The debtor was able to strip the lien of a condominium association as having no equity after both the first and second mortgages in IN RE: LOUISE HENIG MUOIO, Debtor., No. 17-18764-BKC-LMI, 2018 WL 2148257, (Bankr. S.D. Fla. May 9, 2018).  Under §718.116(5)(a) of the Florida Statutes a claim of lien will relate back to the recording of the declaration of condominium, except as to the first mortgage such lien is effective as to recording of the claim of lien in the public records.  Hence, while it is not unusual to attempt to strip an association when the value of the property is less than the amount owed on the first mortgage, it is more difficult to do so when the value is more than owed on the 1st mortgage but less than owed on both the 1st and 2nd mortgages.     The issue here is that there were two separate documents recorded as to the association. The first, the Declaration of Condominium, recorded on or about October 26, 1983.  The second document was a Declaration of Covenants recorded on October 26, 1983.  The Declaration of Covenants established the master association and provided for regular and special assessments.  The property was subject to a first mortgage of $20,503.75 recorded on 2 February 1994 and a second mortgage of $100,074.19 recorded on 27 January 2007 as well as a claim of lien filed by the master association on 12 March 2015.  The motion asserts a value of the property of $110,880.  The Court ruled that since the Declaration of Covenants did not create the condominium association, and therefore, it's recording, and the rights of the Master Association arising thereunder do not relate back such that the lien of the Master Association.   Thus, the debtor was permitted to strip the association as the association's claim of lien was recorded after the 2nd mortgage.  Michael Barnett www.hillsboroughbankruptcy.com

  In In re ADAM M. BESCHLOSS, Debtor., No. 15-12139 (MEW), 2018 WL 2138276, (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2018) the Debtor scheduled a prepetition debt of $54,132.57 to a law firm.  While no reaffirmation agreement was signed or filed, the debtor had told the law firm that he would make payments to them despite the discharge.   The law firm contacted the debtor multiple times after the discharge, at which time the debtor indicated he intended to pay the firm.  After repeated contacts by the firm, and promises to pay by the debtor, as well as one payment of $1,000, the firm filed suit against the debtor for such fees.  At this point the Debtor sought to hold the law firm as well as one of the attorneys of such firm in contempt in the bankruptcy court.   The court initially concluded that despite the debtor's promises to pay the prepetition debt, absent a reaffirmation, all such promises were unenforceable.  The Bankruptcy Code is particularly protective of a debtor's discharge, requiring strict compliance with the reaffirmation requirements under 11 U.S.C. §524, including all required disclosures under §524(k).  No estoppel argument would make an agreement to pay a prepetition debt enforceable absent such compliance. While §524(f) permits debtors to voluntarily repay a discharged debt, such exception is strictly construed against creditors, and such payments are voluntary only if not in any manner induced by the acts of the creditor.1  Such payment would have to be paid without any prompting, encouragement, reminders, entreaties, or pleas from the creditor.  As the $1,000 was paid here after such requests by the creditor, the payment was not voluntary.  Counsel for the creditor asserted that they continued requesting payment based on the debtor's promises to pay.  The discharge injunction would be meaningless if it could be violated so easily. The firm persisted in collection efforts even after being notified by debtor's counsel of the discharge violation.  Creditors (and law firms) who regularly have clients in bankruptcy should familiarize themselves with the requirements for repayment of debt.  The court found that the creditor's actions constituted a willful violation of the automatic stay.  Consequently the court will order return of the $1,000 payment and that the firm pay all of debtor's fees and costs incurred in enforcing the discharge injunction, including fees for the subsequent hearing to determine damages.  As to punitive damages, the standard is generally to require a court tofind something that amounts to malevolent conduct that demonstrates a complete and utter disrespect for the bankruptcy law2   Given the firm's continued collection efforts after being notified that it's actions violated the discharge injunction, the court found this standard satisfied and awarded $4,000 punitive damages.    1 In re Nassoko, 405 B.R. 515, 524 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019) (Gropper, J.) (emphasis added). ↩2 In re Dogar-Marinesco, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS at *28↩Michael Barnett www.hillsboroughbankruptcy.com

New Yorkers who can afford to avoid their dysfunctional subway system are spoiled for choice these days. In addition to long-established taxis, livery cabs, black cars and limousines, they can summon rides through Uber, Lyft, Via, Juno and other app-based ride-hailing and ride-sharing services. While this new surfeit of options has been a boon to people trying to get around town, it has also helped lay waste to the livelihoods of taxi drivers and turn New York’s already busy streets into glorified parking lots — and leaders like Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Albany and the City Council have yet to come up with an effective strategy to deal with these problems.Cities have a long history of intervening to impose order on their streets. No large metropolis can accommodate everyone who would like to drive or be privately driven around — street space is a limited