Your Bankruptcy Rights vs. Creditors’ Rights to “Not be Deprived of Property without Due Process of Law” under the Fifth Amendment

The U. S. Constitution doesn’t talk about it, so how does filing bankruptcy give you the power to stop a foreclosure?

As you’ve probably heard, bankruptcy is explicitly covered in the Constitution. But not much.  All it says is that Congress has the power “to establish… uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.”  (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.) Not a word about the rights and obligations of the person filing bankruptcy. Nor about the rights and obligations of creditors.

The Fifth Amendment talks about the rights of creditors when it says that a person shall not “be deprived of… property, without due process of law.”  So let’s say you have entered into a contract to pay a loan taken out on the purchase of your home, and that contract includes a condition that the creditor can take your home when you don’t maintain the payments on the loan.  If indeed you do not make payments, the creditor’s contractual ability to take your home is a property right it then owns. It bargained for that right with you when it lent you the money to purchase the home.

But you’ve heard that bankruptcy DOES have the power to stand in the way of your mortgage holder’s right to foreclose on the mortgage. Where does that power come from?

According to the U. S. Supreme Court, which dealt with this issue a number of times during the Great Depression in the 1930s, that power “incidentally to impair or destroy the obligation of private contracts… must have been within the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution.” Continental Bank v. Rock Island Ry., 294 U.S. 648, 680-81 (1935). The Court’s rationale was that because Congress was given “the express power to pass uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies,” delaying the exercise of creditors’ rights “necessarily results from the nature of the power.”

But, showing this isn’t so straightforward, later that same year the Supreme Court struck down an amendment to the bankruptcy law that had been enacted in 1934 to address the massive number of farm foreclosures. One of the reasons the law was ruled unconstitutional is because it took away from the mortgage-holding bank a property right: the “right to determine when such [foreclosure] sale shall be held, subject only to the discretion of the court.” Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555, 594 (1935).

So Congress quickly changed the law that same year to try to meet the Court’s objections. When that new law came before the Court, this time it was upheld, in an opinion written by the same justice, the eminent Justice Louis Brandeis, who had written the above opinion striking down the earlier law.

This time the bank holding the farmer’s mortgage based its argument that the law was “unconstitutional… mainly upon the… assertion is that the new Act in effect gives to the mortgagor [the farmer filing bankruptcy] the absolute right to a three-year stay; and that a three-year moratorium cannot be justified.”

After listing numerous ways in which the three-year stay was conditioned for the protection and benefit of the creditor, Justice Brandeis concluded that this stay, and the entire new law, was constitutional, as follows:

The power here exerted by Congress is the broad power “To establish… uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” The question which the objections raise is… whether the legislation modifies the secured creditor’s rights…  to such an extent as to deny the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. A court of bankruptcy may affect the interests of lien holders in many ways. To carry out the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act, it may direct that all liens upon property forming part of a bankrupt’s estate be marshalled; or that the property be sold free of encumbrances and the rights of all lien holders be transferred to the proceeds of the sale. Despite the peremptory terms of a pledge, it may enjoin sale of the collateral, if it finds that the sale would hinder or delay preparation or consummation of a plan of reorganization. It may enjoin like action by a mortgagee which would defeat the purpose of [the new law] to effect rehabilitation of the farmer mortgagor. For the reasons stated, we are of opinion that the provisions of [the new law] make no unreasonable modification of the mortgagee’s rights; and hence are valid.

Wright v. Vinton Branch of Mountain Trust Bank of Roanoke, 300 U. S. 440, 470 (1937)(emphasis added, internal case citations omitted).

That why your bankruptcy filing powerfully stops a home foreclosure, even though the Constitution doesn’t say anything directly about this, and even though stopping that foreclosure impinges on a property right of your foreclosing mortgage lender.

/by

More Good Examples of How Bankruptcy Really Helps Even When You Can’t Write Off Every Debt

Three more very practical ways that bankruptcy works to let you take control of your debts, even those that can’t be written off.


Two blogs ago I gave six reasons why it’s worth looking into bankruptcy even when you can’t discharge (write off) one or more of your debts. Today here are the final three of those reasons, each one paired with a concrete example illustrating it.

Reason #4: Taking control over the amount of the monthly payments.

The taxing authorities, support enforcement agencies, and student loan creditors have extraordinary power to take your money and your assets if you fall behind in paying them. Because of that tremendous leverage, you normally have no choice but to play by their rules about how much to pay them each month. Chapter 13 largely throws their rules out the window.

