Debtors Beware of Debt Relief Companies

     As a Connecticut Chapter 7 Bankurptcy Attorney with over 30 years of experience I have seen clients make the mistake of contracting with Debt Relief Companies only to come see me months/years later after they discover they have incurred high fees and received no debt relief. There are some legitimate debt relief companies and in some circumstances they may offer the best option for debtors. There are also many companies which promise results they cannot achieve for their customers and these debtors only find out after they had money deducted from their checking accounts without significant reduction of their debt. Anyone having debt issues looking for relief options should first consult with a Chapter 7 bankruptcy attorney. When I sit down with clients to review their financail situation I can determine if the fresh start from a Chapter 7 filing is the best option for them. If they qualify which  mainly is determined by the fact there are no means test income and non-exempt asset issues than Chapter 7 bankruptcy is a better option than a debt repayment plan. First, debtors generally can receive a Chapter 7 discharge of their debts close to 3 months after they file their bankruptcy. A debt repayment plan can take years to complete. Second, in most cases filing for Chapter 7 will allow debtors to rebuild their credit quicker than a debt repayemnt plan.Third, the costs of filing Chapter 7 are consideraly less than a costs of a debt repayment plan. One time flat legal fee plus filing fee cost versus signifiant monthly fees over period of years. Fourth, all eligible debts discharged in Chapter 7. For a debt repayment plan to be successsful all debts must be paid thru the plan if the plan is not completed debtors left with remainig unpaid debt and bad credit.. This unfortunately is a very common result. There may be still the stigma attached to filfing bankrupcty which may prevent debtors from filing. As part of my job as a bankruptcy attorney I counsel my clients that there is no reason they should not file if eligible. Iin practtically all the cases I have hasd in my long carreer my clients have experienced serious financial hardship and I tell them there is no shame to receive the relief bankruptcy offers them.

Filing Bankruptcy in Connecticut During COVID19 Pandemic

                 COVID19 has affected all of our lives in so many ways including how my bankruptcy clients interact with me for filing their bankruptcies in Connecticut. With the emphasis on safety first I have developped a completely remote process to telephone or zoom conference with my bankruptcy clients with effective use of email to deliver the requisite notices and requirments and receive back the documents I need for their filings. After the initial client inquiry I schedule either a tele-conference or zoom conference depending on the client's preference and their computer capabilities to review with them the information and documents I need for their filing. In preparation for this conference I email to my clients my retainer letter with required Debt Relief Agency disclosures and other relevant documents for this conference. During the conference I review these documents with them including the credit report authorization form they need to return and credit counseling courses required; ask them questions to complete the bankruptcy worksheet and bankruptcy documents required checklist and review the timelines and process for Chapter 7 or 13 depending on which chapter is appropriate for them.  I send them followup email(s) based on the results of this conference with forms and the list of diocuments needed to complete their bankruptcy filing including an authorization to e-file their bankruptcy without their actual signatures on the bankruptcy petition and schedules. The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut has issued an order allowing the use of this form in lieu of actual signatures due to the impact of COVID19. Once the bankrutpcy petiton and schedules are ready for filing I email my clients these documents for their review to confirm their accuracy before filing them. After they are filed the bankrutpcy court will schedule a telephonic creditors meeting which the Unites States Trustee has adopted as a safe method to conduct these meetings due to COVID19. After the creditors meeting the process continues to be conducted remotely including any court hearings, if scheduled, which the Bankruptcy Court now holds on the zoom.gov platform. In conclusion, if you need to file bankruptcy, but are concerned about doing it safely my remote procedures in conjunction with those adopted by the Bankruptcy Court allows you to do so safely with no threat to your health from COVID19.