resource, especially in the densest neighborhoods and at the busiest times of the day. In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, New York created its taxi medallion system because drivers looking for work flooded the streets, far outstripping demand and driving down wages for drivers. With the rise of Uber, Lyft and the like, the city is again confronting a tragedy of the commons.Many other thriving cities, including London and Paris, are also struggling to figure out how to respond to these new business models. A big part of the problem is that elected officials have not updated regulations written for a bygone era in which each type of car service tended to stay in its lane, so to speak — in New York, taxis primarily plied the streets of Manhattan and the city’s airports, liveries took care of residents of the other boroughs, and black cars chauffeured the denizens of Wall Street. While the city has issued just 13,587 taxi medallions — a small fraction of the more than 60,000 cars Uber commands — it gave freer rein to the liveries and black cars under the assumption that these specialized services would never become dominant.Ride-hailing apps have shattered those boundaries by signing up drivers with livery or black-car licenses. These companies cast themselves as filling big gaps in the transportation system, and it’s true that they have been great for people in mass-transit-starved parts of the city. But their growth has also led to many veteran taxi and black-car drivers seeing a devastating decrease in take-home pay. That’s largely because they are completing fewer trips than before. As a result, the value of the taxi medallions that drivers must either buy from the city or rent from taxi companies has crashed in recent years, going from a high of about $1.3 million in 2014 to less than $200,000 today. Over the past five months, four drivers who were financially strained have killed themselves, and many others have lost their medallions to foreclosure.At the same time, traffic has slowed to a crawl, to just 8.2 miles per hour south of 60th Street in Manhattan in 2015, down from 9.4 miles per hour in 2010, according to the city’s Department of Transportation.It makes little sense for the city to regulate the old and new guard of for-hire cars differently when many New Yorkers use them interchangeably — as do some drivers, who have been known to switch between traditional cabs and app-based services. While it would be impractical for the city to get rid of its existing regulations in one fell swoop, it could phase in new regulations. A more thoughtful regime would ensure that all drivers make a living wage by establishing a minimum fare for riders, and a standardized share of that fare for drivers, regardless of what kind of car they drive. Or as Brad Lander, a City Council member from Brooklyn, has proposed, the city could require companies like Uber to pay drivers a minimum wage. Further, the city ought to standardize regulations like those requiring that a certain number of cars be accessible to people with disabilities.The city and state also need to create a smart congestion pricing plan to reduce traffic while raising money for upgrades to the subway and bus system, which would encourage fewer people to get into cabs and Ubers. The Legislature recently added a surcharge on taxi trips below 96th Street in Manhattan: 75 cents for pooled trips, $2.50 for yellow taxis and $2.75 for black cars and Uber and Lyft rides. This charge is flawed. It does not vary by the time of day, and lawmakers failed to impose fees on private cars and trucks. A smart pricing scheme would discourage use of all vehicles when traffic is at its worst and encourage car travel and deliveries at off-peak times.Over time, the city should consider whether it owes something to drivers who sunk their savings into taxi medallions. Many drivers went into debt to buy these permits because the city promised them a monopoly on picking up passengers, a promise it has not been able to keep. No doubt any compensation plan would be controversial, and working out the details would be tricky — the city, for example, should not compensate investors, like Michael Cohen, President Trump’s lawyer-cum-fixer, who should have known that they were taking big risks by buying up dozens of medallions. Governments in Quebec and Australia have compensated or are proposing compensating taxi drivers for the lost value of such licenses.The city needs to make its transportation system fairer to paid drivers, responsive to the needs of commuters and more environmentally sustainable. If the mayor and other elected officials put their minds to that task, they might also help set a model that cities around the world could follow.© 2018 The New York Times Company

The April 2018 New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) sales results have been released to the public. And as is our practice, provided below are James Shenwick’s comments about those sales results.1. The volume of sales continues to decline. In April, there were only 23 taxi medallion sales (excluding stock transfers).2. 12 of the 23 sales (over half) 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 additional transfers were family transactions for minimal or no consideration, which we have also excluded from our analysis.3. The eight regular sales ranged from a low of $170,000 (one medallion), to three medallions at $175,000, to two medallions at $180,000, and two medallions at $185,000.4. The low sales volume seems to indicate that at this stage of the market, not many parties are involved in selling or buying medallions, possibly due to the fear that medallion prices may further decrease.5. The median of March’s sales was $177,500, a $2,500 (1.4 %) decrease from March’s median sales of $180,000.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.