Let’s say you owe $15,000 to the IRS—including interest and penalties—from the 2010 and 2011 tax years, resulting from a business that failed. You’ve now got a steady job but one that gives you very little to pay the IRS after taking care of your very basic living expenses. The IRS is requiring you to pay that debt, plus ongoing interest and penalties, within 3 years. And it calculates the amount you must pay it monthly without any regard for your other debts, or for your actual living expenses. Even if you did not have unexpected expenses during those 3 years, paying the required amount would be extremely difficult. But if your vehicle needed a major repair or you had a medical problem, keeping up those payments would become absolutely impossible.  But the IRS gives you no choice.

In a Chapter 13 case, on the other hand, the repayment period would stretch out to as long as five years, which lowers the monthly payment amount. And instead of a rigid mandatory monthly payment going to the IRS, how it is paid in Chapter 13 is much more flexible. For example, if in your situation money was very tight now but you could more each month later—for example, after paying off a vehicle loan—you would likely be allowed to make very low or even no payments to the IRS at the beginning, as long as its debt was paid in full by the end. Also, you would be allowed to budget for vehicle maintenance and repairs, and medical costs, and other reasonable expenses, usually much more than the IRS would allow. And if you had unexpected vehicle, medical, or other necessary expenses beyond their budgeted amounts, Chapter 13 has a mechanism for adjusting the original payment schedule. Throughout all this, you’d be protected from the IRS.

 Reason #5: Stopping the addition of interest, penalties, and other costs.

Under the above facts, if you were not in a Chapter 13 case, the IRS would be continuously adding interest and penalties. So that much less of your monthly payment goes to reduce the $15,000 owed, significantly increasing the amount you need to pay each month to take care of the whole debt in the required 3 years.

In Chapter 13, in contrast, unless the IRS has imposed a tax lien, no additional interest is added from the minute the case is filed. No additional penalties get added. So not only do you have more time to pay off the tax debt, and much more flexibility, you have also have significantly less to pay before you finish off that debt.

Reason #6: Focusing on paying off the debt that you can’t discharge by discharging those you can.

This may be obvious but can’t be overemphasized: often the most important and direct benefit of bankruptcy is its ability to clear away most of your debt burden so that you can put your financial energies into the one that remain.

Back to our example of the $15,000 IRS debt, let’s say the person also owes $20,000 in credit cards, $5,000 in medical bills, and a $6,000 deficiency balance on a repossessed vehicle. Discharging these other debts would both free up some of your money for the IRS and avoid the risk that those other creditors could jeopardize your payments to the IRS.   Entering into a mandatory monthly payment arrangement with the IRS when at any moment you could be hit with another creditor’s lawsuit and garnishment is a recipe for failure.

Instead, a Chapter 7 case would very likely discharge all of the credit card, medical and old vehicle loan debts. With then gone you would have a more sensible chance getting through an IRS payment arrangement.

In a Chapter 13 case, you may be required to pay a portion of the credit card, medical and vehicle debts, but in return you get the benefits of getting long-term protection from the IRS, a freeze on interest and penalties, and more flexible payments.

So whether Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 is better for you depends on the facts of your case. Either way, you would pay less or nothing to your other creditors so that you could take care of the IRS. Either way, you would much more likely succeed in becoming tax free and debt free, and would get there much quicker.

/by

Dramatic Examples of How Bankruptcy Can Be a Good Idea Even if It Can’t Write Off Every Debt

Here’s how bankruptcy actually works, and works well, even when a significant debt or two can’t be written off.

The last blog gave six reasons why it’s worth looking into bankruptcy even if you know that you can’t discharge (write off) one or more of your most important debts. Today here are concrete examples how the first three of those could work for you.

The first two reasons we’ll cover together. First, sometime debts which you might think can’t be discharged actually can be, and second, some debts that can’t be discharged now may be able to be in the near future.

Let’s say you currently owe $10,000 in federal income tax for the 2008 tax year. You filed that tax return on October 15, 2009 after getting an extension. You’ve been making monthly payments to the IRS on a payment plan, but because of that you did not make adequate tax withholdings or quarterly estimated payments for 2011. You know that once you file your 2011 tax returns (by October 15, 2012, because you got an extension) you’re going to be in trouble because you will owe a lot for that year as well. You know the IRS will cancel the payment plan for 2008 because of your failure to keep current on your ongoing tax obligations. You’re pedaling as fast as you can, but October 15 is less than two months away and you don’t know what to do. You are quite certain that the $10,000 tax debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

You’d be right about that… but only for the moment. Because under these facts that 2008 tax debt could very likely be discharged through either a Chapter 7 or 13 bankruptcy case filed AFTER October 15, 2012. (Whether you’d file a Chapter 7 or 13 would depend on other factors, including how big your 2011 and anticipated 2012 tax debts will be.) Instead of being in a seemingly impossible situation, you would avoid paying all or most of that $10,000—plus lots of additional interest and penalties that you would have been required to pay. Instead you would be more than $10,000 ahead on paying off the 2011 and 2012 taxes!