New Bill to Allow Bankruptcy Discharge of Student Loans Submitted to Congress

     H.R. 2366, the  Discharge Student loans in Bankruptcy Act was submitted by lead Congressman John Delaney (D-MD) this month. It is heralded as a bi-partisan effort, but only one republican John Katko(R-NY) has signed on so far as a co-sponsor. It is also an ambitious proposed amendment since it completely eliminates the subsection in 11 USC 523 referencing student loans as an exception to discharge. Therefore, no more need for proof of undue hardship or time limitations applied to discharge of student loans which will be treated like any other dischargeable debt. The ability to discharge student loans will be based on the existing limitation to qualify for discharge in Bankruptcy including the Chapter 7 means test for example. Also no distinction between federally insured  and private student loans which I anticipate will incur some blowback and possible changes if this amendment  even makes it way through Congress. The need for this amendment has been well documented in the press with the student loan crisis reaching epic proportions. The question is whether a Republican controlled Congress very much beholden to a strong bank lobby will approve it. This is especially true with regard to private student loans the biggest problem for debtors since unlike federal student loans there are no payment programs in place to provide any relief to debtors.
     It may take until 2018 with the possible control of the House and/or Senate being transferred to the Democrats. Also the undpredictability of the current occupant of the White House and how long he may stay there also will come into play. The need for reform is clearly there. Will this current government take the necessary action to address it is unclear at best. I encourage anyone concerned with this issue to reach out to their Congressperson to advocate for the passage of this amendment to bring the relief needed to those debtors suffering from the burden of excessive student loan debt. This crisis affects all of us not just these debtors since it a major drag on our economy and once these debtors especially young struggling adults are freed from this debt they will be able to start families, buy homes and related items to help grow our economy for the benefit of all.

Do I Need to Reaffirm my Car Loan if I File Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in Connecticut?

       In 2005 in an attempt to favor auto loan lenders Section 362 of  the bankruptcy code was amended to make redemption or reaffirmation of auto loans a necessary requirement for debtors filing Chapter 7 for those debtors that want to retain their cars. Suffice it to say redemption which means payment in full of the auto loan at time of filing is not a realistic option so the focus of this post is on the reaffirmation requirement. Before this amendment the preferred and common approach to auto loans for cars intended to be kept post-filing was the retain and pay approach. In order to discuss this approach I need to first make the distinction between the effect of the discharge of a secured debt versus an unsecured debt. It is relatively easy to understand the discharge of an unsecured debt like a credit card. Upon the successful completion of the Chapter 7 the debtor's obligation to pay this credit card debt is terminated. For a secured debt like a car loan it is not as simple to understand. It is true that the actual debt is discharged, but the security agreement survives the bankruptcy requiring the debtor to continue to pay the monthly payment in order to keep the car. If the debtor takes the retain and pay approach without reaffirmation they continue to pay, but can stop paying at any time and surrender the car without any deficiency due. This is clearly the preferred approach in most cases where debtors' budgets are tight if not negative at  the time of filing and the fact that cars generally after a few years depreciate quickly resulting in loan balances in excess of these cars' values. This is especially the case with debtors who have high interest rate car loans when they file bankruptcy which is quite common. Reaffirmation of an auto loan leaves the debtor in the same position prior to filing with the auto loan debt not discharged and reported on their credit report. In order to reaffirm under the current code the auto loan payment cannot impose an undue hardship on the debtor. In other words the debtor's budget must show they can afford it at time of filing and debtor's bankruptcy counsel must affirm this fact with the filing of the reaffirmation agreement for court approval. Herein lies the problem of this requirement as indicated above many debtors' budgets do not show they can afford their car payments not to mention the fact many of their cars are not worth what they owe. They're not eligible to reaffirm due to the code's hardship requirement. Also it is clearly not in their best interests anyways to reaffirm a debt on a car that is currently underwater. In Connecticut as well as other states throughout the country this placed debtors in a very difficult position since in almost all cases debtors at the time of filing do not want to surrender their cars that they need to get to work and live their lives. Despite the fact their budgets may show they may not be able to afford their auto loans they do what they have to do to keep their cars.
       I am pleased to tell Connecticut debtors that our legislature enacted a solution to the problem created by the 2005 amendment to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code which allows debtors to continue to use the preferred retain and pay approach and still keep their cars. In 2009  the Connecticut legislature repealed and replaced Section 36a-785 of the Connecticut General Statutes with a provision that specifically states the filing of bankruptcy in itself does not constitute a default under the terms of an auto loan security agreement. The practical effect of this new statute was that car loan lenders could not refuse to continue to receive loan payments from Chapter 7 debtors despite the fact they did not reaffirm their car loans. Therefore, the loans that are being paid are not in default and auto loan lenders are not able to take any action to repossess these vehicles. This change essentially restored the right to retain and pay without reaffirmation for Connecticut Chapter 7 debtors and was accepted by auto loan lenders once they were educated by debtors' attorneys like myself as to this new Connecticut statute. In conclusion, the answer to the question posed as the title to this post is no! Furthermore, when considering reaffirmation of a car loan where you may have equity in your car you need to review in depth with your attorney the advantages and disadvantages before going forward with reaffirmation.

