If you live in Ohio and are concerned about driving violations and points on your license, you’re not alone. Fortunately, there are ways to get points taken off of your license so they don’t raise your insurance rates and cause you other problems. With the right help and information, you will have the opportunity to reduce the number of points on your license as much as possible, or potentially keep those points off of your license altogether. Violations and Points in Ohio Speeding is one of the biggest reasons for points on your license. The Ohio formula for assessing points used to be complicated, but now it is simply based on how fast you were driving. You can get up to four points for speeding, and that comes from driving 30 mph or more over the posted limit. That can mean a license suspension, as well. More than 5 mph over the limit, or more than 10 mph over the limit if the limit is 55 mph or higher, can result in two points on your license. You can also get two points for failing to stop, an illegal turn, or running a red light, and four points for reckless driving or an underage OVI. It’s possible to get six points on your license all at once, for offenses such a fleeing and eluding, drag racing, not stopping if you cause an accident, OVI, or driving with a license that is already suspended. How Long Points Stay on Your Ohio Driver’s License When you receive points on your Ohio driver’s license, they stay there for a two-year period. During those two years, it’s important that you don’t accumulate 12 points. If that happens, you’ll end up with a license suspension that will last for six months. Appealing that suspension is possible, but you have to file your appeal before the suspension date begins. If you wait too long or don’t file your appeal correctly, you will not be able to do anything about the suspension once it starts. Remove Points From Your Ohio License You can have points removed from your driver’s license in Ohio, but there are limits to how many points can be removed and how often you can request this. A remedial driving instruction course can get two points removed from your license, and you have the opportunity to take the course five times. However, that five-time rule is a lifetime rule, and you can only take the course once every three years or more. Because of that, it’s often better to keep points off of your driver’s license than to try to get them removed. If you need help to remove points from your license, appeal a suspension, or try to keep points off of your license in the first place, contact the Chris Wesner Law Office, LLC today and start getting answers to your Ohio driver’s license questions. The post Points and Your License in Ohio appeared first on Chris Wesner Law Office.

The filing fee is $335.00 for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing.  The filing fee for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case is $310.00.  Some attorneys will allow for the attorney’s fees to be paid over an extended period of time. The post What Does A Bankruptcy Cost? appeared first on David M. Siegel.

No Income Option I recently received an interesting call from young lady who was seeking bankruptcy protection to help with outstanding parking tickets. She had no income whatsoever, so she was not a candidate for chapter 13 bankruptcy which is the repayment plan over a 3 to 5 year period. However, she was interested in+ Read More The post Will Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Help With Parking Tickets? appeared first on David M. Siegel.

