bankruptcy court order denying the trustee's request to recover tuition paid by a debtor for his children from the three institutes of higher learning, on the basis that the schools were protected from having to refund the funds as being subsequent transferees for value in good faith.   The debtor's problems commenced with a lawsuit in 2008 asserting he had bilked a friend out of 'millions of dollars' by encouraging the purchase of coins at an inflated value.  From 2009-2012 debtor paid $120,000 to Hofstra University for tuition for his son Nicholas.  Similarly, he paid $90,000 to Fairfield University for tuition for his daughter Francesca from 2012-2013.  A judgment was entered in the litigation against Mr. Pergament on 15 April 2014 in the amount of $11,304,079, resulting in Mr. Pergament filing chapter 11 bankruptcy on 6 August 2014.   He then continued to fund his children's education by paying approximately $20,000 to Hofstra University for his son and $27,692.42 to Brooklyn Law School for his daughter between May 2015 and July 2016.  Once the case was converted to chapter 7 on 13 July 2016, the chapter 7 trustee  sought to recover all these payments.  The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in all three proceedings finding that the Debtor's children were the initial transferees of the funds, and that the schools were entitled to the good faith defense under §550(b), since the funds were only applied by the schools to their general account after the children registered for classes.  The appellate court stressed the difference between an initial recipient from an initial transferee of funds.  In order to qualify as an initial transferee, the entity must exercise dominion over the money or asset, ie the right to put the money to one's own purposes.1  If the initial recipient is a mere conduit, with authority only to transmit the funds to a transferee, it cannot qualify as an initial transferee.  The issue becomes more complicated based on the timing of the payments to the schools.  Tuition is typically paid periodically, by semester. While billing for the next semester well before the semester commences, at least in the case of the schools here, tuition isn't actually owed until a student has affirmatively registered for classes for the term.  If a student withdraws rather than registering for the semester, they would receive a refund of any tuition paid for that semester.  As to these payments, the appellate court agreed that the schools cannot be considered initial transferees.   However, the schools were the initial transferees of any tuition transferred to them after it was already due, since at that time neither the transferor, nor any other party has any rights in the funds held by the initial transferee.   The court rejected the trustee's argument that the children were mere conduits of the tuition payments, asserting that the common understanding of all the parties was that the purpose of the tuition payments was to fund the children's education, and that the sole function of the children in the transaction was to attend school.   The problem with this theory is that if the children had withdrawn from the schools, they could have used the refunded money however they wanted to.  Further, the existence of some restrictions on how a recipient uses the funds does not prevent the party from being considered an initial transferee.2  Even if the children has obligated themselves to spend the money on their education, they would still be using the money for their own purposes - obtaining degrees.  Nor did the children's belief that they would have to return any tuition refunded to them to the Debtor affect the result.  The fact is the children had the legal right to keep any refunds.  The decision also did not rely on the schools internal bookkeeping in creating separate student accounts.  Since it was the student's decision whether to enroll in classes and have the funds applied toward tuition or withdraw and have the funds refunded to them.   The appellate court remanded the case to determine whether the payments to the schools were made before or after the children registered for the classes.  If before, the schools were mere conduits for payments for the children; if after then they may be required to refund the funds.  There was no support in the record for the bankruptcy court's presumption that the payments were made before the children registered for classes.  Query whether the trustee could seek recovery from the children themselves if the money was paid to the schools prior to the children registering for classes.1  Bonded Financial Services, Inc. v. European American Bank, 838 F.2d 890, 893 (7th Cir. 1988), 2 Lowry v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (In re Columbia Data Products, Inc.), 892 F.2d 26 (4th Cir. 1989),↩Michael BarnettMichael Barnett, PA506 N Armenia Ave.Tampa, FL 33609https://www.hillsboroughbankruptcy.com