United States Supreme Court Decision Not to Allow Strip Down of Wholly Unsecured Second Mortgages in Chapter 7 Provides No Relief to Homeowners and No Practical Benefit to Secured Lenders

      The United States Supreme Court in the consolidated cases "Bank of Amer. v. Toledo-Cardona," and "Bank of Amer. v. Caulkett" decided on June 1, 2015 that wholly unsecured mortgages cannot be stripped down essentially turning them into discharged unsecured debt. This decision leaves unchanged the existing law that partially unsecured second mortgages cannot be stripped down. This decision reversed the lower court's decisions in these cases upheld by the Eleventh Circuit which gave consumer bankruptcy attorneys and their clients hope throughout the country that real relief could be provided to homeowners in situations similar to the debtors in these cases. The court relied heavily on the previous case dealing with this issue “Dewsnup v. Tims” and like many court decisions not the practical and societal effect on debtors. The reality is that after filing a Chapter 7 with two mortgages with the first mortgage debt exceeding the value of the property the second mortgage holder will not likely recover any funds from the debtor. The debtor homeowner will either surrender their property in the Chapter 7 or wait till they are forced to give up their property post-discharge after the bank forecloses. In many cases these second mortgage debts have been charged off by lender even before the debtors file bankruptcy. One would have hoped the Supreme Court had the foresight to recognize the practical effects of their decision. The result is that more homeowners will lose their homes with no practical benefit to the overwhelming majority of underwater second mortgage holders. Since these mortgage holders’ debts are discharged they will not receive any funds from a foreclosure. Also this decision hurts first mortgage holders as well because even though their debt may exceed the value of the debtors' homes the large majority of these debtors want to stay in their homes and will continue to pay down these mortgages and hold onto their homes for the long run. Also these homeowners would be more inclined to seek acceptable mortgage modifications with first mortgage holders if the second mortgages could be stripped. This would mean less foreclosures and less bank owned properties. Therefore, this is not only a loss for debtors, but for banks as well and the plaintiff lender here may ultimately regret the continuing negative impact this decision will have on the housing market.

Supreme Court to Hear Case Allowing Strip-Down of Wholly Unsecured Mortgage in Chapter 7 Case

      The  United States Supreme Court granted certiorari yeterday in two of the three Chapter 7 lien-strip-off cases challenging the Eleventh Circuit decision in McNeal. Bank of Amer. v. Toledo-Cardona, No. 14-163 and Bank of Amer. v. Caulkett, No. 13-1421 (petition granted Nov. 17, 2014) (consolidated for argument) (Bank of Amer. v. Bello, No. 14-235 is still pending). In McNeal v. GMAC Mortg., 735 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2012) pet. den. (May 20, 2014), the court bucked the trend to find that Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410 (1992), which held that a partially secured lien could not be stripped-down in chapter 7, did not apply to wholly unsecured liens. These are liens including second mortgages for which based on the value of the property there is no equity after the first lien on the property which usually in these cases is the first mortgage.  There are more than a dozen cases currently pending in the Eleventh Circuit challenging this decision, but, after an early unsuccessful attempt to bring the issue before the Supreme Court (Bank of America v. Sinkfield, No. 13-700 (cert. denied, March 31, 2014)) the issue is now on track for final resolution. Briefing should be completed by March and argument is likely to be scheduled for the last week of March, with decision projected sometime in June. 
        Currently debtors can only strip down, which means convert a secured debt to an unsecured debt, wholly unsecured liens including mortgages in Chapter 13 cases. Chapter 13 debtors depending on their income may still have to pay some of this debt of as unsecured debt in their plans. If the Supreme Court does allow this type of strip downs in Chapter 7 cases it will help many debtors who own underwater homes with wholly unsecured second mortgages. If these debtors qualify for a Chapter 7 and can still afford to pay the first mortgages on their homes they can strip down their wholly unsecured second mortgages and discharge this debt along with their other unsecured debt. This will allow more homeowners to keep their homes and obtain a better fresh start from their Chapter 7 bankruptcy filings, Stay tuned to future posts to my blog and I will let you know when this decision comes down from the court.