  In Watson v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 16CV513-GPC(MDD), 2016 WL 6581846 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016) the Court delved into the requirements for a request for information and qualified written request and what response is required.  In this non-bankruptcy case the plaintiff's filed a complaint alleging violation of Regulation X of  RESPA (the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) and Regulation Z  of TILA ) the Truth in Lending Act) against Bank of America, Caliber Home Loans, and US Bank, N.A.   The allegations as to Regulation Z involved alleged violation of 12 C.F.R.§1026.41(d)(3) requiring disclosure of past payment history and the total amount of funds in suspense, and of 12 C.F.R. §1026.36(c)(3) requiring a statement reflecting the total outstanding balance due to pay the obligation in full as required.  The Court rejected these counts as the request for information (RFI) sent to the mortgage company failed to specifically request this information.  Qualified Written Requests are defined under Regulation X of TILA as a written correspondence, other than notice on a payment coupon or other payment medium supplied by the servicer, that––(i) includes, or otherwise enables the servicer to identify, the name and account of the borrower; and(ii) includes a statement of the reasons for the belief of the borrower, to the extent applicable, that the account is in error or provides sufficient detail to the servicer regarding other information sought by the borrower.12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(B).      A servicer is required to respond to QW Rs by a borrower only to the extent it seeks “information relating to the servicing of [the] loan.” 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(A). Servicing is defined as “receiving any scheduled periodic payments from a borrower pursuant to the terms of any loan...and making the payments of principal and interest and such other payments with respect to the amounts received from the borrower.” 12 U.S.C. § 2605(i)(3).Watson v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 16CV513-GPC(MDD), 2016 WL 6581846, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016)     The duties of a servicer upon receiving a property QWR are as follows:         1.  Provide a written response acknowledging receipt within five days. 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1); 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(c).         2. The loan servicer must then respond to the inquiry not later than thirty days. 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2); 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d).         3.  If a request is for the identity of and address or other relevant contact information for the owner or assignee of mortgage loan requires a response within 10 days. 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(2)(A); 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)(1)(D).       The Court examined three RF Is to Bank of America. The first one dealt with the nature of the pooling and servicing agreement, and therefore did not relate to the servicing of the loan. thus was not a proper RESPA request.       The Second RFI requested the full name and address of the owner of the loan, as well as information on the investor, value, and appraisals.  While Bank of America responded, it only provided two inconsistent reinstatement figures on the loan. While the court noted that a number of the items requested (the note, mortgage, allonge, endorsement, assignment, investor information, indemnification agreement,  and value inforamtion) is not related to servicing, and not a proper subject for a RFI, the request for information as to the owner of the loan is property and must be provided.  Failure to do so gave rise to a cause of action.    The Third RFI requeste information as to modification options on the loan.  Under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36 such information is not related to servicing, and therefore not a proper request.   Finally, the court examined a notice of error sent by the plaintiffs to the bank.  A notice of error is  any written notice from the borrower that asserts an error and that includes the name of the borrower, information that enables the servicer to identify the borrower's mortgage loan account, and the error the borrower believes has occurred....A qualified written request that asserts an error relating to the servicing of a mortgage loan is a notice of error for purposes of this section, and a servicer must comply with all requirements applicable to a notice of error with respect to such qualified written request.12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(a).  The servicer's requirements upon receipt of a notice of error are:  1) A Servicer must provide the borrower a written response acknowledging receipt of the notice of error within five days of receiving the NOE. 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(d). 2)  Servicers are required to respond to the NOE by either correcting the error and providing the borrower with written notification of the correction, effective date of the correction, and contact information or conduct a reasonable investigation and provide the borrower with a written notification about the investigation. Id. § 1024.35(e)(1). 3)  The servicer must comply with these requirements no later than seven days after the servicer receives the NOE. 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(e)(3)(i)(A). Watson v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 16CV513-GPC(MDD), 2016 WL 6581846, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016)  To allege a violation of 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(e), Plaintiff must allege facts of when the letter was sent, to whom it was directed, why it was sent, and the contents of the letter so that it may determine if the letter qualifies as a NOE.  Since the plaintiff failed to assert these details, this count was dismissed.  The decision goes on to substantial additional analysis of other counts and other defendants.Michael Barnett.  www.tampabankruptcy.com

Overview In this bankruptcy case study, we are going to analyze the financial situation for Ms. L., who resides in Chicago. She resides on Woodland Park Avenue of the East side of the city. She filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy back in 2006. Thus, she is eligible for either a chapter 7 bankruptcy case or+ Read More The post This Is The Bankruptcy Case Study For Miss L., Living In Chicago appeared first on David M. Siegel.

I just spoke to a young lady this morning who cosigned on a vehicle. The other person on the hook for the vehicle debt has just filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy. The vehicle is not going to be reorganized through the chapter 13. Thus, the auto finance company has the right to modify the automatic+ Read More The post Co-Signed Auto Debt In A Chapter 13 Can Get Very Tricky appeared first on David M. Siegel.

