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.

Cram Down of First Mortgage in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

     I have posted before about the more common strategy of stripping completely unsecured second mortgages in Chapter 13 bankruptcies to treat them as unsecured debts with the positive results in many cases that little to none of this now unsecured debt needs to be paid by debtors through their Chapter 13 plans.  There is also the less common, but very beneficial option to cram down first mortgages in Chapter 13 when the facts support it. I will not try to get too technical with code cites and case law that supports it other than it is based on the interworkings of Sections 1322(c)(2) and 1325(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code and for Connecticut residents In Re Latimer, 395 B. R. 304 (Bankr. W. D. N. Y. 2008) a widely respected decision in the Second Circuit which Connecticut is a part of. The term "cram down" means reducing the total amount of the mortgage debt paid thru the Chapter 13 plan. This option is available to debtors whose first mortgage debt has either matured already or matures and is payable in full during the the three to five year term of their plan. The debtor may owe a first mortgage debt well in excess of the market value of their home and this option would let them reduce the total mortgage debt due to the value of their property to be established by an appraisal. This cram down will not work for all debtors since it will depend upon the value of their property and the ability of a particular debtor to payoff this debt in equal monthly installments over the term of their plan. For example, let's take homeowners who did a mortgage modification with a short term balloon payment coming due at maturity during their plan which together with the existing mortgage debt is well in excess of the value of their property:

       Regular Mortgage Debt: $200,000.00
       Balloon Payment:               75,000.00
       Total Due:                        $275,000.00
   
      Property Market Value: $150,000.00

      Mortgage Debt reduced by $125,000.00 to $150,000.00 by cram down motion

    $150,000.00  =  $2,500.00 monthly plan payment toward mortgage for 5 year plan
         60

     In this example the $125,000.00 reduction will be treated as unsecured debt so best case scenario is  a debtor who has enough  monthly income to pay the reduced mortgage debt thru their plan with little to nothing else left to pay unsecured creditors thereby discharging unsecured claims upon completion of their plan. Another point to keep in mind is that with this cram down plan the debtor is only making their plan payments to completely pay off the mortgage debt unlike the more common Chapter 13 plans where debtors make their plan payments toward the mortgage arrearages due at time of filing combined with their regular montlhy post-petition mortgage payments going forward outside of their plans. In summary, if you have an underwater property you want to try and keep with a mortgage maturity date coming due in close to 5 years the exploration of this cram down option with an experienced bankruptcy attorney in your area is advisable.

I Need to File Chapter 7 Bankruptcy When Should I File?

     The premise of this post is that the debtors in question need to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy to discharge their debts and focuses only on the timing of their bankruptcy filings. Also this post refers to the Means Test which is a qualification test and potential roadblock to filing Chapter 7 which is explained in more detail in prior posts on this Blog. The following are some common scenarios based on my experience with past clients with explanations of the appropriate filing times.

     1) Engaged Persons:

           

              A) In a situation where only one of the two future spouses has debt problems filing Chapter 7 before the marriage will be appropriate especially if the combined income of the married couple will put them over the household median and make the filing subject to the means test.  Important to remember once married even if only one spouse files the non-filing spouse's income is included in the means test. There also is the clear advantage of having the future spouse obtain the fresh start from their debts before their marriage thereby eliminating any turmoil these debts may cause between spouses.

             B) Where both parties need to file Chapter 7 it will make sense for them to file as individuals before their marriage if their individual incomes are below the household median for the means test and above if combined. If the combined incomes will not put the married couple above the median income than filing after marriage will likely make more sense as long as their monthly combined net income less their joint expenses does not leave them with too much excess income. One main reason is that they can file together as a married couple thereby eliminating the fees and expenses of two individual filings. Filing together also holds true if one future spouse due to their income cannot file individually under means test, but will qualify together with spouse who may have low income or children that will increase household size so they will avoid means test filing as married couple.

           

      2) Foreclosure Scenarios:

                A) Debtor wants to delay foreclosure and prolong stay in home. Under this scenario as long as there are no other pressing needs to file right away, for example a pending wage execution, delaying the filing till right before a foreclosure auction or on the debtor's law day if there is a judgment of strict foreclosure will maximize the additional delay bankruptcy can provide.