There are times during a bankruptcy proceeding where a creditor will decide to challenge the automatic stay. The purpose of challenging the automatic stay is to allow the creditor to move forward with any legal action against you for the debt that you owe them. A preliminary hearing on the request to lift the stay is held within 30 days, followed by a final hearing within 30 days after the preliminary hearing. The post Challenges to the Automatic Stay appeared first on Tucson Bankruptcy Attorney.

After bankruptcy, get a credit card. Get a couple. Getting back to good credit is one of the five ways bankruptcy gives you a new start. The bankruptcy itself helps quite a bit, because the old debts stop chasing you. But to really improve your credit score you have to get and use two or […] The post After Bankruptcy, get a credit card by Robert Weed appeared first on Robert Weed.

By Barry RitholtzOn this day May 4, 2011, Uber NYC launched. It filled an enormous, artificial void that was created by the Taxi and Limousine Commission at the behest of the Yellow Cab medallion owners.In New York, Uber has been thrust back into the news after several Yellow Cab driver suicides (read this or listen to this) and indebtedness and families of survivors are blaming the stress of competing with smartphone ride-hailing services. The New York City Council is looking to limit or perhaps even reverse the expansion of app-based rides.This is a terrible idea. This is because it was market forces -- plain, pure and simple -- that created the demand for ride services like Uber, Lyft and others. 1 Indeed, these companies might not have achieved the wild success they found in New York but for the combination of the TLC’s aggressive incompetence and the medallion owners’ unbridled greed. Since the 1970s, these two groups have made taxi service in New York abysmal while enriching themselves. They did this by keeping the number of taxi medallions at an artificially low number and ignoring demand, much to the eternal dismay of anyone trying to hail a cab. A little history: The TLC was created in 1971 to “wrest control of taxi industry regulation away from the [New York City] Police Department,” according to Biju Mathew, 2  author of "Taxi!: Cabs and Capitalism in New York City." This change took curbside ride-hailing from bad to worse and the TLC began a rich epoch of corruption and failure, marked by indictments and convictions.I blame the artificially low numbers of medallions for almost all of New York's taxi industry’s woes.The credit for that -- and for creating a market opportunity for Uber -- belongs to the TLC and the medallion owners. Consider, the number of licensed cabs was about 16,900 in 1937, when the city's population was more than 1 million lower than it is today. Today, there are fewer medallions than 80 years ago. There have been only about 1,800 new medallions issued since 1996.It is an artificially created monopoly, and monopolies tend to lead to terrible economic behaviors. Just consider one aspect of the appalling level of service on offer. In New York, many taxi drivers change shifts between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., abandoning the city in the midst of rush hour, returning to the outer boroughs or even New Jersey for driver changes. Let a single drop of rain fall and it is almost impossible -- no, it is impossible -- to find a cab. The cars are often in bad shape, devoid of shock absorbers, and back seats that make me want a shower afterward. Yellow Cabs also have been known to illegally refuse to pick up the hails of African-Americans. Unlike London, where drivers have an almost tour guide-like knowledge of their city, New York cab drivers are often utterly ignorant of the city where they work.All of these failings would be much less likely to take place in a competitive market. We know this is an artificial monopoly because of the price behavior of medallions after market competition began: prices for medallions peaked shortly after Uber came to town, but before it had much of an impact. Bloomberg Businessweek reported that medallion prices, which peaked at $1.3 million in 2013, were already sliding, falling below $900,000 in 2013. Just two years later 2015, prices had fallen another 40 percent. And it got worse: By 2016, the lowest reported price was $250,000. Last year, medallions sold for as little as $241,000. They are still falling. Axios noted a recent transaction that went for just 8 percent of the peak value, or about $100,000. Other cities, such as Chicago, have seen similar declines in medallion prices.This surely has meant some hardship for those who bought near the peak and have watched the value of their investment collapse.  