   A case which could cause problems for Debtors came out of the 2nd Circuit this week.  In STEPHEN W. RUPP, Tr. of the Chapter 7 Bankr. Estate of Teresa Lynn Pearson, Appellant, v. TERESA LYNN PEARSON, Appellee., No. 15-4191, 2016 WL 6576390 (10th Cir. Nov. 7, 2016) the chapter 7 trustee sought to dismiss a chapter 7 case on the basis that the confirmed plan in a prior dismissed chapter 13 case required the debtor to turnover a portion of the tax refund, and failed to do so.  The chapter 7 trustee based the complaint on 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(2)(A) which provides for denial of the discharge if a debtor with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor...has transferred..property of the debtor within one year before the filing of the petition.  Despite no answer being filed by the Debtor, the bankrutpcy court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to allege facts showing fraudulent intent.  The disctrict court affirmed.  The 2nd Circuit reversed finding that it is sufficient to allege an intent to hinder or delay creditors, without any showing of fraud.  It appears the debtor did not participate in the appeals.  The fact pattern did not help the debtors in this case.  The debtor and her spouse had filed nine bankruptcy petitions under chapter 7 and chapter 13 from 1993 through 2013.  The plan in the 2012 chapter 13 case provided that the debtor could retain $2,000 of her 2012 refund with the surplus to be paid to the bankruptcy estate.  She received a refund of $4,829 but did not turn over any funds to the estate, instead spending the funds on onoexempt personal items (living expenses, bills, and her children).  The court dismissed the chapter 13 case and the debtor filed chapter 7 thirteen days later.  To prevail on a complaint under  §727(a)(2)(A) the objector must show by a preponderance of the evidence that 1) the debtor transferred, removed, concealed, destroyed, or mutilated, 2) property of the estate 3) within one year prior to the bankruptcy filing, 4) with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor.  Gullickson v. Brown (In re Brown), 108 F.3d 1290, 1293 (10th Cir. 1997).     The 2nd Circuit looked at the history as elucidated in the trustee's complaint, showing a pattern of filing chapter 13 cases followed by chapter 7s.  At the time of the filing of the last prior chapter 13 case, the debtor was ineligible for discharge under chapter 7 under §727(a)(8).  When the new chapter 7 was filed after dismissal of the chapter 13 it had been exactly 8 years since she last filed a chapter 7 petition, and thus was eligible for a chapter 7 discharge. The Court found that it would be a natural inference from this history that when the 2012 chapter 13 she had no intention of complying with it's requirements except to delay the creditors until she was eligible to get a chapter 7 discharge.  The Court thus found the complaint adequately alleged that the failure to turnover the tax refund was part of a scheme to hinder and delay creditors.  The bankruptcy and district courts had focused on the absence of badges of fraud, but the 2nd Circuit found that such badges were not the exclusive means of establishing fraud.  Further, the trustee does not have to show fraud, if actions taken to hinder or delay creditors are shown.  The lower courts also noted the failure of the complaint to negate the possibility of an innocent explanation of the debtor's behavior.  But an innocent motive can coexist with the intent to hinder or delay creditors.  Here the debtor spent the refund less than six months after filing a chapter 13 plan stating she could provide for her needs and still comply with the requirements of the plan. The dismissal of the complaint was reversed and the case remanded.Michael Barnett.  www.tampabankruptcy.com

The easily availability of consumer debt in the United States (U.S.) has significantly increased debt amounts by more consumers, especially those with low to moderate income. This makes these families and individuals most vulnerable to financial difficulties when they suffer income interruptions or emergency expenses when it comes to staying a float debt payment The post Consumer Debt and Bankruptcy: Your Options appeared first on Tucson Bankruptcy Attorney.