               B)  In a situation where the debtor is already out of the property and not interested in delaying foreclosure best to wait if possible till after title passes via the foreclosure thereby debtor's ownership interest in property terminated prior to bankruptcy along with any liabilities as property owner.           

    3)  Other Scenarios:

             A) Expecting parents may need to wait for the birth of their child to increase their household   size to bring their income below the household median to avoid the means test. There also are the increased expenses of a new born baby that in some cases will eliminate any problematic excess monthly income to qualify for Chapter 7 filing.

            B) Debtor needs to file asap. These situations include where the debtor has:

                 i) Pending Wage execution they want to stop;

                   ii) Pending Bank execution they want to reverse: 

                   iii) Pending judgment they want to avoid;

                   iv) Future income increase means test issue;                                          

                   v)  Need emergency filing to stop auction/law day;and

                   vi) Been worn down by creditor harassment

       

    The above scenarios are just some of the examples I can provide as to appropriate bankruptcy timing. One of my next posts will deal with debtors and divorce including timing and filing issues that are unique to couples at all stages of the divorce process.

       


   

How to Avoid Unwanted Surprises at Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Creditor Meetings?

            It continues to surprise and dismay me what I observe at creditors meetings in Connecticut while I wait for my clients' cases to be called. This is not meant to be an attack on my fellow consumer bankruptcy attorneys in this state most of which are diligent and thorough in the protection of their clients' interests. However, there is a minority which I have noted over the years are less thorough to the detriment of their clients. Case in point recently I was at a creditors meeting where an elderly woman debtor was being questioned by the Chapter 7 trustee. It was clear the debtor’s attorney was meeting the debtor for the first time at this meeting and based on the interchange between the debtor, trustee and this attorney she had little to no prior knowledge what was listed on the debtor's petition and schedules. As has been described before in this blog there are limited bankruptcy exemptions available for a debtor's property which controls what they can keep and what the trustee may take to sell for the benefit of creditors. At this creditors meeting it became clear the debtor's personal property schedules did not match some financial documents she provided to the trustee prior to the meeting. In fact, the debtor at the time of her filing had twice the amount listed in both her bank account and brokerage account more than her wild card exemption. In my view, this error is inexcusable and avoidable. Also, when questioned about other items of value she disclosed she had an indeterminate number of gold coins not listed on her schedules, but could not provide any real details to the trustee requiring further investigation. These errors and omissions makes me question how thorough an investigation was done by the debtor’s law firm prior to filing. Did they just have her complete a bankruptcy questionnaire with no follow-up or questioning by an attorney? Does the debtor’s law firm routinely let their staff meet with clients for the execution of their bankruptcy petition and schedules? Some debtors are more sophisticated than others and this elderly woman clearly needed some extra guidance to help her. I felt particularly bad for her since she indicated to the trustee she had been withdrawing funds monthly from her brokerage account to live off of and now she will have to turn over a good portion of these funds to the trustee. This all could have been avoided with a thorough and diligent pre-filing review of her assets by her lawyer.

        Does this failure rise to the level of malpractice or an ethical violation? Both may be true, but that is not the point of this post. My concern is the proper handling by bankruptcy lawyers of client intakes and filings to avoid these types of surprises. The unfortunate consequences described in my example could have been avoided first by a careful examination of the financial documents provided by the debtor and not filing without verification of all asset values at time of filing. This is a basic and extremely important duty of any bankruptcy attorney. Also, I personally never rely on a client's self-completed worksheet no matter how financially sophisticated they may be. I personally go over and have the clients answer every question with me pre-filing with follow up documentation provided as needed. Based on my experience I know what a trustee will focus at a creditors meeting and ask the same questions. It is during these client conferences that the debtor will disclose a collectible like the above debtor's gold coins, a payment to an insider creditor within the past year, the fact they received an interest in their parent's home for estate planning purposes etc. All problematic issues which could affect their ability to file or in many cases the timing of their filing which likely was the case in my example above. If her attorney had done his job she could have used her liquid funds to live off of till her assets reached a level where she could exempt what she had. Instead her bankruptcy was filed prematurely to her detriment. I advocate a hands-on approach as a bankruptcy attorney and counsel against delegating too much responsibility to staff or the client/debtor to avoid surprises at creditors meetings.

