This individual earns over $100,000 annually, but, unfortunately he used to earn more than double this amount.  His problem was not the mortgage, but his other bills, including a very high car payment and a mortgage payment arising from a failing real estate investment.

Not surprisingly the foreclosure notice got his attention.  He immediately took action by calling me to discuss Chapter 13 bankruptcy and by contacting his mortgage company to discuss repayment options.   By the Wednesday prior to the pending foreclosure sale scheduled for the following Tuesday, my client had provided me with enough information so that I could prepare a rough draft of a Chapter 13.   In this case, by the way, my client and I entered into an agreement whereby he paid me around $300 to open a file and to start entering information into my petition preparation program.

On the pre-foreclosure Wednesday he called to say that after a lot of discussion he was expecting a decision the next day from his mortgage company but that if he did not hear from them by mid-day on Thursday, we would be proceeding with the Chapter 13.  A few hours later he called back to say that his mortgage company had agreed to postpone the foreclosure until September and that the Chapter 13 was on hold for now.

Let's analyze what my client did right and what he did wrong.

On the positive side, he did the following right:

• he did not panic – he approached the problem as a business problem not as a personal, moral failure
• he began to address the problem early.  His first contact with me was literally the day he received the foreclosure notice.  He correctly guessed that the negotiation process with the lender would take several weeks
• he took a two step approach to the problem – he opened negotiations with his lender, and at the same time he started planning for a Chapter 13
• he retained me early on in the process and paid me a small sum ($300) to start the petition preparation process.  He also obtained his credit counseling certificate shortly after our first meeting.  Contrast that to some of the potential bankruptcy filers who call me on the Friday before foreclosure looking to start the process.
• he convinced his lender to delay the foreclosure by two months – a 2 month delay is preferable to a 1 month delay in that my client now has enough time to try and sell his home

Now, what did he do wrong?

• my main criticism is his failure to get a written confirmation of the suspension of the foreclosure.  What if the lender's representative failed to communicate with the foreclosing attorney?  What if the lender's representative is simply dishonest?  Can a verbal promise by a lender's representative to delay a foreclosure be enforceable?  What would the remedy be?

I am very wary of relying on verbal promises.  In law school, my contracts professor once made the comment that "an oral contract is worth the paper it is written on," and I do not disagree.

I did find a California state appellate case in which an appeals court found that a homeowner who relied to his detriment on a broken promise by a lender to delay a foreclosure had a cause of action for money damages.  However, even in this California case (which would not serve as binding precedent in Georgia) the foreclosure was not reversed and the only issue to be considered by the trial court on appeal was money damages.  Add to this months and months of delay and I wonder if the homeowner in the California case felt that he won anything.  (Thanks to Michael Renne and his San Francisco Bankruptcy Law blog for his post about Garcia v. World Savings.)

When your home is at risk, I would not rely on any verbal promises from your mortgage company.  I would also not rely on an email as the admissability of emails as evidence is questionable.  Instead I would suggest that you ask for a faxed letter from your lender or its attorney on letterhead, with the original mailed to you.  Further, if you enter into an agreement with the lender directly, you should contact the foreclosing attorney's office (with a copy of the foreclosure suspension letter) to confirm that they are aware of the deal as well.

The term "exemptions" refers to property you own that is protected from the reach of the trustee or creditors.   For example, every state provides for exemptions that include your clothes, a certain amount of household goods, a certain amount of equity your car, and a certain amount of equity in your home.   Georgia has fairly stingy exemptions – you can read the Georgia exemption law by clicking on the link.

When property is declared as exempt, it does not count for purposes of counting up your assets.   If you own property that exceeds the exemption available to you, that property could be seized and sold by a Chapter 7 trustee or it could force you to pay back a higher percentage of your unsecured debt in a Chapter 13.  Exemption planning and exemption calculation are important functions for consumer bankruptcy lawyers.

