If you’re a college graduate in Pennsylvania, and you’ve been struggling to stay current on your student loan bills, bankruptcy might offer a solution. However, bankruptcy can only eliminate student loan debt under specific circumstances, which means you will need to meet strict criteria to qualify. To learn more about getting rid of debt in […] The post Can I Discharge My Student Loans in Bankruptcy in Pennsylvania? appeared first on .

Many potential bankruptcy filers are, at first, quite hesitant to file a bankruptcy, mostly out of fear that they may lose their home and other assets. While the concern is quite legitimate and, in some cases, even a real possibility, it is a question that we are usually able to answer before a person even […] The post Can You Keep Your House with Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in Pennsylvania? appeared first on .

You have been paying your bills late. Deciding strategically each month which bills get paid. Then it all catches up with you. Maybe you had to miss extra days of work unexpectedly or lost your job. Whatever the reason, you are no longer able to make the monthly minimums. Then the calls start. First, it is one or two calls a week. Then it is every day, multiple calls each day. You waiver between just putting your phone on silence, afraid to answer the next call, to being scared you will miss an important call regarding a job application, your loved ones, or kids’ school. You wish you could just pay off all your bills and stop the calls. However, unless you win the lottery or get the huge promotion, you know that will not happen soon. Should you change your phone number? Block every call you do not recognize? What can you do to stop the creditors from harassing you? Keep reading for the 5 best ways to get creditors to stop calling you. The post The 5 Best Ways to Get Creditors to Stop Calling You appeared first on Tucson Bankruptcy Attorney.

