Law Review: Foohey, Pamela- The Periphery of Bankruptcy Law: The Importance of Non-Bankruptcy Issues in Consumer Bankruptcy Ed Boltz Tue, 02/18/2025 - 01:45 Available at:   https://ablj.org/the-periphery-of-bankruptcy-law-the-importance-of-non-bankruptcy-issues-in-consumer-bankruptcy-vol-98-issue-3-pdf/ Abstract: One in eleven Americans have filed bankruptcy at some point during their lives. Based on the number of consumer bankruptcy cases initiated during the past several decades, about one million individuals will file every year. This makes bankruptcy courts the leading federal courts with which people have contact. Embedded in people’s cases are a host of legal issues that do not directly implicate bankruptcy law, such as the interpretation of states’ exemptions laws and Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the avoidance of liens, and defenses to contract claims. Consumer bankruptcy law, via its process, is intertwined with the broader development of laws and the larger United States legal system. In raising these legal issues, people may want to explain the broader circumstances surrounding the claims, their need to file bankruptcy, or why they are asking for particular relief. Procedurally, bankruptcy courts can offer people an occasion to speak about their financial journeys. Debtors similarly may want to tell their stories to bankruptcy attorneys, and attorneys likely will be called upon to counsel people about if and how to pose legal issues and background stories during their cases. By highlighting the range of non-bankruptcy law issues that may be raised in consumer bankruptcy cases, this Essay affirms that bankruptcy can continue to offer effective solutions for people’s financial legal problems that they may not have the resources to handle elsewhere. It also contends that a valuable role of bankruptcy attorneys, trustees, and judges is to identify and consider these non-bankruptcy law issues, as well as people’s potential desire to have a voice, and that doing so should be woven into the expected structure of a consumer bankruptcy proceeding. Indeed, this will enhance litigants’ and the public’s perception of the bankruptcy system. Overall, this Essay draws out how the broader values of the United States legal system can be supported by the consumer bankruptcy system.  Commentary: This article is an excellent counter to those,  whether  judges,  creditors,  or even consumer debtor's attorneys,  who decry and bemoan the inclusion of "alphabet soup laws",  as they disparagingly call the protections  and rights consumers have in statutes including FDCPA,  FCRA,  TILA,  UCC,  UDTPA, etc.,  into the bankruptcy courts. A missing piece,  however,  in this article is a recognition that the idea from Prof.  William C. Whitford  in his paper The Ideal of Individualized Justice: Consumer Bankruptcy as Consumer Protection, and Consumer Protection as Consumer Bankruptcy  "that bankruptcy courts may be the best available venue for some people to air their claims about lenders’ actions regarding consumer debts that they think violated federal and state consumer protection laws"  was evangelized  and put into practice by groups like NACBA and in particular by O. Max Gardner,  with his Bankruptcy Litigation Model. This article highlights as an example of consumer protection in bankruptcy how in Scharrer v. First National Bank of Omaha,  the Chapter 7 used ECOA  to obtain a judgment against First National Bank of Omaha  for its illegal actions in the amount of $15,000,  but with all of those funds either being paid to the Trustee or other creditors.    While pointing out that perhaps the debtor might have brought this action "prebankruptcy in  ... state court"  and recovered some of those funds for himself,  the article fails to recognize that in a Chapter 13 case,  the debtor would have retained control of this cause of action and potentially the recovery as well.  That advantage might not, however,  fit the academic narrative that is often hostile to Chapter 13. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document periphery_of_bankruptcy.pdf (270.49 KB) Category Law Reviews & Studies

Callie Glade, File Clerk Callie is the newest member of our team, She just started with us in January 2025. Callie is a virtual assistant, an AI. She takes over one of the most important jobs in any law firm. She’s our file clerk. When you send in the required papers, she puts them in your file, where Vanessa and I can see them at any time. Callie comes to us through an artificial intelligence program called Glade.AI. She’ll keep in touch with you to make sure we have the papers we need to have to do what we are planning to do. Callie doesn’t know anything about bankruptcy. But she is really, really good at keeping files. Vanessa Hill, Paralegal Vanessa Hill is my bankruptcy paralegal.  She’s been with me for twenty-five years. Vanessa’s job is to keep your case–and me–on track. If you have a question or problem, you can contact her at vanessa@robertweed.com. Or call her direct line: 703-962-1043. When you fill in your Be Happy form and send Callie all the required documents, Vanessa will set up another meeting for you and I to talk again.  She schedules all my appointments during your case–and for anything that might come up after. Here are their pictures: Vanessa Hill, bankruptcy paralegal and Callie Glade, AI file clerk. Callie Glade, virtual assistant and file clerk Vanessa Hill, bankruptcy paralegal The post Meet Vanessa, my paralegal, and Callie, my Virtual Assistant appeared first on Robert Weed Bankruptcy Attorney.