Now here’s an example to go with the third reason to consider bankruptcy: even if you can’t discharge a debt, bankruptcy can permanently solve an aggressive collection problem.  

Change the facts above to make that $10,000 debt one owed for the 2009 tax year instead of 2008. Since that tax return was also filed with an extension to October 15, 2010, that $10,000 would not be dischargeable until after October 15, 2013. But in this example you’ve already defaulted on your monthly payment agreement. So you are appropriately expecting the IRS to file a tax lien on all of your personal property and on your home, and to start levying on (garnishing) your financial accounts, and on your paycheck if you’re employed or on your customers/clients if you’re self-employed.

With all that the IRS can do to you, you can’t wait until October of next year to discharge that $10,000. But if you filed a Chapter 13 case now the IRS would not be able to take any of the above aggressive collection actions against you. You would have to pay the $10,000 (and any taxes owed for 2010 and 2011) but you would have as long as 5 years to do so. And most importantly, throughout that time you’d be protected from any future IRS collection action on any of those taxes, as long as you complied with the Chapter 13 rules.

As for the 2012 tax year, you would likely be given the opportunity to pay extra withholdings or estimated payments during the rest of this year, which you would be able to afford because of temporarily paying that much less  into your Chapter 13 plan.

So instead of being hopelessly behind and deathly scared about everything the IRS is about to do to you, within a few days you could be on a financially sensible path to being caught up with the IRS. And then within three to five years you’d be tax debt free, AND debt free.

/by

Bankruptcy Can Solve Your Debt Problems Even If You Can’t Write Off Every Debt

Don’t disregard bankruptcy as an option just because it does not write off the debt which is your immediate big headache. There’s likely some good medicine for that headache after all.

Let’s say you owe a dreadfully large income tax debt from a couple of years ago. The IRS is getting aggressive about collecting it. You know for a fact that bankruptcy doesn’t discharge (legally write off) income tax debts, so you’re not seriously considering that option and have not seen a bankruptcy attorney.

You may or may not be right about whether or not that tax debt can be discharged. That’s almost always a matter of timing. So if indeed you could not discharge your debt a few months ago, that might not be true today, or might not be true a few months from now.)But whether or not the debt can be discharged,  either way, you would probably be wrong about not getting legal advice about it.

Why? Whether that special debt that you know can’t be discharged is a tax debt, back child support, student loans, or some other troublesome debt, here are six reasons you should STILL get legal advice about the bankruptcy  option:

1. Some debts which look like they can’t be discharged actually can. Certain income taxes can be discharged in either a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 case, depending on how old they are and a series of other factors. Sometime a portion of an otherwise not dischargeable tax debt—such as the penalties—can be discharged, sometimes significantly reducing the amount you need to pay. Student loans are difficult to discharge, but in some unusual situations can be. And even though true child support obligations are not dischargeable, in rare situations a debt which you thought was a support obligation might not fit the legal definition for bankruptcy purposes. It’s certainly worth finding out whether the debt you assume can’t be discharged actually might be able to be.

2. Some debts that can’t be discharged now may be able to be in the future. Almost all income taxes can be discharged after a series of conditions have been met. So your attorney can put together for you a game plan coordinating these tax timing rules with all the rest of what is going on in your financial life. Timing issues can sometimes also be important with student loans, especially if you have a worsening medical condition or are simply getting close to retirement age

3. Even if you can’t discharge a debt, bankruptcy can permanently solve an aggressive collection problem.  In many situations your primary problem is the devastating way a debt is being collected. For example, you may want to pay an obligation for back child support but the state support enforcement agency is about to suspend your driver’s and/or occupational license. A Chapter 13 case will stop these threats to your livelihood, and protect you from them while you catch up on the back support.

4. You have more control over the amount of the monthly payments on debts that cannot be discharged. Debts which the law does not allow to be discharged in bankruptcy also tend to be ones that give the creditors a lot of leverage against you. Chapter 13 takes most of this leverage away from them and puts their power on hold while you pay what your budget allows, not what these creditors would otherwise be gouging out of you.