Common Bankruptcy Terms

           Although I try to write the posts to this blog in understandable terms since bankruptcy is a complex area of law it can be difficult at times not to use terms that may not be readily understandable by the average consumer. I have listed below some common terms used in bankruptcy with their simple definitions to help resolve this issue.

Debt- monetary obligation owed to another individual or entity. Common examples are credit card, mortgage, car loan and medical debt

Debtor-individual or entity that owes debts and debtor is primary term used to describe individual or entity filing bankruptcy.

Creditor-individual or entity who is owed a debt by debtor.

Secured Creditor- this creditor is owed a debt which is secured by collateral which they can take action to take possession of and sell to satisfy debt owed if debtor fails to pay debt. One common example is lender holding secured mortgage on home, which is the collateral and lender has right to foreclose if debtor defaults on mortgage. Another example is auto loan where vehicle is collateral which lender can repossess and auction of if debtor defaults.

Unsecured Creditor-there is no collateral securing this creditor's debt- most common example credit card debt.

Real Property- land with or without home or other building located on it.

Asset-personal or real property owned by debtor. In bankruptcy assets that need to be disclosed can take many forms from the obvious like bank accounts and homes to less obvious like potential tax refunds and law suits brought by debtors against other parties.

Bankruptcy Estate-upon filing bankruptcy all of the debtor's property becomes property of the bankruptcy estate

Exemptions-certain property of the debtor can be exempted out of the bankruptcy estate using state or federal exemptions allowing debtor to keep exempt personal and real property. Common examples are homestead exemption for a debtor's principal residences and motor vehicle exemptions. A debtor must choose at the time of filing to use either the federal exemptions which are uniform in all states or state exemptions which vary by state.

Chapter 7 Trustee-attorney assigned by court from local panel of trustees whose main function is to determine if Chapter 7 debtor has non-exempt assets he can sell for the benefit of unsecured creditors. This trustee conducts the Meeting of Creditors prior to which he will have reviewed requisite financial documents provided by debtor's counsel and at the meeting question the debtor under oath with his counsel present to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information listed in their bankruptcy schedules. It is very unusual for actual creditors to attend the meeting of creditors since bankruptcy has evolved to have the Chapter 7 trustee represent their best interests at this meeting.

Discharge-this describes the goal sought by the debtor by filing bankruptcy. The issuance of the notice of discharge which occurs 60 days after the meeting of creditors terminates all debts owed by the debtor which are subject to discharge. For example this includes unsecured debt like credit cards and medical bills. There are exceptions to discharge and distinctions to be made by the effect of discharge on unsecured vs. secured debt which I shall make a topic of a future post to this blog.

     This post was an attempt to help consumers understand some common bankruptcy terms and only scratches the service of this complex area of law. I hope you found it helpful and will continue to try to provide more helpful information with future posts to this blog.

Can I Keep My Car if I File Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in Connecticut?