Callie Glade, File Clerk Callie is the newest member of our team, She just started with us in January 2025. Callie is a virtual assistant, an AI. She takes over one of the most important jobs in any law firm. She’s our file clerk. When you send in the required papers, she puts them in your file, where Vanessa and I can see them at any time. Callie comes to us through an artificial intelligence program called Glade.AI. She’ll keep in touch with you to make sure we have the papers we need to have to do what we are planning to do. Callie doesn’t know anything about bankruptcy. But she is really, really good at keeping files. Vanessa Hill, Paralegal Vanessa Hill is my bankruptcy paralegal.  She’s been with me for twenty-five years. Vanessa’s job is to keep your case–and me–on track. If you have a question or problem, you can contact her at vanessa@robertweed.com. Or call her direct line: 703-962-1043. When you fill in your Be Happy form and send Callie all the required documents, Vanessa will set up another meeting for you and I to talk again.  She schedules all my appointments during your case–and for anything that might come up after. Here are their pictures: Vanessa Hill, bankruptcy paralegal and Callie Glade, AI file clerk. Callie Glade, virtual assistant and file clerk Vanessa Hill, bankruptcy paralegal The post Meet Vanessa, my paralegal, and Callie, my Virtual Assistant appeared first on Robert Weed Bankruptcy Attorney.

Law Review: Bruce, Kara J. and Odinet, Christopher K. and Tosato, Andrea, Bankrupt Crypto Organizations (January 27, 2025). Texas A&M University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Forthcoming, SMU Dedman School of Law Legal Studies Research Pap... Ed Boltz Fri, 02/14/2025 - 02:07 Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5115277 Abstract: This Article provides the first comprehensive analysis of the intersection between decentralized autonomous organizations (DA Os) and American bankruptcy law. DA Os are blockchain-based entities that enable individuals to pursue common goals using decentralized decision-making and automated governance. Since their recent emergence, DA Os have proliferated dramatically—with over 20,000 organizations managing over $20 billion in assets and engaging in activities ranging from investment management to real estate and even attempting to purchase historic copies of the U.S. Constitution. Yet like any other organization, DA Os can fail, creating an urgent need to understand what happens when unstoppable code meets immovable bankruptcy law. Our investigation unfolds along three interconnected lines of inquiry. First, we observe DA Os through a novel analytical prism, moving beyond conventional technological and organizational taxonomies to uncover their insolvency-relevant attributes. Second, drawing on these findings and the 2024 bankruptcy filing of HectorDAO, we posit that the core ideals of DA Os—decentralization, automation, rejection of intermediaries, and resistance to state law—fundamentally conflict with court-supervised insolvency proceedings, forcing these organizations to either compromise their ethos or forgo voluntary bankruptcy protection. Third, recognizing this tension, we theorize a “decentralized autonomous bankruptcy” framework for DA Os. This thought experiment, which we call BrokeDAO, reveals the potential for blockchain technology to create innovative solutions for debt resolution. Yet, it also exposes the inherent limitations of attempting to replicate the comprehensive protections of bankruptcy purely through private ordering. Studying the interface between DA Os and bankruptcy law yields substantial contributions to both fields. While the literature on digital assets remains overwhelmingly focused on regulatory questions, our research offers essential private law insights that will prove crucial during inevitable future market downturns. Moreover, viewing bankruptcy law through the lens of DA Os underscores the singularity of bankruptcy’s centralized and compulsory framework and its inescapable relevance in the crypto ecosystem. Commentary: You can't go wrong as an academic writing about crypto and bankruptcy,  but it certainly would be helpful for regular practitioners for there to be more about cryptocurrency in consumer bankruptcy cases. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document bankrupt_crypto_organizations.pdf (789.43 KB) Category Law Reviews & Studies

The National Law Review reports that the Subchapter V debt limit will increase to $3,424,000 on April 1, 2025. Currently, the Subchapter V debt limit is $3,024,725. The full article can be found at: https://natlawreview.com/article/bankruptcy-dollar-amounts-set-rise-significantly-april-1-2025  Clients or their advisors with questions about Subchapter V Bankruptcy should contact Jim Shenwick, Esq. Jim Shenwick, Esq. 917-363-3391jshenwick@gmail.comPlease click the link to schedule a telephone call with me: https://calendly.com/james-shenwick/15minWe help individuals and businesses with excessive debt!