By Meagan Day In old age, health declines. This is obvious, but its implications for social wellbeing are enormous. In a system where the majority of people have to sell their labor for wages to survive, people’s ability to support themselves financially almost always decreases as they age. Without public assistance, therefore, old age is comfortable only for those with savings, and uncomfortable if not downright miserable for those without.This is why the United States passed the Social Security Act in 1935, which guaranteed a source of income to replace wages for all people 65 and older, along with the Social Security Act Amendments in 1965, which created Medicare, a public health insurance program for the same population. These programs are financed socially, by adjusting the tax rate schedule to accommodate them — that is, by requiring everyone in society to contribute, based on their ability to pay, for benefits that they will be entitled to after a certain age.These and other mid-century programs made it a little bit easier to grow old in America, for a while. But they have come under strain as wages have stagnated and the cost of housing and education skyrocketed, placing a greater burden on social welfare programs to achieve adequate income for people. Meanwhile, programs themselves have been systematically starved of resources or outright eliminated.Older Americans haven’t fared well. In fact, they’re filing for bankruptcy in record numbers. A new report from the Consumer Bankruptcy Project called “Graying of US Bankruptcy: Fallout from Life in a Risk Society” contends that, while it took a few decades to fully set in, older Americans are now experiencing the consequences of the assault on the social safety net that began under Reagan and has persisted, with leadership from both parties, ever since. Running the Risk“Government is not the solution to our problem,” Reagan was fond of saying. “Government is the problem.” His election inaugurated the reign of the free-market neoliberals, who advocated supposedly leaner and more efficient market-based alternatives to socially-funded government programs. Not coincidentally, these alternatives were friendly to capitalists — lower taxes, new lucrative private markets. In 1982, Reagan established a commission made up of corporate executives whose task was to “root out inefficiency” in government spending. The Grace Commission issued “2,478 cost-cutting, revenue enhancing recommendations” that took aim at federal wages, retirement systems, healthcare programs, and a variety of federal subsidies which were deemed wasteful. The chairman of the commission, successful businessman J. Peter Grace, wrote to Reagan, “If the American people realized how rapidly Federal Government spending is likely to grow under existing legislated programs, I am convinced they would compel their elected representatives to ‘get the Government off their backs.’” One man’s “getting the Government off their backs” is another’s evaporation of opportunity. As social programs have withered, wages have stagnated, and inequality has skyrocketed, many ordinary working people have lost their financial footing and their retirement prospects have dimmed. Today, just one hundred CE Os have the same amount of money stored away for retirement as the bottom 41 percent of the American population. Meanwhile the age at which a person is eligible for full Social Security benefits has risen from 65 to 70, and the penalty for early retirement has increased up to 30 percent. Medicare recipients’ out-of-pocket costs are ballooning. Defined benefit pensions have been replaced with unpredictable and risky employee-owned 401(k)s. The list goes on. And now the chickens are coming home to roost. The Consumer Bankruptcy Project found that since 1991, the rate of Americans age sixty-five to seventy-four filing for bankruptcy has doubled. The rate for those age seventy-five and over has tripled. “The changes are so great,” they found, “that the broader trend of an aging US population can explain only a small proportion of what is happening in the bankruptcy courts. Older Americans’ reported reasons for filing strongly suggest that they are experiencing the fallout from our current individualized risk society and the corresponding shrinkage of their social safety net.” The researchers’ data backs this up, suggesting that “that financial crises associated with living in America’s high-risk society are highly correlated with older Americans’ increasing use of the bankruptcy system.” As risk and responsibility have shifted from society as a whole onto individuals to pay their own way — even when they can’t work at all — older Americans are increasingly vulnerable to financial ruin. The Means of LifeThe responses to the questionnaires collected by the Consumer Bankruptcy Project illuminate the predicament that working-class older Americans are in. When asked the reason for bankruptcy, one respondent said: All things went up in price. Retirement never went up. Had a part time job that was helping to meet monthly payments. House payment kept going up. Was fired from my part time job that I had for over 10 years without any warning. Being 67 and having back problems, not many people will hire you even as part time worker.Here we can see the complex of problems that give rise to financial difficulty in old age. Income in retirement isn’t sufficient to cover the rising cost of living, including healthcare costs and payments on debt. After a lifetime of depressed wages, many people don’t have the savings to meet their financial responsibilities, yielding need employment to supplement their income. But the aging body leads to a (real or perceived) inability to do the work needed to secure a wage. As a result, older Americans are increasingly left without much financial recourse besides personal bankruptcy — which is not a panacea, just a last-ditch effort to eliminate personal debt and stop the multiplication of costs. One path to solving this problem is to make a concerted effort to drive up wages, control living costs, and repair the social safety net, so that people enter old age with savings instead of debt, and so that older people who can’t work still have a way to sustain themselves in their final decades. The Left should pursue this approach without reservation. And there is a deeper issue, too, which requires a more radical solution in the long-term. The problem is that people are required to sell their labor to capitalists in order to have access to the means of life to begin with. What if, instead, we had a society where everyone was guaranteed a decent living just because they’re alive, not on condition of employment, and we pooled our resources and our productive capacities to make good on that guarantee? Then perhaps all people, young and old, could live with dignity.Copyright 2018 Jacobin.  All rights reserved.  

Individual consumers must always file a bankruptcy case in their name only, while married couples have the option to file a case jointly. However, this is not a requirement, and in some cases, it may not be advantageous to do so. Often times, only one spouse may have outstanding debt to deal with, while the […] The post Can I File Chapter 13 Without My Spouse In Pennsylvania? appeared first on .

This Space Available.

When a person has no prior criminal record, and then gets charged with a possessory drug offense, there are usually two options that they should consider as a way to resolve the case: Probation without verdict (aka Section 17) and ARD (accelerated rehabilitative disposition). Both of these programs are designed for first time offenders as […] The post Section 17 Probation vs. ARD in Pennsylvania for First Time Offenders appeared first on .