5. Bankruptcy can stop the adding of interest, penalties, and other costs, allowing you to pay off a debt much faster. Unpaid income taxes and certain other kinds of debts are so much more difficult to pay off because a part of each payment goes to the ongoing interest and penalties. Some tax penalties in particular can be huge. Most of these ongoing add-ons are stopped by a Chapter 13 filing, allowing you to become debt-free sooner.

6. Bankruptcy allows you to focus on paying off the debt(s) that you can’t discharge by discharging those you can. You may have both a debt or two that can’t be discharged and a bunch of debts that can be. Even if bankruptcy can’t solve your entire debt problem directly, discharging most of your debts would likely make that problem much more manageable. Under Chapter 7, you would be able to pay off those surviving debts much faster, which is especially important if they are accruing interest or other fees. And under Chapter 13 you would have the benefit of a predictable payment program, one that focuses your financial energies on those nondischargeable debts while protecting your assets and income from them.

So don’t let the fact that you have a debt or debts that can’t be discharged in bankruptcy stop you from getting legal advice about how your overall financial life could still be much improved through one of the bankruptcy options.  

/by

Paying Your Special Creditor After Filing Bankruptcy

If you file bankruptcy, it’s okay to voluntarily repay any debt. But there can be unexpected consequences.


The Bankruptcy Code says “[n]othing…  prevents a debtor from voluntarily repaying any debt.” Section 524(f).

But that doesn’t mean that repaying a debt won’t have consequences, including sometimes some highly unexpected ones. So what are those consequences?

To start off let’s be clear that we’re NOT talking about a creditor which you want to pay because it has a right to repossess collateral that you want to keep. Nor is this about paying a debt because the law does not let you to discharge (write off) it. Those two categories of debts—secured debts and non-dischargeable ones—have their own sets of rules governing them. We’re talking here about voluntary repayment, paying a debt even though you’re not legally required to.

And let’s also make a big distinction about the timing of those voluntary payments. We’re NOT talking here about payments made to creditors BEFORE the filing of bankruptcy. That was covered in the last blog. Be sure to check that out because the consequences of paying certain creditors at certain times before bankruptcy can be very surprising and frustrating, seemly going against common sense.

Instead, today’s blog is about paying creditors AFTER filing your bankruptcy case. The straightforward rule here is that you can pay your special creditor after filing a “straight” Chapter 7 case, but can’t do so in a “payment plan’ Chapter 13 case. For that you must wait until the case is completed, which is usually three to five years after it starts. So, if you would absolutely want to start making payments to a special creditor—such as a relative who lent you money on a personal loan—right after filing your bankruptcy case, you would have to file a Chapter 7 case instead of a Chapter 13 one.

Why is there such a difference between Chapter 7 and 13 for this? Basically because Chapter 7 fixates for most purposes on your financial life as of the day your case is filed, while Chapter 13 cares about your financial life throughout the length of the payment plan. You can play favorites with one of your creditors right after your Chapter 7 is filed because doing so doesn’t affect your other creditors. In contrast, in a Chapter 13 case your payment plan is designed so that you are paying all you can afford in monthly payments to the trustee to distribute to the creditors in a legally appropriate fashion. Here the law does not allow you to favor one creditor over the other ones just because you have a special personal or moral reason to do so. You can only favor a creditor AFTER the case is completed, again usually three to five years after filing.

So what would the consequences be of paying your special creditor “on the side” during an ongoing Chapter 13 case? The simple answer is that it’s illegal so don’t do it. Beyond that it’s difficult to answer because it would depend on the circumstances of the case (such as how much you paid inappropriately) and would depend on the discretion of the Chapter 13 trustee and of the bankruptcy judge. You’d be risking having your entire Chapter 13 case be thrown out. You would be wasting a tremendous investment of time and money, risking years of your financial life. Clearly, things you want to avoid.

Instead, talk very candidly with your attorney about your special debt and why you are so committed to paying it. There are usually sensible ways for dealing with these kinds of situations once it’s all out on the table. Your attorney’s job is to present options to you for meeting your goals, including that of paying this special creditor. He or she will only be able to do that for you if you make clear that you want to pay off this creditor and explain why.

/by

Creditors to Whom You Feel a Special Loyalty

In bankruptcy it’s okay to FEEL differently towards some creditors than others. You can also sometimes ACT differently, but only if you very carefully follow the rules.


The last blog was about making a good decision about filing bankruptcy, one that sits well with you morally and serves your best interests legally. If you do decide to file bankruptcy, you usually also have the chance to decide how to deal with some of your creditors. Today’s blog is about creditors you would like to favor for some personal reason, usually because of a special relationship. Specifically, how you favor such creditors BEFORE your bankruptcy is filed is the subject of today’s blog.