Law Review: Hampson, Christopher, The Spirit of Jubilee (January 17, 2025). University of Florida Levin College of Law Research Paper Forthcoming Ed Boltz Wed, 02/12/2025 - 17:12 Available at:   https://ssrn.com/abstract=5100907 Abstract: The Jubilee texts of the Hebrew Bible call for debts to be forgiven and enslaved persons freed every seven years and for farmland to be restored to families every fifty years.  Tightly interwoven into the legal, narrative, and prophetic vision of the text, the Jubilee tradition offers an inspiring and dramatic vision of socio economic justice for multiple religious traditions. Yet the American legal tradition, which purports to draw on its religious heritage for inspiration and moral authority, has not fully drawn on the Jubilee tradition for a contemporary vision of equality and justice.  This Essay seeks to rekindle that conversation.  I pull together the Jubilee tradition from various texts in the Hebrew Bible and argue that the Jubilee represents a distinct and fundamental narrative in the text.  I conclude that a jubilee goes far beyond debt forgiveness alone: a jubilee is a generational reset of the private property most central to economic creativity, in order to ensure equitable opportunity for every community.  I then show how the Jubilee texts have inspired and encouraged American socioeconomic justice movements from independence to abolitionism to forgiveness of debt.  Indeed, the only word in the American legal tradition big enough to capture the spirit of Jubilee is reconstruction.  Finally, I argue that while the Jubilee ideal of forgiveness of debt and restoration of land cannot be implemented literally in modern economies, the spirit of Jubilee calls for broad, sweeping reforms to ensure equal opportunity in contemporary economic life. Commentary: For those of us in the bankruptcy profession that have found support, inspiration and comfort in the Biblical Jubilee as one of the bases for the Bankruptcy Code (even after the arguably satanic BAPCPA  changed the seven year period for release from debts to eight),   Prof.  Hampson's paper is a humbling clarion call  that "[u]nlike bankruptcy ... a debt jubilee is not specific to a particular debtor; it is a sweeping remission of debts across society." With proper attribution,  please share this post.  Blog comments Attachment Document the_spirit_of_jubilee.pdf (433.97 KB) Category Law Reviews & Studies

If you have a psychological or physical condition that prevents you from working, you may be eligible for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits. Contrary to common assumptions, your financial resources are not considered when determining eligibility. If you happen to receive a monetary gift from a friend or loved one, your SSDI case will likely remain unaffected. However, things might not be so simple and easy, and you should speak to an attorney. A monetary gift might affect benefits such as Supplementary Security Income (SSI), but it should not affect your eligibility to receive SSDI benefits. SSDI benefits are largely determined based on three factors: your work history, your disability status, and your inability to work. Your financial resources, including cash gifts, are not a factor in determining SSDI benefits. However, if you receive a monetary gift while your application for SSDI benefits is pending, it might raise some red flags with the Social Security Administration (SSA). You should be prepared to prove to the SSA that the monetary gift was not earned income. Remember, if you can earn income, you might be ineligible for SSDI benefits. For a free and confidential review of your situation, call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 515-2954 and speak to our Pennsylvania disability attorneys. How Cash Gifts Might Affect Your Disability Benefits in Pennsylvania Financial benefits or forms of assistance are often complicated. Determining whether you are eligible can be challenging, and many eligible people have a hard time getting approved. While some forms of assistance or benefits are tied to the beneficiaries’ financial situation, like SSI, others are not. If you are applying for SSDI benefits or have been approved for SSDI benefits, your case should not be affected by something like a monetary gift. SSDI benefits are largely based on your work history and disability status, not income or financial resources. Even if you have plenty of money in the bank, you might still be eligible for SSDI benefits. A friend or family member could give you a large monetary gift, and your benefits would likely remain the same. On the other hand, SSI and similar benefits are affected by your access to financial resources, and a monetary gift could impact your eligibility for such programs. This is not an unusual situation. People often receive monetary gifts while their SSDI applications are pending, but they are unable to work. Friends or family might choose to help by giving cash gifts to help pay for ordinary living expenses. Be sure to inform our Philadelphia disability attorneys about any monetary gifts so that we can make sure there is no confusion from the Social Security Administration (SSA). How Eligibility for Disability Benefits is Determined Whether