Here at Shenwick & Associates, an increasing part of our law practice involves workouts of loans for borrowers with taxi medallions as collateral for the loan.   Over the past three months, we’ve noticed a trend in which the bank or secured lender repossesses the taxi medallion(s) when the loan is in default, instead of allowing the borrower to retain the medallions during workout negotiations.Under New York law, the security agreement and other loan documents, lenders can repossess taxi medallions, which usually happens on nights or weekends when the cab is not in use.  Typically, the Marshal will crowbar the medallion off the dashboard and take the rate card.  Although the cab is not repossessed, if the cab is subject to a vehicle loan that is in default, the cab may also be repossessed. Some borrowers have asked us why the lenders repossess the medallions without notice to the borrowers.  New York law and the loan documents signed by the borrower provide that no notice is required for the lender to exercise its remedy of repossession.  And if borrowers were noticed in advance of the repossession, lenders would run the risk of the collateral medallion(s) being hid from the lender!  Accordingly, if you own a medallion and the loan is in default, you may want to park the taxi in a garage or in a location other than on the street. For borrowers whose medallions are in default, many workouts will ultimately end with surrender or repossession of the medallion.  In certain cases, surrender or repossession of the medallion can end litigation or other collection efforts by the lender.Taxi medallion loan borrowers and guarantors whose medallion(s) were repossessed still run the risk of a deficiency judgment for the balance of the loan by the borrower or a judgment against the guarantor.  Some lenders may forbear from seeking a deficiency judgment once the medallion is repossessed, but borrowers need to be aware that loan documents allow for that remedy until the statute of limitations has run.  In New York, the statute of limitations for a lender to seek the deficiency balance from a borrower is six years.  In many cases when a lender obtains a deficiency judgment, we negotiate a discounted settlement by threatening bankruptcy or by having the client file for bankruptcy. Another factor that repossessed taxi medallion owners must consider is relief of indebtedness income pursuant to § 108 of the Internal Revenue Code. Simply stated, if a taxi medallion owner owes a bank $1,000,000 and only repays the bank $500,000, then the tax law provides that they must recognize $500,000 of income on their tax return. Borrowers need to discuss this potential issue with their accountant or tax advisor during settlement negotiations.For more information about defaulted taxi medallion loans and repossessed medallions, please contact Jim Shenwick.

Nov. 21, 2018 by Seth Kaufman On the heels of the NYC Council passing (and the mayor signing into law) a bill requiring minimum payments for ride-sharing drivers and a one-year freeze on the number of ride-sharing vehicle licenses issued, the NYC Council just passed another six new bills aimed at protecting both taxi drivers and ride-sharing drivers. The bills, approved by the Council on November 14 and expected to soon be signed into law by Mayor DeBlasio, are focused not only on drivers’ pay, but also on the financial and mental well-being of drivers in the wake of a spate of recent driver suicides and some of the more macro-economic issues facing the taxi and ride-sharing industries in NYC. Two Bills Focused on Drivers’ Pay Int. No. 1062-A ensures that the risk of loss for a transaction that fails on a completed ride-sharing trip is placed on the ride-sharing service. If a transaction fails for a completed trip, the ride-sharing service must ensure that the driver still receives the entire amount owed for the completed trip. A ride-sharing service that violates the law is liable for a civil penalty of between $250 and $500 for each offense. Int. No. 1096 requires that ride-sharing services will not make automatic deductions from driver earnings to make payments for the rental, lease, or purchase of a vehicle, unless the automatic deduction is optional and has been chosen by the driver. Two Bills Focused on Drivers’ Financial and Mental Well-Being In the last year, eight drivers have committed suicide, with large debt incurred from being a driver cited as the reason. In order to combat this growing crisis, the NYC Council passed two bills. The first would require the Taxi and Limousine Commission to engage in financial education and outreach for drivers concerning financial arrangements relating to taxi medallions and ride-sharing services (Int. No. 1068), and the second would provide financial counseling, mental health services, and referrals to non-profit organizations that could offer additional assistance (Int. No. 1081). Two Bills Focused on Macro-Economic Issues in the Taxi and Ride-Sharing Industry and Diversity and Inclusiveness Int. No. 0304 would establish a task force to study the sale prices of taxicab medallions by reviewing sale prices of taxicab medallions and their impact on NYC’s budget, and, within six months, recommending to the Council and Mayor changes to laws, rules, regulations, and policies related to medallions. Finally, Int. No. 1079 would establish an Office of Inclusion within the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission, which would be responsible for promoting diversity, inclusion, and cultural sensitivity in the taxi and ride-sharing industry. What’s Next? These six new bills, along with the new laws passed by the NYC Council in August, demonstrate that NYC is determined to increase regulation of all aspects of the taxi and ride-sharing industry, from pay to economics to discrimination. NYC has often been at the forefront of employment regulation (for example, its Earned Sick and Safe Time Act), so It is important for businesses to monitor these developments as they could serve as a roadmap for other jurisdictions to regulate the ride-sharing industry, or even for NYC to regulate other gig businesses. © 2018 Fisher & Phillips LLP.  All rights reserved.

There are several steps to the court process for a legal summons in Pennsylvania. Consult with a Pennsylvania criminal defense lawyer at Young, Marr & Associates today if you need help navigating important details about your upcoming court hearing. Call our law offices today at (215) 372-8667 for a free consultation. Criminal Process for Receiving a […] The post What Happens When a Pennsylvania Traffic or Police Officer Says “You Will Receive a Summons in the Mail”? appeared first on .