  The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the 8th Circuit had opportunity to examine whether failure to timely disclose assets, even if in bad faith, can preclude the debtor from exempting such assets.  InIn re Belew, No. 18-6007, 2018 WL 4231821 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. Sept. 6, 2018) the panel ruled that bankruptcy courts cannot deny such exemptions except on grounds specified in the code, and that bad faith is not specified as a basis to deny the exemption.     The asset at issue included a debit account disclosed at the meeting of creditors to the chapter 7 trustee.  A formal amendment to the schedules was filed a week later claiming the account as exempt.  After further investigation by the trustee, additional undisclosed assets were discovered, including an equitable interest in his spouse's checking account (valued by the debtor as 'unknown'), two unpublished and unedited fiction manuscripts (valued by the debtor at $100), and cash held in a safe at the residence (again valued by the debtor as 'unknown').  A second amended schedule and exemption was filed by the debtor upon discovery of these assets.   The trustee objected, asserting that the second amended claim of exemptions was filed in bad faith and was prejudicial to creditors.  The bankruptcy court overruled the exemption finding that there is no authority to deny an exemption except as specified in the bankruptcy code.   While the trustee raised on appeal the application of §522(g): allowing exemption of property recovered by a trustee if the debtor did not voluntarily transfer or conceal the property, since the issue was not raised in the bankruptcy court the appellate panel did not consider this argument.  The panel first looked to Justice Scalia's decision in Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. 415, 134 S.Ct. 1188, 188 L.Ed.2d 146 (2014).  Here, the court ruled that exempt assets may not be used to pay administrative expenses incurred as a result of the debtor's misconduct, finding that §522 expressly allowed exemption of assets described therein, and that allowing an administrative expense as against such exemption exceeded the court's authority.  Justice Scalia went on to state    [Trustee] points out that a handful of courts have claimed authority to disallow an exemption (or to bar a debtor from amending his schedules to claim an exemption, which is much the same thing) based on the debtor's fraudulent concealment of the asset alleged to be exempt. He suggests that those decisions reflect a general, equitable power in bankruptcy courts to deny exemptions based on a debtor's bad-faith conduct. For the reasons we have given, the Bankruptcy Code admits no such power. It is of course true that when a debtor claims a state-created exemption, the exemption's scope is determined by state law, which may provide that certain types of debtor misconduct warrant denial of the exemption.... But federal law provides no authority for bankruptcy courts to deny an exemption on a ground not specified in the Code.  Law, 571 U.S. at 425, 134 S.Ct. 1188.   The panel considered this language to be dicta, and in contravention of prior 8th Circuit decisions, but determined that federal courts are bound by teh Supreme Court's considered dicta almost as firmly as by the Court's outright holdings, particularly when the dicta is of recent vintage and not enfeebled by later statements.1    The panel thus determined that this language in Law abrogated the contrary prior decisions by the 8th Circuit.  Thus the court concluded that a bankruptcy court cannot deny an exemption based on a bad faith or prejudice to creditors, or any ground not specified in the code, and sustained the decision of the bankruptcy court.1 In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litigation, 860 F.3d 1059, 1064 (8th Cir. 2017)↩Michael Barnett www.hillsboroughbankrupty.com