Among those hurt is President Donald Trump’s attorney and fixer Michael Cohen, who owes $282,000s in back taxes on his medallions. But let's be real: this is what happens in markets -- there are winners and losers.Unless government intervenes in the market, there's likely no reason why demand for Uber services will decline. Last year was the first time more people used Uber in New York than city cabs. In July 2017, Uber had 289,000 average daily rides versus 277,000 for medallion taxis. This story, in a nutshell, is a classic example of regulatory capture.  The TLC, by serving the interests of the industry it regulated rather than customers of the taxi industry, allowed an enormous gap between supply and demand to open. It was into this void that ride hailing apps like Uber and Lyft rushed, exploiting powerful market forces. No one should be surprised these services exploded in popularity; it is living testimony to the reality that trying to thwart market forces for decades eventually has huge repercussions. Even the courts understood this, with one Queens (New York) County judge telling medallion owners to “Compete with Uber or die.”Of course there are other elements to this sad tale -- epic greed and corruption, rent extraction and economic ignorance. But the bottom line is that the parties concerned made a giant mess of this, and now they are left to harvest their rotting crop.This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. This is not praise for Uber; it has plenty of its own issues, starting with a corporate culture that was so toxic that Travis Kalanick, founder, chief executive officer and majority shareholder was forced to step down. Matthew is a member of the organizing committee of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance.  ©2018 Bloomberg L.P. All Rights Reserved

   In an apparent effort to do some pro-se prebankruptcy planning, a soon-to-be debtor transferred her Michigan homestead to her mother, who lived with her, about 16 months before she filed chapter 7 bankruptcy.  Upon a motion for turnover by the chapter 7 trustee, the debtor sought to amend the schedules to claim the property as homestead.  The Court denied this request, which was sustained on appeal in In re: MARIQUE SHARP, Debtor MARIQUE SHARP, Appellant, v. STUART A. GOLD, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE, Appellee., No. 17-12829, 2018 WL 2064083, E.D. Mich. May 3, 2018).  The transfer was made for consideration of $1.00.  The property was not listed in her asset schedule, but the transfer was disclosed in the bankruptcy filing.  When the debtor attempted to amend the schedules to claim the property as exempt in response to the trustee's request for turnover, the trustee objected that the voluntary transfer prevented any claim of exemption.  The bankruptcy court agreed, allowing liquidation of the property to benefit creditors.  The debtor appealed arguing that the §522(g) exception to allowing debtors to claim exemptions in property recovered by trustees applied only if the property was fraudulently concealed and not voluntarily transferred, and that she did not fraudulently conceal the property.    The District Court concluded that a debtor is prevented from claiming exemption in property recovered by the trustee if either the property was fraudulently concealed or voluntarily transferred.  Further, the court found that since the debtor did not disclose the property in her schedules, and only added it a month after the filing in response to the trustee's turnover request, did support a finding of fraudulent concealment.    Finally, the debtor argues that the trustee did not 'recover' the property triggering the exception under §522(g), ie that the avoidance of a transfer is not the same as recovering property. The most straight forward interpretation of recovery would be a trustee getting property or its value back from a third party.  As this occurred, the court found the property was recovered under the definition of §522(g).  Section 522 (g) Notwithstanding sections 550 and 551 of this title, the debtor may exempt under subsection (b) of this section property that the trustee recovers under section 510(c)(2), 542, 543, 550, 551, or 553 of this title, to the extent that the debtor could have exempted such property under subsection (b) of this section if such property had not been transferred, if--(1)(A) such transfer was not a voluntary transfer of such property by the debtor; and(B) the debtor did not conceal such property; or(2) the debtor could have avoided such transfer under subsection (f)(1)(B) of this section.Michael Barnett www.hillsboroughbankruptcy.com