someone is eligible for disability benefits depends on how long they have worked and paid into Social Security, their mental or physical condition, and their inability to actually work. Income and financial resources are not a part of the equation unless they are from earned income. However, if you are applying or SSI, monetary gifts may be a factor in determining eligibility, even if they are just gifts. As such, a monetary gift should not affect your SSDI benefits, but you should be prepared to prove that the money was a gift and not income. Work History First, eligibility for SSDI benefits is based substantially on your work history. According to 20 C.F.R. § 404.130, you must have a sufficient number of “quarters of coverage,” which may be obtained by having employment. How many quarters of coverage you need depends on your age, but people typically need about 40 credits, which account for 10 years of working. However, these credits do not have to be consecutive, but you must have at least 20 from the past 10 years. Cash gifts do not impact how work history is determined. Disability Status Next, the government will consider your disability status. Not every medical condition that gets in the way of working may be considered a disability, at least not for purposes of applying for SSDI benefits. According to § 404.1505(a), your disability must be a condition that prevents you from performing “substantial gainful activity” and is expected to last for at least 12 months or end in death. Put another way, your condition should stop you from working and be long-term. Short-term injuries or illnesses are not disabilities for SSDI purposes. If you are unsure about your disability status, check your condition against the list of qualifying conditions maintained by the Social Security Administration (SSA). There are separate lists for adults and children, and they are quite extensive. These lists cover a broad range of physical and psychological conditions that are considered disabilities. Whether or not someone has a disability is purely a medical determination. How much money you earn or the existence of monetary gifts does not affect your disability status as determined by the SSA. In fact, many people living with disabilities receive monetary gifts from family or friends to help them pay for treatment. Inability to Work Finally, the government must consider your inability to continue working. Specifically, you should be unable to perform substantial gainful activity (SGA). According to § 404.1572, SGA includes work that is both substantial and gainful. Put another way, the work should require mental or physical effort to perform that is done for profit. The work does not have to be particularly difficult. Additionally, profits do not even have to be realized for work to count as SGA. This is where monetary gifts might cause some complications. You must be unable to work in order to qualify for SSDI. If you receive a large monetary gift, or perhaps someone sends you money regularly to help you, you should be prepared to show that this is not earned income. If the SSA thinks you are earning money, your claim might be in jeopardy. For Help Now, Call Our Pennsylvania Disability Attorneys For a free and confidential review of your situation, call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 515-2954 and speak to our Quakertown, PA disability attorneys.

Law Review: Hannah L. Fink, Penalizing Compliance: The Case for Paying Chapter 13 Trustees in the Event of PreConfirmation Dismissal, 41 EMORY BANKR. DEV. J. 105 (2024). Ed Boltz Tue, 02/11/2025 - 15:42 Available at:   https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/ebdj/vol41/iss1/3 Abstract: Standing trustees provide a critical function of fairness in chapter 13 bankruptcy, but a jurisdictional split regarding their fees means that trustees in multiple circuits are not paid for a large percentage of their work. Under Ninth and Tenth Circuit precedents, standing trustees may not collect the percentage fee when the debtor’s case is dismissed before confirmation. This creates a different result for standing trustees as opposed to single-case trustees, hurts debtors and creditors, creates adverse incentives, and even constitutional conundrums. Permitting some debtors to enjoy the benefits of chapter 13 without paying their fair share creates a system where standing trustees must work on their cases, potentially for extended periods of time. Further, trustees risk going uncompensated if the debtor decides he wants to leave chapter 13 or refuses to propose a viable plan for confirmation. When these debtors do not pay the trustee fee, the trustee must find another source to fund her office operations.  Thus, trustees resort to increasing their percentage fee to compensate for these losses, meaning other debtors must pay more to use chapter 13 and unsecured creditors get a lower payout.  