The Supreme Court decision in Schwab v. Reilly requires debtors and their attorneys to be more exact when identifying exemptions, and applies to cases filed in Georgia and everywhere else in the United States.   The article that follows is a guest post written for this blog by Brandon Moreno, Vice President of the Utah Bankruptcy Hotline.  The Utah Bankruptcy Hotline maintains a network of unaffiliated Utah bankruptcy lawyers who provide debt relief and bankruptcy counsel to consumers in Utah.

On June 17, in Schwab v. Reilly, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that limits the extent to which individuals filing under Chapter 7 can exempt their property from the bankruptcy estate.  The case arose out of the interplay between two important rules.  One imposes dollar-value limits on the extent to which a debtor can exempt certain types of property.  The other requires interested parties to object to a debtor's claimed exemptions within 30 days after the conclusion of the creditors' meeting, or else lose the ability to retain any of that property for the bankruptcy estate.

The question in Schwab was, what happens when a debtor both reports an asset with an estimated market value and claims an exemption for the asset equal to the market value, the trustee does not object because the claimed exemption falls within the applicable-dollar value limit, and it later becomes apparent that the asset's true market value exceeds the claimed value and the applicable dollar-value limit?  According to some lower courts, the trustee's failure to object entitled the debtor to an exemption equal to the entire market value, regardless of whether that value exceeded the limit imposed by the rules.  In Schwab, however, the Supreme Court rejected that approach.  According to the Court, the trustee need not have objected to the exemption to preserve the estate's ability to recover value in the asset beyond the value the debtor declared exempt.  The rationale for this conclusion was that the trustee had no basis for objecting in the first place–on its face, the exemption appeared to comply with the limit imposed by the rules, and there was no way of knowing beforehand that the asset would appreciate in value beyond the limit.

The Court's analysis was somewhat complex, but an example helps to illustrate the effect of the ruling.  Imagine that an individual files for Chapter 7 protection and reports an asset–in this example, office equipment–to which he assigns an estimated market value of $5,000, that he claims a $5,000 exemption for the equipment, and that the applicable dollar-value limit on office equipment exemptions is also $5,000.  Given the dollar-value limit, the trustee concludes that the claimed exemption is appropriate and therefore does not object.  The thirty-day objection period then passes, and a third-party appraises the equipment and assigns a market value of $8,000.  Under the prior approach of some lower courts, the trustee's failure to object would have entitled the debtor to an $8,000 exemption for the equipment.  But Schwab invalidates that approach and establishes that the debtor will be entitled to an office equipment exemption of $5,000, even though the true value of the equipment exceeds that amount by $3,000.  The $3,000 remainder goes to the bankruptcy estate, to be distributed among the creditors.

For individuals contemplating Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the lesson of Schwab is twofold:  First, even if you accurately report an asset's value and claim a valid exemption equal to that value, you cannot later capture any serendipitous increase in value beyond the limits imposed by the rules.  Second, if for some reason it is important to you to exempt the full market value of an asset or the asset itself, rather than a particular monetized interest in the asset, Schwab suggests that it might be appropriate to claim an exemption for "full fair market value (FMV)" or "100% of FMV."  Thus, going back to the example above, the debtor might try to claim an exemption of "100% of FMV" for his office equipment, rather than $5,000.  A court could reject this claim if it later became apparent that fair market value exceeds the $5,000 limit.  But Schwab also suggests that phrasing an exemption claim in this manner effectively places other parties on notice that the debtor seeks to exempt the entirety of the asset's value. If a debtor provides this notice and others nevertheless fail to object, the debtor may be able to keep a subsequent increase in market value beyond the otherwise applicable dollar limit.

Because the bankruptcy process can seem informal, it can be easy to forget that a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 filing is made up of documents filed in a federal district court and subject to investigation by the F.B.I.

Attorney Gini Nelson, a New Mexico bankruptcy lawyer, recently published a post about bankruptcy fraud in the Bankruptcy Law Network blog.  Gini's post includes a link to the IRS.gov site containing examples of bankruptcy fraud investigations.   I found the IRS.gov link especially interesting in that one can get a sense of the type of fraud that bankruptcy debtors have attempted and the level of fraudulent activity that generated prosecution.  Given the highly interconnected and electronic public record access that is available to bankruptcy trustees as well as government investigators I can't believe any of these folks believed that they would not be caught.