This was the first of two educational programs sponsored by the Commercial Law League of America.   I had the privilege of appearing on a panel featuring moderator Beverly Weiss Manne, Prof.  Pam Foohey, Sam Maizel and Nancy Peterman.   Prof. Foohey and I focused on religious entities in bankruptcy, while Sam Maizel and Nancy Peterman discussed healthcare non-profits.   Types of Cases Filed On the church side, Prof. Foohey's research shows that 654 churches filed bankruptcy between 2006 and 2013.   The vast majority of these churches were African American congregations.    Some of the notable filings during 2016 included Carter Tabernacle Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, a 100 year old congregation in Orlando and Metropolitan Baptist Church in the District of Columbia.    Since 2004, fifteen Catholic Dioceses and religious orders have sought chapter 11 protection to resolve sexual abuse claims.   Two examples of these cases are the Diocese of Stockton which is proceeding toward a consensual confirmation following a two year mediation process and the Diocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, MN where competing plans have been proposed by the Diocese and the Committee of Unsecured Creditors.    Finally, a handful of predominantly white mega-churches, such as the Crystal Cathedral and Great Hills Baptist Church have entered chapter 11 proceedings.   On the healthcare side, there have been at least nine hospital bankruptcies filed this year.   However, healthcare filings range from community hospitals to skilled nursing facilities.    In re Bayou Shores, SNF, LLC, 828 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2016) is an example of the issues that can arise in the healthcare sector.Operating Structure The different types of religious and healthcare entities pose challenges in dealing with corporate governance.   Community hospitals frequently have a board composed of volunteers with a passion for the mission of the entity but with little business experience.   African American congregations may have a nominal board of elders, but the pastor generally manages the church. Indeed, the board may not even be aware of the filing.  In Roman Catholic dioceses a bishop or archbishop appointed by the Vatican holds sole authority.   White mega-churches often have an active board of lay members although the pastor is a highly influential actor.   Both Catholic Diocese and mega-church bankruptcies tend to be very public.      Debt Structure and Funding Debt structure and funding vary between the different types of non-profits.   Small African American churches rely almost entirely on parishioner donations or business income such as operating a day care.  However, Prof. Foohey pointed out that the business operations may lose money and contribute to the financial problems of the church.    Mega-churches rely heavily on tithes but may also have ancillary business income such as sale of books and DV Ds.     Among both types of churches, the primary creditor is the secured lender on the church property.   Sometimes there are specialized lenders that finance churches such as the Evangelical Christian Credit Union.    Because contributions are often not covered by the lender's security interest, cash collateral is usually not a factor.The Roman Catholic dioceses and orders have a much different funding and debt structure. This round of bankruptcies have been generated by overwhelming waves of sexual abuse tort claims which threaten both the financial stability of the Diocese and its moral standing.    A Catholic diocese generally receives contributions from parishes within the diocese to fund ongoing operations.  Tort claims may be covered by insurance although there are often coverage disputes.    Attempts to claw back assets that were once owned by the Diocese are a common feature of Diocese bankruptcies.   For example, in the Diocese of Milwaukee case, the Debtor transferred funds into a cemetery trust fund prior to bankruptcy. The Diocese of Stockton case provides a good example of how plans are funded.   In that case, the Diocese agreed to pay $14.25 million into a trust for tort claimants.   Of this amount, the Diocese contributed $9.9 million from available cash and sale of assets, the insurers contributed $3.3 million and other Catholic entities contributed $3.9 million.    The parishes and schools contributing to the settlement received a release of potential claw-back liability as well as from claims related to priests or other religious who committed abuse while in the specific parish or school.      In the healthcare space, tax exempt bonds and government payments from Medicaid and Medicare are significant sources of revenue.   Cases are often precipitated by the government's decision to withhold payments based on an overpayment.   Because the government holds back funds under the doctrine of recoupment, the automatic stay does not apply to prevent the government's self-help remedy.   In addition to the government, creditors include secured lenders, doctors and tort claimants.Unique AspectsHealthcare bankruptcies have several unique features.   First, there is usually a patient care ombudsman appointed which adds a layer of expense.   Additionally, state attorneys general are likely to be active players to ensure that health and safety standards are maintained.   Keeping doctors and dealing with a volunteer board are other challenges.    In the case of a sale, continuing the mission of the non-profit is a relevant factor in addition to obtaining top dollar.  Sam Maizel gave an example of a case where the Debtor accepted a slightly lower offer that would further the mission of the non-profit over a higher offer that did not.    When a facility is sold, there must be provision made for preservation of patient records.   In the unusual event of a surplus, the remaining funds must go to a qualified non-profit. For smaller churches, proving feasibility is particularly challenging since member contributions are likely to fall off when the church is in financial difficulty.    In the Catholic Diocese cases, the Debtor must deal with claims that may have arisen decades earlier and are emotionally charged while reassuring parishioners that their places of worship will not be drawn into the bankruptcy of the Diocese.Both types of non-profits are exempt from being placed into involuntary bankruptcy by 11 U.S.C. Sec. 303(a).    This played an important role in the Diocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis case.   The Official Creditors' Committee sought to substantively consolidate the Diocese with two hundred non-bankrupt parishes and schools.    In denying the motion, one of the grounds that the Court gave was that substantive consolidation would involuntarily bring the non-bankrupt entities into bankruptcy in violation of section 303(a).11 U.S.C. Sec. 541(b)(1) may also play a role in a non-profit bankruptcy.   It says that a "power that the debtor may exercise solely for the benefit of another" is not property of the estate.   In the Baptist Foundation of Arizona case, the Foundation had the right to name the boards of numerous other non-profit entities.   When the Board of one entity balked at being dragged into the bankruptcy, the Debtor sought to replace the Board with a more compliant one.   The Court ruled that the right to name the Board was a "power exercised for the benefit of another" and could not be exercised by the Debtor.However, religious entities generally do not receive any special protection under either the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).   In Listecki v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, 780 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2015), the Seventh Circuit held that RFRA did not preclude a suit by the Creditors Committee to recover money transferred to a cemetery trust fund.   The Court found that in order for RFRA to apply, a government actor would have to burden the free exercise of religion without a compelling governmental interest.   The Court found that the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors was not a governmental actor and  that the protection of creditors was a compelling governmental interest. The Courts have also rejected challenges that the application of bankruptcy law substantially burdened the Free Exercise of religion under the First Amendment.   In In re Congregation Birchos Yosef, 535 B.R. 629 (Bankr. S.D. N.Y. 2015), parties who had been sued  in an adversary proceeding sought to invoke a Jewish religious proceeding instead.   The Court found that the attempt to force the Debtor to adjudicate the dispute outside of bankruptcy under threat of being shunned violated the automatic stay and that the stay did not violate the First Amendment rights of the defendants.However, courts cannot adjudicate matters that would require interpretation of church doctrine.  In two of the Catholic Diocese cases, priests accused of sexual abuse filed proofs of claim after they were dismissed following a trial under canon law.   Both of the Courts found that under the ecclesiastical exception, the Court did not have jurisdiction over the dispute.