The Ninth and Tenth Circuit approaches further create nonsensical incentives where debtors are motivated to draw out the confirmation process as long as possible with no intention of confirming their plan to avoid paying the trustee fee. It also creates an incentive for trustees to confirm plans regardless of their feasibility, working counter to their role as a keeper of fairness in chapter 13. Additionally, by only awarding trustees their fees in the event of  confirmation, a constitutional issue arises due to the trustee’s role as a quasi-judicial officer. This Comment untangles the various approaches courts have taken in awarding trustee fees in the event of pre-confirmation dismissals and delves into the harmful consequences of the Ninth and Tenth Circuit precedents. This Comment argues that standing trustee compensation in chapter 13 should not be denied merely because a debtor’s proposed plan does not pass confirmation muster. Such an approach creates absurd and undesirable outcomes across the board in the chapter 13 system. Rather, courts should endorse the approach of other bankruptcy and district courts that allow for payment of standing chapter 13 trustee fee awards regardless of plan confirmation status. Even better, Congress should settle the issue by crafting a simple amendment to the Bankruptcy Code that resolves this issue entirely.   Commentary: While it certainly would be inaccurate or even absurd to assert that that the failure  to confirm a Chapter 13 never is the fault of the consumer debtor,  it is just as equally flawed to believe that overweening demands, requirements and expectations (occasionally exceeding any statutory requirement) by Chapter 13 Trustees never lead to the dismissal prior to confirmation of cases that would otherwise have been successful.   Perhaps by being mindful of their own pecuniary interests,  Chapter 13 Trustees  would negotiate with an eye towards confirmation,  including the costs and risk of litigation.  Chapter 7 Trustees,  clearly motivated by their own bottom line together with their statutory obligations,  routinely settle matters with debtors,  creditors and third-parties  for less than the maximum potential recovery (but more than the minimum potential recovery),  without an implication that such somehow corrupts or distorts their duties.   Chapter 13 trustees are,  as human beings,  no better or worse than Chapter 7 trustees (or even debtors)  in this regard. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document penalizing_compliance_the_case_for_paying_chapter_13_trustees_in_the_event_of_pre-confirmation_dismissal.pdf (915.96 KB) Category Law Reviews & Studies

4th Cir.: Modern Perfection v. Bank of America- Fourth Order Arbitration Disputes Ed Boltz Tue, 02/11/2025 - 15:40 Summary: Several small  businesses had entered into two separate agreements with Bank of America—one for deposit accounts (which contained an arbitration clause) and one for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans (which did not). When the businesses sued over handling of the PPP loans by Bank of America,it moved to compel arbitration based on the deposit agreements. The district court ruled that the deposit agreements contained a valid delegation clause, requiring an arbitrator to decide the arbitrability of the dispute. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit rejected the businesses' arguments that the arbitration clause was unclear and that the PPP loan agreements negated arbitration.  Under Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, there are four orders of disputes regarding arbitration: A “first-order dispute” is  a contest over the merits of the dispute whose resolution depends on the applicable law and relevant facts. A “second-order dispute” involves whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the merits of their underlying dispute.  A “third-order dispute”  involves who should have the primary power to decide the second matter—the court or an arbitrator.  A "fourth-order dispute" arises when the parties have multiple agreements that conflict as to the third-order question of who decides arbitrability. The Court of Appeals  ruled that the businesses had not properly raised a fourth-order dispute, which would have required the court to decide which contract governed arbitration. Instead, the businesses' arguments focused on whether their claims fell within the deposit agreement’s arbitration clause, an issue that had been properly delegated to the arbitrator. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document modern_perfection_v._bank_of_america.pdf (154.68 KB) Category 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

Some bankruptcy chapters are more effective than others when tackling certain kinds of debt. If you have defaulted on your mortgage and are facing foreclosure, is there a specific kind of bankruptcy that would best suit your situation? The best type of bankruptcy to stop foreclosure for consumers in Pennsylvania is Chapter 13. This will give you the ability to follow a court-approved repayment plan over three to five years, during which period your lender cannot foreclose. Chapter 7 is generally not nearly as effective in stopping foreclosure, as you might have to liquidate your home to repay the bank what you owe. Even with Chapter 13, indefinitely stopping foreclosure is not guaranteed. Our attorneys will ensure we promptly file disclose all debts, and comply with all the rules associated with a bankruptcy case so you are able to prevent foreclosure and keep your home. For a free and confidential