  The appeal in In re: LINO MIRANDA MUNOZ, Debtor. SUPERIOR CLEANING SERVICE, LLC, Appellant, v. LINO MIRANDA MUNOZ, Appellee., No. 17-CV-1910-WJM-STV, 2018 WL 4214439,  (D. Colo. Sept. 5, 2018) involved a state court judgment of $3.00 for fraud and $90,733.79 for attorneys fees.  Superior provides cleaning services, and had subcontract with Munoz for window cleaning services.  Munoz sued Superior asserting a breach of this agreement.  Superior counterclaimed for breach of contract, fraud, violation of the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act, and civil theft.  When Munoz failed to answer, the clerk entered a default.  A request by new counsel to set aside the default was denied.  Upon a jury trial on liability and damages as to Munoz claim and for damages only as to Superior's counterclaim, the jury awarded $1 in breach of contract damages, $1 in fraud damages, and $12,500 in punitive fraud damages against Munoz.  No money was awarded on the other counts.  The state court reduced the punitive damages to $1 based on state law limiting punitive damages in excess of actual damages; leaving the final damages award against Munoz at $3.  Superior then requested fees under a fee-shifting clause in the contract and entered a single final judgment of $90,733.79.  No distinction was made between fees in prosecuting the counterclaim or in defending against Munoz's claim.  Munoz then filed for relief under chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code, and a timely adversary proceeding was filed asserting the entire $90,933.79 should be nondischargeable under §523(a)(2)(A).  The bankruptcy court granted summary judgement finding the judgment was entitled to collateral estoppel effect as to the $1 in actual damages and $1 of punitive damages for fraud.  It also concluded that the attorneys fees portion of the judgment derived from 'liability in contract' rather than fraud, and exempted only the $2 from discharge.  Superior appealed, asserting that dischargeability is an all or nothing proposition; that the fraud claim is inextricably intertwined with the other claims.    Superior based its argument on the 1998 decision in Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213 (1998).   In this case an administrative agency had entered an order against a landlord requiring him to refund about $30,000 in rents in excess of the amounts allowed by a rent control ordinance.  When the landlord filed bankruptcy the tenants sought to have the debt nondischargeable under §523(a)(2)(A), along with treble damages under a state consumer fraud statute, and attorneys fees.  The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the tenants for the entire claim, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court; finding that the nondischargeability claim extended beyond the value of what the debtor obtained by fraud to all liability arising from fraud.   The district court rejected Superior's argument that Cohen forbids a portion by portion analysis of the judgment.  Rather, the court found that Superior was confusing two distinct concepts discussed in Cohen: whether §523(a)(2)(A) is limited to the value obtained through fraud (no); and whether a portion of the allegedly nondischargeable debt 'arose from' amounts obtained by fraud.  The appeal before the district court deals solely with the latter issue.  Neither the $1 fraud award, nor the $1 punitive award correspond to the value of what Munoz obtained through the alleged fraud.   Superior also cited In re Tsamasfyros, 940 F.2d 605 (10th Cir. 1991) for the proposition that dischargeability is an all or nothing proposition.  The court looked beyond Tsamafyros to the case it was based on: In re Gerlach, 897 F.2d 1048 (10th Cir. 1990).  This case rejected the line of cases holding that a creditor seeking a nondischargeablility ruling must prove the portion of the debt corresponding to the loss the creditor suffered by fraud.  Rather, it agreed with the 11th Circuit's finding that if  the debt is attributable to fraud, then it is entirely nondischargeable.  Birmingham Trust Nat’l Bank v. Case, 755 F.2d 1474, 1477 (11th Cir. 1985).   In the Tsamasfyros case the 10th Circuit separates the state court's $7,000 award for breach of contract from the $162,500.92 damages for breach of fiduciary duty, making only the later nondischargeable.  The issue, then, is whether a specific portion of a judgement derives from fraud.     The district court found that Superior had waived its argument that the case should be remanded to the bankruptcy court to apportion the attorneys fees between those supporting superior's counter claim against Munoz and those defending against Munoz claim against it.   When a party is aware of an argument it could make and explicitly rejects the argument, the party has waived it in the strictest sense of that term: “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” United States v. Dahda, 853 F.3d 1101, 1117–18 (10th Cir. 2017), aff’d, 138 S. Ct. 1491 (2018).  Superior failed to argue the plain error doctrine, which would not overcome the waiver argument in any case.  Further, the district court did not find plain error in the lower court's judgment.   The district court did remand the case to the bankruptcy court to determine whether Superior was entitled to fees as the prevailing party in the adversary proceeding, an issue not clearly determined the bankruptcy court's ruling.  The district court expressed no opinion as to whether such fee shifting should apply, or whether Superior should be deemed the prevailing party.  Otherwise, the judgment of the bankruptcy court was affirmed.Michael Barnett www.hillsboroughbankruptcy.com      

The August 2018 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 rose from July. In August, there were 52 taxi medallion sales.2. 37 of the 52 sales were foreclosure sales, which means that the medallion owner defaulted on the bank loan and the banks were foreclosing to obtain possession of the medallion. 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).  Three transfers were estate sales for no consideration and another transfer was from an individual to an LLC for no consideration, which also do not reflect fair market value and which we have also excluded from our analysis.3. However the large volume of foreclosure sales (approximately 71%) is in our opinion evidence of the continued weakness in the taxi medallion market. 4. The 11 regular sales for consideration ranged from a low of $150,000 (one medallion), $160,000 (one medallion), $170,000 (one medallion), $172,500 (two medallions), $175,000 (two medallions), $180,000 (one medallion), $182,300 (one medallion), $185,000 (one medallion) and a high of $200,000 (one medallion).5.  Accordingly, the median value of a medallion in August was $175,000, the same as in July.In Jim Shenwick’s opinion, the new NYC law restricting the number of Uber, Via and Lyft licenses does not seem to have yet increased the value of taxi medallions.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.