                   Most of my Chapter 7 Bankruptcy clients own a car and one of the first questions they ask me is can they keep their car if they file bankruptcy.  In most cases the answer is yes whether they own their vehicles outright or they are secured by auto loans. Debtors in Connecticut are entitled to use either the Federal or Connecticut asset exemptions in Connecticut.  The Federal exemptions under the Bankruptcy Code which are the most common exemptions my clients use provide a motor vehicle exemption up to $3,675 of the car’s value which by itself may appear to pose a problem to some debtors who own their vehicles outright. This problem of excess value above the $3,675 figure is usually solved by application of the "wild card" exemption which provides an additional $1,225 plus up to $11,500 of the unused portion of the $22,975.00 federal homestead exemption. This automatically means that for all renters they have $16,400.00 to apply to their vehicle(s) and bank accounts with their household items, jewelry and retirement assets(if any) covered by other asset exemptions. Most homeowners who consult with me to file bankruptcy either have no or so little equity in their homes that there are sufficient exemptions available to them to allow them to keep their cars as well.

For those clients with car loans most vehicles are under secured and no exemptions are needed and if there is some equity there are more than enough exemptions to cover same. In most cases this holds true whether they rent or own their homes. For individual homeowners with equity in excess of $22,975 or joint homeowners in excess of $45,950 who wish to retain their homes they have to use the Connecticut exemptions which provides an exemption up to $75,000 for the equity in their homes. Unfortunately the motor vehicle exemption is only $3,500 with a wild card exemption of only $1,000. They are instances when faced with this situation and a client who owns a car with a value in excess of the $3,500 to $4,500 filing bankruptcy puts the car's equity at risk. When it's close I have had clients file and negotiate a buy out of the difference above the exemption with the trustee. With cars that have more significant value this may not be an option.

         

The second issue concerning the retention of your motor vehicle has to do with the reaffirmation of auto loans. In 2005 the Bankruptcy Code was amended in an attempt to remove what is known as the "ride through" or "retain and pay" option with regard to car loans in bankruptcy. Per the amended code your options were limited to surrendering  your vehicle or retaining via redemption(payoff) or reaffirmation as listed on a form entitled "Statement of Intention" to be filed with the court for service on your creditors with your Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing. I have yet to meet with a bankruptcy client who is in a position to redeem their vehicle. For those who want to retain their vehicles the issue of reaffirmation usually must be addressed. In simple terms when a reaffirmation agreement is signed by the debtor and lender it is filed with court and the auto loan debt is not discharged by the bankruptcy and is paid and reported on debtor's credit report as if no bankruptcy were filed. For auto loans other than those from credit unions the reaffirmation agreement form requires that the debtor's attorney to sign off that the reaffirmation agreement does not impose an undue hardship on the debtor. In most cases this is not possible due to the fact the secured debt exceeds the value of the vehicle and/or the debtors' current income and expenses. In recognition of this dilemma the Connecticut legislature in 2009 came to the rescue with a revision of CGS section 36a-785 clearly stating the filing of a Chapter 7 by itself does not constitute a default of an auto loan allowing a lender to repossess a secured vehicle. The practical effect of this revision was to take the teeth out of the 2005 code amendment and allow for the continuance of the “retain and pay” option without reaffirmation of car loans in Connecticut. This fact seems to have been acknowledged by all auto lenders who have been educated about this state statute by the bankruptcy attorneys in this state. Therefore, in practically all my cases my clients keep their cars with the debts discharged and have the option to continue to pay their car loans and keep their cars. If their loans become too difficult to pay in the future or their cars break down they can stop paying and let the lender take back their cars without any liability for the loan balance due. At this point this post is already longer than I intended and I will leave the issue of leased cars in bankruptcy which is less cut and dry for a future post to my blog.

I Want To File Chapter 7 Bankruptcy My Spouse Does Not What Should I Do?