The special creditors we’re talking about here are people you feel you must pay, whether out of family connection, loyalty to a friend, or any other personal reason. Your desire to pay this person can be an honorable moral obligation that just about trumps everything. For example, someone may have made a personal loan to you who now desperately needs you to pay it back.

The problem with favoring certain creditors is that doing so flies in the face of one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law—that creditors which are legally the same should be treated the same. Mostly that applies to how creditors are treated DURING the bankruptcy case itself. But in certain limited but crucial ways this principle spills over into the time BEFORE your case is filed. Payments you made to a creditor can be undone—the creditor can be forced to pay to the bankruptcy trustee whatever you paid to the creditor within a certain period of time before your bankruptcy filing.

The practical consequences of this can be devastating. You make a special effort to pay someone that you care about, likely when you don’t have much money, only to later risk having your bankruptcy trustee make that person pay that money “back,” not to you but rather to the trustee. Since this can happen long after you paid that creditor, the money you paid probably has long ago been spent, often leaving that creditor scrambling. Instead of you helping that person as you intended, he or she can get significantly inconvenienced and frustrated, or worse.  And after all that, you may feel obligated to pay that same amount of money a second time to that creditor if you still want to make him or her whole.

What’s the point of this seeming craziness? It goes back to that principle of treating creditors the same. For example, in the relatively rare Chapter 7 case in which you have assets at the time of filing that are not “exempt”—not protected—the trustee takes them, sells them, and distributes the proceeds to your creditors. If you pay a creditor not long before filing the bankruptcy case, the theory is that you “preferred” that creditor over others. The inappropriate payments are called “preference payments,” or simply “preferences.” The idea is that had you not made those payments, there would have been money to distribute to the creditors overall.

So what are the rules about this so that one can avoid them? If you’d like very effective sleep-inducing bedtime reading, here is Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code explaining preferences. Nearly 1,400 words, in 57 subsections and sub-subsections!

But the good news is that the basic rule is both reasonably straightforward and often easy to work around if you understand it. So here it is.  A preference is a payment (usually money, but it can be any asset) made (voluntarily or involuntarily such as a garnishment) on a prior debt to a creditor (anybody to whom you legally owe money) during the period of 90 days before the filing of a bankruptcy.  That period of time stretches out to a full year before filing for payments made to “insiders”—basically relatives, friends, and business associates.

So how do you work around this? Well, if you know about the rule in advance, you avoid paying creditors you care about during those 90-day and 1-year periods before filing, whichever is applicable. And if you’ve already made those payments, you avoid the problem by waiting to file long enough to get past those time periods.

There are other aspects that make this easier than it might sound. Payments to most secured debts (on your home, vehicle) don’t count. The trustee can’t chase payments to a single creditor totaling less than $600 in the case of a consumer debtor or less than $5,000 for a business debtor.  And there are various other exceptions.

The bottom line is that overall it’s dangerous to pay creditors who you feel a special loyalty to before filing bankruptcy. The basic 90-day/1-year rule is rather simple, but it has lots of twists and turns so it’s safer to just avoid the issue whenever possible. Often it’s better to wait until after you file your bankruptcy case to pay these people. That’s the subject of the next blog.

/by

Are Paying Debts a Moral Obligation?

Yes, you have a moral obligation to pay your debts. But do you have higher moral obligations to release yourself from those debts?

 

You could consider the choice whether or not to file bankruptcy to simply be a “business decision.” Merely a weighing of the costs and benefits of filing and not filing. This weighing would go beyond just the immediate dollars and cents by including intangible factors like the impact on your credit record. But still, in this approach your focus is on “the bottom line,” on what’s “in your best interest.”

That’s fine as far as it goes. After all, corporations of all sizes file “strategic bankruptcies” all the time. Their very smart and well-informed managers decide that bankruptcy is the best way to reduce debt and streamline their operations, so that the business can survive and hopefully thrive into the future.

And who doesn’t want to survive and thrive?

But you are more than a business. More than a corporation. For you, the human costs and benefits have to be added into the equation.  

And that’s where morality comes into the decision. We humans are moral creatures. That means that our important choices are often moral choices, between doing what’s right and doing what’s wrong. To strip this away from our decision about whether or not to file bankruptcy is to dehumanize us. If we don’t engage in the moral component of this choice, we are less likely to make a good decision. And we will likely feel unsettled afterwards regardless how we decide.

So what do you need to do to make a good moral decision?  