Social Security Disability (SSD) provides two different types of programs for applicants.  If you have sufficient work credits after years of working and paying your FICA taxes, you should be able to apply through Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI).  Otherwise, you would apply through the need-based Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.  Your spouse and children may also be able to apply through SSDI using your record.  Since SSDI is based on your previous work history, it is no surprise that the amount of money you can receive in social security benefits is also dependent on your work history.  The Pennsylvania and New Jersey disability lawyers at Young, Marr, and Associates explain how SSDI benefits are calculated. Calculating SSDI Benefits in PA and NJ Social Security Disability’s Social Security Disability Insurance system pays disability benefits based on your prior work history.  The Social Security Administration (SSA) starts by looking at your income.  Every paycheck you receive should have a portion of taxes taken out for “FICA,” which stands for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.  These taxes are paid by an employee (and matched by their employer) to cover Social Security programs and Medicare.  The amount of income you’ve paid FICA taxes on is considered your “covered earnings,” and is put through calculations to determine your SSDI payments. AIME Calculations The SSA takes your long-term covered earnings to calculate your “average indexed monthly earnings” (AIME).  This takes your prior income and adjusts it against the national wage index.  This helps reflect changes in the standard of living over the years, as well as future changes that will come while you receive benefits. PIA Calculations The SSA takes your AIME amount and applies a series of formulae to find your “primary insurance amounts” (PIA).  The PIA is the base amount you receive in benefits, but it may be adjusted after calculation.  To find the PIA, the SSA applies your indexed earnings to a table of “bend points,” which are threshold values decided for each year, which change the formula.  For instance, applying for benefits in 2018, the SSA calculates your base benefits as the sum of: 90% of the first $895 of your AIME, plus 32% of any AIME from $895 through $5,397, plus 15% of any AIME over $5,397. In this calculation, $895 and $5,397 are the “bend points.”  For instance, if your AIME defines your average monthly wages as $5,000 when you become disabled in 2018, your benefits will be the sum of: $805.50 (90% of your first $895), plus $1,313.60 (32% of all wages from $895 to your total $5,000 AIME). That means your base benefits start at $2,119.10.  The SSA rounds this value off at 10-cent intervals.  If the SSA comes up with a different value, you may be able to file for a disability hearing to appeal your benefit amount, even if your benefits are not denied in full. Adjustments for Age and Maximum Benefits After finding this base benefit number, the SSA may increase or reduce your benefits depending on whether you’ve reached your full retirement age or not.  Since these are disability benefits not retirement benefits, this seems strange, but it may still apply.  These benefits are also subject to a maximum amount of $2,788 per month for 2018. Calculating Family Benefits for SSDI In many cases, you may also receive benefits for your family.  Your spouse and children can also receive disability on their record.  Minor children, the parent of a child under 16, disabled spouses, and disabled children (disabled before they turned 22) can receive benefits on your SSDI record.  In many cases, the total benefits your family receives will be capped at 50% or 80%, depending on the circumstances.  Still, as a family unit, you may still receive a total of 150% or 180% of your benefit amount, since they can receive the reduced benefits in addition to your benefits. Offsets for Other Benefits If you receive multiple disability benefits at the same time, Social Security Disability may be reduced.  SSD is designed to essentially be the last resort for disability, and its rules allow SSD payments to be reduced if you receive other benefits aside from SSD.  This means that if you receive workers’ compensation benefits or other long-term disability benefits, your SSDI payments may be “offset.”  There are plenty of issues to discuss regarding how to best coordinate your benefits to help you achieve the best support during your disability, which is something a disability attorney can help with. PA and NJ Social Security Disability Insurance Lawyers Offering Free Consultations If you or a loved one is suffering from a disability, talk to our disability lawyers today about what SSDI benefits you might be entitled to.  The disability lawyers at Young, Marr, and Associates offer free consultations on Social Security Disability cases.  If you are in Pennsylvania, call us today at (215) 701-6519, and in New Jersey, call (609) 755-3115.  Our attorneys are available to schedule a free consultation to discuss your disability benefits. The post How Are Social Security Disability (SSDI) Benefits Calculated? appeared first on .