     As a Connecticut bankruptcy attorney I sometimes meet with prospective married clients who seek to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy individually. Initially I have to bring to their attention that despite their request to file on their own their spouse's income has to be taken into consideration to determine their ability to file both under the means test which has been discussed in prior posts on this blog as well their joint income compared to their joint expenses. Assuming the non-filing spouse's income does not pose a roadblock to filing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy the next issue I address with these clients is the advisability of filing jointly with their spouse instead of individually. The whole idea of the fresh start from a Chapter 7 filing is defeated if only one spouse files and receives a discharge of their debts, but the other spouse is still left with his own burdensome debt that could have been discharged in a joint filing. In these cases there is usually an initial reluctance on the part of the spouse who wants to avoid filing bankruptcy which requires my meeting with them and stressing the advantages of filing jointly to remove all of the family debts not just their spouse's. The fees and costs are almost the same for filing together so that does not pose a barrier to a joint filing. Each situation is unique and in some cases where it may be advisable for the benefit of both spouses to file jointly one spouse may just be philosophically or emotionally opposed to filing bankruptcy. In such cases I do my best to convince the reluctant spouse that their family will truly benefit from the Chapter 7 filing by filing jointly and sometimes I am successful. In other cases when I am not and one spouse still wants to proceed they can as long the other spouse is willing to cooperate to the extent of providing the necessary income and expense information for their spouse's Chapter 7 filing.

     There are clearly situations where it does make sense for only one spouse to file. One common situation is a recently married couple where one spouse has accumulated debt prior to their marriage, but the other spouse is in relatively good financial shape and their combined income still allows for a Chapter 7  filing by the one spouse. This allows the non-filing spouse to preserve their good credit. It also makes even more sense for the spouse with the problem debt to file Chapter 7 before getting married especially in cases where there may be a means test issue due to the prospective spouse's income once they are married. Another fact scenario where it is advisable for only one spouse to file Chapter 7 is where the other spouse may possess non-exempt assets that would be taken or sold for the benefit of creditors if they file jointly. There also may be situations where delaying one spouse's Chapter 7 filing to allow for a joint filing is advisable. One example of this situation is where one spouse may have tax debt that will become dischargeable if the filing is delayed. Another example is where one spouse may have made a preferential transfer payment for a debt due to a relative within the past year. When the appropriate time has expired to allow both spouses with problem debt to file it definitely makes sense to do so. Again as stated above each situation is unique based on the particular facts involved and stresses the need for any spouse considering filing bankruptcy to meet with an experienced bankruptcy attorney to determine how and when to file.

What Should I file Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy?

               An initial question that needs to be addressed when a consumer debtor wants to file bankruptcy is what Chapter they should file under. In practically all consumer cases Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 are the two options that may be available. Chapter 7 is usually the preferred alternative for debtors with significant unsecured debt. In Connecticut qualified debtors can file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and have their discharge entered within sixty days of the 341 creditors meeting. This usually results in a discharge being entered less than four months from the date of filing. From that point forward the debtor’s credit will start to improve as long as they do not incur delinquent debt going forward. In most consumer cases debtors can retain their property in a Chapter 7 including even homeowners’ current with their mortgage payments by applying the appropriate exemption to said property.

Chapter 13 is a payment plan bankruptcy that is most commonly used by homeowners to save their homes from foreclosure. Homeowners who have had a disruption in their income or medical crisis causing them to default on their mortgage can file a three to five year payment plan to catch up on their mortgage and stop the loss of their home by foreclosure if they have sufficient income to fund a plan. Depending on the amount of non-exempt assets, if any, and the debtors' income and expenses a debtor may be required to pay from zero to one hundred percent of their unsecured creditors under their plan. For debtors with high unsecured debt who do not qualify for Chapter 7 due to the means test or possible asset issues Chapter 13 may be their only bankruptcy option. In their Chapter 13 they will usually be required to pay some or all of their unsecured debts over a five year period and the discharge of any debt is delayed until the completion of their plan. The Chapter 13 trustee’s goal is to maximize the recovery for creditors so the monthly plan payments may stretch the debtor’s budget thin for that five year period and it may require some belt tightening for the successful completion of their plan. Chapter 13 involves more work than a Chapter 7 and consequently the legal fees are higher. This does not mean Chapter 13 is not a good option for debtors. As indicated above it clearly serves the homeowners best who have suffered an interruption in their income and fallen behind on their mortgages allowing them stop foreclosure and catch up. For those with unsecured debt who do not qualify for Chapter 7 a Chapter 13 does provide an ordered plan to pay back this debt while stopping the accumulation of high penalty interest and late charges with the benefit of the bankruptcy stay preventing and stopping any collection litigation and any post judgment wage garnishments and bank executions. Any debt not paid through the plan is discharged including debts from unsecured creditors who fail to file proofs of claim by the court appointed deadline.  The key difference in the two Chapters is that Chapter 7 debtors’ fresh start will begin approximately four months from their filing date while Chapter 13 debtors are looking at a minimum of three years of plan payments before they can put their financial problems behind them.