First, accept the choices that you made—good and bad, sensible and short-sighted, intentional and forced—and the circumstances that got you where you are now. Accept that you made a series of legal commitments to pay your debts, consider how much choice you had at the time about them, and in hindsight what you would have done differently, if anything. Why are you now not able to keep those commitments?

Second, consider both the moral costs and benefits of continuing to try to meet those financial commitments. The benefit would be keeping your promises to pay, which may be more or less strong of a commitment depending on the circumstances (for example, the carefully considered purchase of a home or vehicle versus incurring an emergency ambulance bill).  What would be the costs in terms of your physical and emotional health, your marriage and family relationships, and whatever other responsibilities you have to your community? You have moral obligations not just to your creditors, but also to yourself, to your spouse, to your kids, and to society in general. Do you have a realistic chance of successfully paying off your debts, and even if so, what would be the likely human costs while doing so? And if you do not have a realistic chance, how do you weigh the benefit of putting up a good fight against the costs that come from just delaying the inevitable?

Third, recognize that you now have both the opportunity and obligation to make a good decision about whether to continue trying to meet those commitments. To just accept the status quo without facing the situation honestly and bravely is making a decision by default, which is likely neither your morally best nor practically wisest move.

Fourth, get advice so that you know your legal options. You might not think you have a moral obligation to do this, but you cannot make morally good choices about how to deal with your legal commitments without knowing your legal alternatives about each of those commitments. You cannot know whether there are more morally acceptable ways to deal with your creditors—such as to file a Chapter 13 payment plan instead of a “straight” Chapter 7—if you don’t know your legal options. When you see the legal structure within which your choices have to be made, that often helps make the moral choices much clearer.

And fifth, look at each of your legal options, and weigh them in light of your different obligations—to each of your creditors, to yourself, your spouse, your family, and anyone else affected.  On one hand, this is an entirely personal decision. You need to look yourself in the mirror and be satisfied that you are doing the right thing. But as with any important decision, you can and most of the time should get help from the right people and resources. As appropriate, talk to your closest friend, your pastor, your accountant, write in your journal, or pray or meditate about it–do whatever you know helps you make a good decision. And although your bankruptcy attorney is primarily your legal advisor, and will respect that the final decisions are up to you, he or she has counseled countless people wrestling with these decisions and so will be able to help you with yours.

Henry David Thoreau said that the “price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it.” What is “the amount of life” you are giving up until you decide that you’ve got to make a good decision and you go get the legal advice you need so that you can do so?

/by

Can I Do a “Cramdown” on Collateral Other than My Home or Vehicle?

If you buying something on time and want to keep it, you often can do so for less money IF you bought it more than a year ago.

 

Background:

  • A creditor which has rights to collateral is called a “secured creditor.” Your obligation to pay what you owe to this creditor is secured by rights it has to take possession and ownership of the collateral if you don’t make your payments on the debt. 
  • In bankruptcy, secured creditors have a lot more leverage against you because of the collateral than do creditors without any collateral—“unsecured creditors.”
  • If you want to keep the collateral, Chapter 7 is sometimes is your best choice, but in many circumstances Chapter 13 can give you more options.
  • Secured debts in which the collateral is your home or your vehicle are governed by special rules because of how important those kinds of collateral are to most people. See my blogs of last week and earlier about some of these special rules.
  • But you will not find many blogs talking about secured debts where the collateral is something other than your home or vehicle. The main secured debts of this type are probably furniture and appliance purchases, money loans secured by your own personal assets, and business loans secured by business and/or personal assets.

Cramdown:

  • This tool applies only to Chapter 13—it can’t be done in Chapter 7.
  • If the collateral securing a secured debt is worth less than the balance on that debt, then you may be able to divide that debt into two parts: the secured part—the amount of the debt up to the value of the collateral, and the unsecured part—the rest of the debt beyond the value of the collateral. An example will make that clear. Let’s say you owed $1,000 on a refrigerator, in which the purchase contract gave the creditor the right to repossess that refrigerator if you didn’t make the agreed payments. If the present value of that refrigerator is $600, then the secured portion of that debt would be $600, and the remaining $400 of that debt would the unsecured portion.
  • In a Chapter 13 “cramdown” you pay not the total debt, but only the secured part of the debt. You pay the unsecured part of the debt only at the percentage that all the rest of your regular unsecured creditors are paid. That is usually less than 100% and can sometimes be a low as 0%. In the above example, the $1,000 total refrigerator debt is crammed down to $600, and the remaining $400 part of the debt is lumped in with the rest of your unsecured creditors. So if in your Chapter 13 plan your unsecured creditors are receiving 0%, then you would pay only the $600 secured portion, the remaining unsecured portion would get nothing and would be discharged (written off) at the end of your Chapter 13 case. Or if your unsecured creditors are receiving 50%, then you would pay $200 of that unsecured portion of $400, and the rest would be discharged at the end of your case. Note that you would still pay interest, but only on the secured portion instead of on the entire balance.  