The Commercial Law League of America held its annual luncheon at NCBJ featuring the Lawrence King Award and a keynote speech by Andy Dillon.Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali received this year's King Award, joining such luminaries as Elizabeth Warren, Steven Rhodes and Gene Wedoff.   Among his accomplishments, Judge Montali sailed from San Francisco to Hawaii when he was only seventeen.    He served in the Navy.   As a practitioner, he helped to craft the emergency rule which allowed the courts to function after the Marathon decision.  He was appointed to the bench in 1993 and presided over the Pacific Gas & Electric case.   He gave a heartfelt acceptance speech in which he emphasized his commitment to treating each case as if it was his most important.Andy Dillon was the keynote speaker.  Mr. Dillon was speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives before becoming Michigan's State Treasurer.   As Treasurer, his responsibilities included placing failing cities, including Detroit, into receivership.    More recently, he has advised Puerto Rico on its financial issues through his association with Conway McKenzie.    Mr. Dillon talked about the difficulties facing Detroit and Highland Heights, a small enclave within the City.   There was so much deferred maintenance in Detroit that one fire station relied on a fax machine connected to a jar full of coins as its alarm system.   When the fax machine rang, the jar of coins would fall over alerting the firemen.   Because governmental accounting standards required long term debt to be booked as income, the city's constant borrowing masked its deteriorating financial condition.    However, anyone attempting to address these problems was hobbled by the fact that 75% of the city's budget consisted of payroll obligations subject to a four foot high stack of union contracts.    Under Michigan law and the Constitution those contracts could be suspended temporarily but could not be permanently modified.   Another major problem was underfunded pension liabilities.   This was a major issue that was compounded by the fact that the pensions have so little liquidity that they must keep most of their assets in short term instruments.   This means that they earn a subpar rate of return which puts them deeper in the hole.    Highland Heights, the enclave that once held the headquarters of Chrysler, had sunk to the point where less than 50% of the population was paying their taxes or water bills.   The problem was worse than it looked on the financials because a resident of the city had won the lottery and paid the city a 1% income tax.   Mr.  Dillon's talk emphasized the difficulties in restructuring governmental debt while meeting basaic needs of health and safety.The solution was first to get authorization from the legislature to use an emergency manager.   Prior to actually being appointed, the emergency manager Kevin Orr, spent a year meeting with African American business leaders, politicians and pastors.   Dillon said that if the manager had been imposed initially, the population would likely have revolted.   However, by the time Orr was appointed, the community was ready for him.   The State Treasurer loaned employees to the City to get good books and records put together and to develop forecasts that went more than one year.    At that point, the City was ready for Chapter 9.  Ultimately the State of Michigan authorized funds to Detroit as part of the grand bargain in its plan.   He said that his one regret was not hiring lawyers with more experience with government finance.   He explained that failure to use the right terminology or to say the right thing in public could lead to problems with both internal constituencies and the public.He described Puerto Rico as a much larger problem.    First, its debts were an order of magnitude higher than Detroit's.   The island has lost about 10% of its population and doesn't have some of the advantages that helped Detroit.   Detroit was able to use Chapter 9 which is not available to Puerto Rico.     Detroit was surrounded by healthy economies in surrounding Michigan and across the border in Canada while Puerto Rico is one thousand miles away from the mainland.   Puerto Rico also did not have a state sponsor such as Michigan to provide financial assistance.