                                         

Bankruptcy Allows You to Keep Your 401k and IRAs so Don't Liquidate to Pay Your Creditors

   The conversion of a 401k or ira to pay creditors can be avoided by filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. These types of retirement accounts are exempt assets and can be kept for their  future intended usage as retirement income. It is a mistake to convert an exempt asset like a 401k into a non-exempt asset by taking a 401k advance and deposit it into a personal bank account. The fact the funds can be traced back to the exempt 401k does not change the fact that they are no longer exempt. This mistake can be compounded by paying creditors with it if you could instead qualify for a discharge of your debts under Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Also even if you do not pay creditors with these funds what may appear to be a logical decision to deposit these funds into a relative's bank account to avoid any bank executions from outstanding judgments is a problem since the asset is now now longer exempt and has been transferred to an insider which under the Bankruptcy Code the Chapter 7 trustees can treat as an avoidable transfer for two years prior to the bankruptcy filing. Even if these funds have been paid back to the debtor prior to filing that does not cure the fraudulent conveyance under the terms of the Code and the relative who was doing the debtor a favor is subject to suit by a bankruptcy trustee for the amount transferred.  Whenever faced with overwhelming debts before you liquidate your retirement accounts you should consult with a bankruptcy attorney to review your options to see if you can keep these accounts and discharge the debts with a bankruptcy filing.

When is The Appropriate Time to File Chapter 7 Bankruptcy? Part 2 Income Issues

       Although income considerations were always a factor in determining when and if to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy the creation of the Mean Test by the amendments to the Bankruptcy Code in 2005 added more to consider in making this decision. In simple terms the Chapter 7 means test uses the IRS median income based on household size and applicable state to first determine if a debtor has to satisfy the means test in order to qualify for Chapter 7. For example for a three person family in Connecticut the current median income is $82,797.00. If the debtors' combined income for the six-month period immediately preceding a bankruptcy filing calculated on an annual basis equals less than the $82,797.00 there is no “presumption of abuse" and no need to complete the means test. If the opposite is true than the means test needs to be completed which makes the filing more difficult due to the arbitrary means test expense calculations and the strong likelihood of a United States trustee audit of the file to determine eligibility for discharge. This means in cases where debtors' incomes are close to the median income and fluctuate from month to month the timing of the filing can determine whether the means test comes into play or not.  Clearly all other factors aside the appropriate time to file is when the six month income brings the debtor below the median income to avoid the means test. This by itself will not determine whether debtors may file Chapter 7.  There are still the income and expenses schedules that need to be completed for which the income and monthly expenses for the next 12 months are projected. These schedules are based on actual figures and allow debtors to take into account recurring expenses like student loans which the means test does not.  I find that in most cases if a debtor has reached their financial bottom and reached out to me to help them that if their income falls below the means test median income they usually qualify for a Chapter 7 discharge. 

     Another factor to look at when reviewing income and the means test is the household size of the debtors. The definition of household size is not necessarily just the nuclear family. If an elderly relative or sibling with little or no income contribution to the debtors' household income lives with the debtors' family for the six month period prior to filing they can be included in household size. In some cases this increase in household size can make the difference whether the debtors have to pass the means test or not.  Finally, if it turns out that the debtors have to pass the means test it does not mean they automatically will not qualify for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Each case is unique and in cases where the debtors have large secured debts due to mortgages and car loans and they intend to keep these assets there is a stronger likelihood that they will pass the means test. This may also be the case where a debtor has high recurring medical costs due to a medical condition which can be viewed as a special circumstance under the means test. I had a case like this and after providing the necessary doctor reports and proof of medical expenses to the US Trustee my client obtained her discharge. These audits are not easy, but if debtors can provide the requisite documents to the US trustee to satisfy their audit they can obtain a discharge.