THE cramdown rule with collateral other than your home or vehicle:

  • “[I]f the debt was incurred during the 1-year period preceding [the bankruptcy] filing” then you cannot do a cramdown on collateral that is neither your home nor your vehicle. See the last sentence of Section 1325(a) of the Bankruptcy Code (tucked in right after subsection (a)(9)). This means that if the debt is any older than 1 year, you CAN do a cramdown.

So, if you have a debt, more than 1 year old, secured by something other than your home or vehicle(s), in which the collateral is worth less than the debt, you can cram down the debt to the value of the collateral. If so, then because this can only be done under Chapter 13, that would be one factor in favor of filing under Chapter 13 instead of Chapter 7. Talk to your attorney to see if this applies to you, and to find out all the other Chapter 7 vs. Chapter 13 factors to weigh in your situation.

/by

A Patriotic Fresh Start

If you’re financially hurting during this 4th of July, you may not exactly be feeling like this is a great country. But it is.


Here’s why:

  • We are the fresh-start nation of the world. We’ve all heard the famous words from the poem at the base of the Statute of Liberty:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Emma Lazarus, 1883

  • Much of our history is one of migration within or beyond the edges of the country in hopes of finding a better life:
    • in the late 1700s, following Daniel Boone’s route through the Cumberland Gap of the Appalachian Mountains from Virginia to Kentucky
    • during the first half of the 1800’s, pouring into and throughout the Ohio Valley and the Great Lakes region, and across the southeast into Texas
    • from the 1840s through the 1860s, trekking 2,000 mile along the dangerous Oregon, California , and Mormon Pioneer Trails
    • populating the Great Plains as encouraged by the Homestead Act of 1862 which distributed free land  to those who “have resided upon or cultivated the same for the term of five years,” and the Oklahoma Land Run of 1889
    • in the first half of the 20th century, 6 million African Americans participating in the “Great Migration” from the rural South to the urban North and West
    • since the end of World War II, the consistent shift in population from the northeast and Midwest Rust Belt to the southern and western Sun Belt.
  • The spirit of a fresh start is woven into our history and culture, as expressed in our laws, starting with our foundational law, the Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power… To establish… uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States” According to a famous commentary on the Constitution, this clause was not in the original draft, but was added after a vote of 9 states in favor and 1 against.
  • In spite of this clear Constitutional mandate, it took Congress more than 100 years– until 1898—to pass a bankruptcy law that wasn’t repealed within a few years!  We’ve managed to have a comprehensive bankruptcy law in effect ever since then.
  • Property exemptions—your right to keep a certain amount of your property when filing bankruptcy–is the result of a 200-year-old Constitutional battle of states’ right versus federal power.  Throughout the 1800s, the country waged a political and economic war between Northeastern bankers and Western and Southern farmers and small merchants. Because of reoccurring devastating financial “panics” during that century, the farmers and merchants had good reason to worry about losing their homes and farms to out-of-state creditors. As a result, the first law exempting property from the collection of debt was adopted in 1839 in the Republic of Texas, and spread quickly through the South and the Midwest during the 1840s and 1850s. Exemption laws continue to protect our property from creditors today.
  • In spite of huge efforts over the years by creditors to make bankruptcy less accessible to consumers, the Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 options do continue to provide tremendous relief for most people who need them. Although not perfect, they give you a relatively flexible, balanced, and effective way to personally take part in the centuries-old and sometimes necessary American tradition of a financial fresh start.
/by

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Health Care Decision

Even without mentioning the word “bankruptcy,” the most important court decision in years may still have a huge effect on future bankruptcies. How? Possibly by greatly reducing the need to file bankruptcies resulting from medical debts.  

First, a short summary.

Last week’s Supreme Court decision upheld the “individual mandate,” the most contentious part of the Affordable Care Act. That’s the obligation for certain people who don’t get health insurance to pay a penalty for not doing so. The Court held that the mandate is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause because NOT buying insurance is NOT engaging in commerce. So not buying insurance is not behavior that Congress has the power to regulate on that basis.

However, the Court still determined that the mandate is constitutional, under a different part of the Constitution, Congress’ taxing power. Even though Congress did not call the penalty a tax, it functions as a tax because, among other reasons, payment and collection of the penalty are done only through the IRS.