Applying for Social Security Disability (SSD) is a complicated process with many opportunities to have your application stalled or denied.  In many cases, it is possible to apply on your own and get your application accepted, even without an attorney.  However, hiring an attorney to help you with your application process can be a huge help.  Especially without prior experience applying for disability benefits for a family member, it can be a daunting task.  Talk to one of our Pennsylvania and New Jersey Social Security Disability lawyers at Young, Marr, and Associates today for a free consultation on your disability case and help understanding the benefits of working with an attorney. Do I Need an Attorney to Apply for Disability? Hiring an attorney to help you with your SSD application has a few clear benefits.  First, an attorney who works with disability applicants has experience handling applications and understands the process.  If you have never applied for disability before – which is likely, since most disability applications come from first-time applicants – you might need help figuring out what forms are necessary and what kind of information you should give. If you are disabled and cannot go to work, you likely need assistance with your application.  A spouse or loved one can probably help you with your application, and talking to your doctor may help you gather information you may need.  However, it is unfair for the SSA to expect people who are too disabled to perform job tasks to do something as complicated as fill out disability paperwork.  An attorney can help you with this task. Lastly, working with an attorney can help improve your chances of approval.  Many disability applicants who do not work with an attorney fail to provide full information, and their claims are delayed or denied.  In many cases, if the Social Security Administration (SSA) cannot determine whether you qualify for disability, they will delay the application while they request additional information.  Our attorneys know what kind of information they need and can help you supply this information the first time.  We can also help you ensure that your information is accurate. While you certainly can apply for Social Security Disability without an attorney, it can be a difficult, complex process.  Instead of adding to the stress you and your family face, consider letting one of our lawyers help with your application while you focus on coping with your condition. What Happens if My Disability Application is Denied? If you do apply without the help of a Social Security Disability lawyer, you may find that your application was denied.  In some cases, your application will not be denied outright, and the SSA will simply request additional information.  Either situation demonstrates an excellent opportunity to bring an attorney into your case. If your application requires additional information, our lawyers can help you understand what information you need and help you submit it to the SSA.  In some cases, you may be required to fill out medical evaluation forms (and to have a doctor fill out a similar form).  These forms are complex, and our lawyers can help you understand what answers to give and how much information to provide.  In the case that your condition is not on the SSA’s list of approved disabilities, you may need to submit additional paperwork to verify that your condition or injury meets the SSA’s definition of “severe” and qualifies you for benefits.  Our lawyers can also help with this process and fight for a “medical vocational allowance” (Med-Voc) for an unlisted condition. If your application was denied outright, our lawyers can help file disability appeals.  In many cases, the SSD will deny your application because it is incomplete or inaccurate, but they may allow you to resubmit it.  At that point, one of our attorneys can step in and help ensure your application is complete and accurate.  If it is denied because your condition does not qualify or your condition is not severe, our lawyers can help you get additional medical evidence and testimony to fight the denial. If your case is set for a disability denial hearing, we can also represent you in those hearings.  Disability hearings are like typical court proceedings, and hiring an attorney to navigate the courtroom and the complex legal issues can be an incredible help.  Especially if you are physically disabled, it may be difficult for you to take the time and effort to act as your own lawyer. PA and NJ Disability Lawyers If you or a loved one is applying for Social Security Disability through Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), talk to an attorney today.  The Pennsylvania and New Jersey disability lawyers at Young, Marr, and Associates represent disabled people in either state and help them and their families to get their disability applications approved.  For a free consultation on your case, contact our law offices today at (215) 701-6519 if you are in PA or (609) 755-3115 if you are in NJ. The post Do I Need to Hire an Attorney Prior to Applying for Social Security Disability Benefits? appeared first on .