case assessment from our Pennsylvania bankruptcy lawyers, call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates now at (215) 701-6519. Do All Types of Bankruptcy Stop Foreclosure in Pennsylvania? Different bankruptcy chapters address your debt differently, meaning not all suit debtors facing foreclosure. In fact, filing Chapter 7 might keep your home in jeopardy, forcing you to give it up through liquidation so that you can repay your lender in Pennsylvania. We can ensure you file the appropriate chapter for your situation so that bankruptcy solves your problem and does not exacerbate it. Chapter 13 Chapter 13 bankruptcy is relatively effective in helping homeowners keep their houses while repairing their relationships with their lenders and repaying them. Generally speaking, only debtors who pass the means test qualify for Chapter 13, meaning their income is about the average or higher for a household of similar size in Pennsylvania. Once we confirm you qualify for Chapter 13, we can submit your bankruptcy petition to the court closely followed by our proposed repayment plan. This plan may span three to five years and will be based on your total outstanding mortgage payments, income, current mortgage payments, dependents, and all other expenses. Chapter 13 is effective because it enables debtors to keep their assets, including homes at risk of foreclosure. Chapter 7 On the other hand, Chapter 7 is for debtors whose incomes aren’t high enough to repay creditors, even with the help of court-approved repayment plans, automatic stays, and being given several years to settle debts. Often, Chapter 7 is used for those with mostly unsecured debts, like credit card debt. The court erases dischargeable debts during Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases, but secured debts must be repaid. Because Chapter 7 filers don’t have the necessary income to repay secured debts, they identify assets for liquidation. Unfortunately, most debtors’ main assets are their homes, meaning Chapter 7 may not be the answer to your situation if you are facing foreclosure in Pennsylvania. How to Use the Right Type of Bankruptcy to Stop Foreclosure in Pennsylvania If used effectively, Chapter 13 bankruptcy can stop foreclosure. However, if you wait too long to file your case, fail to list all creditors and debts, or don’t follow the rules of the repayment plan, the case might be unsuccessful, leaving you once again at risk of foreclosure in Pennsylvania. File Promptly In stopping foreclosure, one of our goals, in addition to keeping your home, is ending the harassment associated with debt collectors and banks seeking repayment. The sooner you file for bankruptcy after identifying it as the solution to stopping foreclosure, the more time and resources you can reserve. While filing bankruptcy will stop foreclosure proceedings already in progress, our attorneys can prevent those proceedings from ever beginning by quickly filing your bankruptcy petition after you get a notice of intent to foreclose from your bank. Pennsylvania does not have a right of redemption following sheriff’s sales, so do not wait to file if one is imminent. Disclose All Debts Even if your primary concern is your mortgage debt, disclosing all debts when filing bankruptcy is important so that you get the appropriate discharges during your case. Omitting creditors from your bankruptcy case could lead to issues with it completing down the line. If you do not finish the repayment plan or the case is dismissed before repayment is finalized, your home could still be in jeopardy of foreclosure and a sheriff’s sale. Follow the Repayment Plan Stopping foreclosure indefinitely with bankruptcy is predicated on whether or not you satisfy the requirements of your Chapter 13 repayment plan. Because this is so important, our Philadelphia bankruptcy lawyers will spend the appropriate time writing the plan and arguing why its terms are fair based on the size of your debt, your income, and your expenses. If repayment plans are infeasible from the get-go, debtors might not have any hopes of adhering to them. Keep in mind that you will still have to stay on top of your current mortgage payments as well as past-due ones. Not doing either could give your lender reason to ask the court for foreclosure, even during your bankruptcy case. Suppose the case is dismissed because you do not follow the repayment plan. In that instance, foreclosure proceedings might resume again, and our attorneys can help avoid this by tailoring the repayment plan to your specific situation. Comply with Bankruptcy Rules Bankruptcy is a very complicated legal process that navigating alone could cause issues for debtors. The bankruptcy court might dismiss your case for not filing certain paperwork, not paying filing fees, not attending credit counseling courses, or even making clerical errors. We can ensure debtors comply with all rules of the bankruptcy process so that it ends up being a successful tool to help stop foreclosure in Pennsylvania. Call Our Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Attorneys for Help Today Get a free case review from our Springfield, PA bankruptcy lawyers when you call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 701-6519.