The Court also upheld the “Medicaid expansion” part of the Act. But while doing so the Court significantly limited a penalty for any states which decide not to participate in that expansion.

Second, if you want to read all or part of the full opinion, it’s here on the Supreme Court’s website. And for a good all-around news summary of the decision, here is an article from the Washington Post on the day it was released. For a more thorough summary, see this blog in “plain English” from the highly respected SCOTUSblog.

Third, to make it even easier for you, the rest of this blog consists of key quotations from the Court’s opinion. So you get the actual language of the court without wading through what are actually four different opinions totaling 193 pages. Thes following excerpts come only from the “opinion of the Court,” the parts which got the necessary five-out-of-nine votes to carry the day, totaling only about 36 pages out of the 193. Also to keep it manageable, these excerpts focus only on the “individual mandate” issue, not the Medicaid issue or any of the other procedural ones. (If you want to find any of the excerpts within the full opinion, the page number from Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion is in parentheses at the end of each one.)

 

Introductory excerpts:

“In our federal system, the National Government pos­sesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder. Nearly two centuries ago, Chief Justice Marshall observed that ‘the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted’ to the Federal Government ’is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist.’ McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819).” (p. 2)

“The Federal Government has expanded dramatically over the past two centuries, but it still must show that a consti­tutional grant of power authorizes each of its actions.” (p. 3)

“Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. ‘Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government’ requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if ‘the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demon­strated.’ United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.  (p. 6)

“In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 124 Stat. 119. The Act aims to in­crease the number of Americans covered by health in­surance and decrease the cost of health care.  … .

“The individual mandate requires most Americans to maintain ‘minimum essential’ health insurance coverage. 26 U. S. C. §5000A. The mandate does not apply to some individuals, such as prisoners and undocumented aliens. §5000A(d). Many individuals will receive the required cov­erage through their employer, or from a government pro­gram such as Medicaid or Medicare. See §5000A(f). But for individuals who are not exempt and do not receive health insurance through a third party, the means of satisfying the requirement is to purchase insurance from a private company.”  (p. 7)

“The Government advances two theories for the proposi­tion that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could un­dercut the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the indi­vidual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax.” (p. 15)

The Commerce Clause

“The Constitution grants Congress the power to ’regulate Commerce.’ Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of com­mercial activity to be regulated.” (p. 19)

“The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individ­uals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.”  (p. 20)

“Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do. Accepting the Government’s theory would give Congress the same license to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the Federal government.”  (pp. 23-24)

“The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate com­merce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress’s actions have reflected this un­derstanding.” (p. 24)

“The Government argues that the individual mandate can be sustained as a sort of exception to this rule, because health insurance is a unique product. According to the Government, upholding the individual mandate would not justify mandatory purchases of items such as cars or broccoli because, as the Government puts it, ‘[h]ealth in­surance is not purchased for its own sake like a car or broccoli; it is a means of financing health-care consump­tion and covering universal risks.’ Reply Brief for United States 19. But cars and broccoli are no more purchased for their ‘own sake’ than health insurance. They are purchased to cover the need for transportation and food.” (p. 27)

“No matter how “inherently integrated” health insurance and health care consumption may be, they are not the same thing: They involve different transactions, entered into at different times, with different providers. And for most of those targeted by the mandate, significant health care needs will be years, or even decades, away. The proximity and degree of connection between the mandate and the subsequent commercial activity is too lack­ing to justify an exception of the sort urged by the Gov­ernment. The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to ‘regulate Commerce.’ ” (p. 27)

Congressional Taxing Power

“The Government’s tax power argument asks us to view the statute differently than we did in considering its com­merce power theory. In making its Commerce Clause argument, the Government defended the mandate as a regulation requiring individuals to purchase health in­surance. The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as order­ing individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.” (p. 31)

“Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earn­ing income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.” (p. 32)

“The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those without health insurance looks like a tax in many re­spects. The ‘[s]hared responsibility payment,’ as the statute entitles it, is paid into the Treasury by ‘tax­payer[s]’ when they file their tax returns. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(b). It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. §5000A(e)(2). For taxpayers who do owe the pay­ment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors as taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status. §§5000A(b)(3), (c)(2), (c)(4). The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which—as we previously explained—must assess and collect it “in the same manner as taxes.” Supra, at 13–14. This process yields the essential feature of any tax: it produces at least some revenue for the Government.” (p. 33)

“Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the se­vere burden that taxation—especially taxation motivated by a regulatory purpose—can impose. But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.” (pp. 43-44)

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain in­dividuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Be­cause the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.” (p. 44)

/by