The issue in Lanning is one that has troubled bankruptcy lawyers since 2005, when the "means test" was added to the Bankruptcy Code.   The means test functions as a test – do you have the "means" or disposable income to fund a Chapter 13 repayment plan?  If the means test shows that you do not have sufficient disposable income to make a Chapter 13 work, then you qualify for Chapter 7.

As one of the assistant United States trustees once told me – the purpose of the means test is to disqualify as many people as possible from Chapter 7, and to force them into Chapter 13.

In practice, the means test does not work very well in predicting who can make a Chapter 13 work.  One of the biggest complaints has to do with the mechanical nature of means testing.   To run a means test, I have to gather pay stubs from the past 6 months.  I then create a monthly average, which represents available income.  Next I prepare a means test budget, but I do not use actual expense amounts.  Instead, the means test tells me how much my clients are allowed to spend for food, medicine, utilities, etc.  And where do these budget numbers come from?  Means test numbers are based on IRS budgets used in delinquent tax repayment plans.  In other words, the means test budget allocations are not especially generous.

This explanation of the means test is somewhat oversimplified, but you get the main idea – every bankruptcy debtor's income and expense numbers have to be run through the means test, and not surprisingly this somewhat mechanical test produces some absurd results.

The classic example of absurd results occurs when a debtor has received a Christmas bonus or a one time payment.  That bonus/one time payment has to be included in the monthly income numbers even if it is not guaranteed or likely to happen again.  In other situations a debtor may have earned a comfortable income but has now lost his job – under a strict reading of the means test, he earns too much money to file Chapter 7.  And he can't afford to file a Chapter 13 because he now has no income.

The Supreme Court has injected some common sense into this situation.  In the Lemming case, which was filed in Topeka, Kansas, the debtor's 6 month average was skewed by a one time payment arising from a buyout from her former employer.  The debtor filed a Chapter 13 plan that called for a payment that the debtor could afford based on her actual, current income.  The trustee objected on the grounds that the means test dictated a higher number (that the debtor clearly could not afford based on his actual income).

The Topeka bankruptcy judge agreed with the debtor and approved a plan that Ms. Lemming could afford.  The trustee appealed and lost in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The trustee appealed again and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and held that bankruptcy judges need not apply a "mechanical approach" to means testing in Chapter 13 cases.  Instead, judges should "take into account other known or virtually known certain information about the debtor's future income or expenses."  Rather than looking backwards, judges can take a forward looking approach and consider the realities of a debtor's income.   This forward looking approach should be considered in cases with unusual facts and the Lemming decision should not be construed as an invalidation of the means testing formula.

Despite the Supreme Court's warning that a "forward looking" approach should only be used in limited situations, I suspect that bankruptcy judges will use "Lemming arguments" mitigate some of the harsh results of Chapter 13 in general.   Bankruptcy judges recognize that Chapter 13 cases often do not work because means testing and aggressive trustee arguments force debtors to agree to plans that commit debtors to pay every last dime to the trustee.  Unfortunately, family emergencies and unexpected things happen over the course of a five year bankruptcy plan and many plans will fail – not because the debtor did anything wrong, but because there is no "give" in the plan.

I predict that judges will use the rationale of Lemming to reduce some of the harsh results of the means test and help debtors improve their chances at success in Chapter 13.

If you want to read the Lemming decision, click on the link.  I also found a nice summary of Lemming in attorney Jordan Bublick's fine South Florida bankruptcy blog.

Generally when the owner of a small business leases retail space, the landlord will demand a personal guarantee.  This means, of course, that in the event of a default, the business (which may be a corporation or LLC) faces liability and the business owner personally faces liability.

Given this reality, every small business owner should seek counsel to discussion asset protection options before starting his business, but that is a topic for another day.