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.

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.

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy or Mortgage Modification What is My Best Option?

            In a perfect world every delinquent homeowner borrower would receive a timely mortgage modification from their lender which neatly fits their current financial situation to save their home. Unfortunately many homeowners who have applied for mortgage modifications have found out that the process moves incredibly slowly especially with the major lenders with the most delinquent loans. Furthermore, when and if a mortgage modification is finally offered it does not offer the relief needed for them to keep their home for the long term. One of the problems is the size of the mortgage arrearage that has accrued during the drawn out mortgage modification process. With government programs like HAMP that  generally do not provide mortgage principal balance reduction the size of these arrearages can offset the effect of  the interest rate deduction and extension of maturity date on the new monthly mortgage payment being offered to homeowners. The problem is when the mortgage arrearage is added to the current principal balance this increase in the principal balance negates the potential reduction offered by the lowered interest rate and extended maturity date. The net result is the borrower being offered a new loan with a principal balance well in excess of the current value of their home with a slightly reduced new mortgage payment. This type of modified loan does not offer any real true benefit to a delinquent homeowner borrower. Therefore, before starting the mortgage modification process with a lender a borrower needs to find out the potential modification programs available for their loan and approval timelines if at all possible. The borrower than should next consult with a bankruptcy attorney to  determine if a Chapter 13 filing is a better option for them than pursuing what may turn out to be a dead end modification.

          The best candidate for a Chapter 13 is a debtor who has suffered a temporary income setback that caused their default, but has now returned to work and said default was not directly attributable to the terms of loan itself. That is it was not an 80/20 high interest loan combination, but instead a loan with a reasonable fixed rate of interest with a monthly payment that now that the borrower is working again is a reasonable amount to pay. The borrower must also have the current ability to pay the extra monthly amount required into a Chapter 13 plan to at least bring the mortgage arrearage current upon completion of the plan. This is an extremely important point. If a borrower does not have sufficient income to fund a plan than a mortgage modification with the necessary lowering of the mortgage payment, if attainable, is the only real option they can pursue to save their home.  However, a borrower who has the current ability to fund a Chapter 13 plan needs to make an important decision. Do they risk applying for a mortgage modification only to be rejected or offered an unacceptable modification and forgo their opportunity to file a Chapter 13 later due to the increase in the mortgage arrearage making it not feasible for them to fund a Chapter 13 plan.  Realistically I have not seen delinquent homeowner borrowers demonstrate the ability to set aside the necessary monthly mortgage payments while applying for a modification to offset the increase in the mortgage arrearage to keep their ability to file Chapter 13 viable. This decision of Chapter 13 versus mortgage modification needs to be made with the advice of bankruptcy counsel who can review the debtor's financials and provide them with a realistic opinion as to the feasibility and success of filing a Chapter 13. The advantage of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy versus a mortgage modification is that the only real party in interest you have to satisfy is the Chapter 13 trustee and the debtor is not subject to the whims of the mortgage lender. If the debtor has sufficient income to support their plan as determined by debtor's counsel and provided to the Chapter 13 trustee the plan will be confirmed. Additional benefits of a Chapter 13 include the possibility of discharging some or all of a debtor's unsecured debt dependent on their assets and income. If a plan is going to include the discharge of unsecured debt wholly unsecured second mortgages can be deemed unsecured by the plan as well judgment liens which impair a debtor's homestead exemption. I have written this blog article based on my experience with debtors over the past several years since the mortgage crisis first started who after one or more years of unsuccessful attempts to obtain a mortgage modification contacted me regarding Chapter 13 as an option only to be told it was no longer feasible due to the amount of their mortgage arrearage. It is my hope that any borrower who is not too delinquent and is weighing their options will consult with a bankruptcy attorney first before blindly applying for a mortgage modification so they can make an informed decision what option best fits their situation.

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.