If the business fails you might be surprised to learn that the landlord does not necessarily have to take any steps to "mitigate damages" by releasing the retail space.  Instead, the landlord can demand payment for the full value of the lease from the business owner personally.  If the business owner has a house with $100,000 of equity, that equity is therefore at risk, and given that Georgia's bankruptcy exemption statute is stingy ($10,000 for an individual or $20,000 for a married couple filing jointly), bankruptcy may not offer much protection.

I ran across two helpful resources that go into more detail about the landlord's obligations or lack thereof.  The first is a blog post from Atlanta lawyer David Pardue in his Georgia Real Estate Litigation blog.  In his post, David discusses a recent Georgia Court of Appeals case called Sirdah v. North Springs Assocs., LLLP, which was decided by the Court of Appeals in June, 2010.  In the Sirdah case, the Court restated its previous holding that a landlord is under no duty to mitigate damages unless (1) the landlord accepts the tenant's surrender, or (2) the tenant successfully terminates the lease.  In the Sirdah case, the tenant returned his keys to the landlord and argued that by accepting the keys, the landlord accepted the tenant's surrender.  The Court said that accepting the keys did not constitute an acceptance of the surrender.

Another helpful resource is a more extensive article written by attorney Stephanie Everett of the Bloom Law Firm in Atlanta.  In this paper, Stephanie examines the various scenarios that could arise when a tenant breaches a lease and the resulting consequences.  Although Stephanie's article is written for the benefit of landlords, tenants will find the information very helpful as well.

As the law in this area could change, you should not rely on these resources in the absence of counsel.  If you are a small business owner and you are coming to the realization that your business may not survive, you would be wise to consult with a lawyer to discuss your options both in business and in terms of bankruptcy.  I have seen far too many business owners who simply left and discovered after the fact that their bankruptcy options were limited, or too painful.

If this sounds familiar to you and you are struggling with the idea of finding anything positive from your bankruptcy experience, I would encourage you to take a few minutes to think about how and why you ended up in a bankruptcy lawyer's office.  I would also encourage you to consider what you can do differently in the future to make your bankruptcy a one time event.

I also think it is important to recognize that you are by no means alone in facing unsettled financial times.  You may have seen lists containing the names of famous historical figures who filed bankruptcy (like Walt Disney, Larry King, even Wolfgang Mozart).   Now think about the tremendous change that we are all experiencing now.  I recently ran across a blog called 24/7 Wall Street that issues a yearly list of companies or brands it expects to disappear in the next year.  This year's list includes:

• Readers Digest magazine
• Blockbuster Video Stores
• T-Mobile cell phone carrier
• Merrill Lynch stockbrokers
• Radio Shack
• Zales Jewelers
• Kia Motors

Now, I fully expect some of these brands to survive, but I am also certain that one or more may go away. 

Other well known brands that 24/7 says are in trouble include:

• Newsweek
• Eastman Kodak
• Motorola
• Palm (smartphones)
• E*Trade (discount stock brokers)

I am sure that you have heard of many of these companies, and if you think back, most of these businesses were thriving, dominant concerns run by experienced executives from the finest business schools.

The point here is that anyone, and I mean anyone, can get into financial trouble quickly.  Just the other week, for example, I met with two men about bankruptcy, each of whom formerly earned over $1 million annually.

Bankruptcy is certainly not a good thing to experience but in our economic system, a bad decision or two and an unexpected change in the business environment (think about those shrimpers in Louisiana) and there you will be – sitting in a bankruptcy lawyer's office.

Chapter 13 bankruptcy is a tool that can be used to save your home from foreclosure.  But the big question sometimes isn’t “can I save my home,” but “should I save it?"

We all know that there’s been an epidemic of foreclosure resulting from the recent economic downturn.  Jobs were lost, values plummeted, and foreclosures have been on the rise.

So it’s natural to wonder, “can I file Chapter 13 bankruptcy to save my home from foreclosure?”  However, when you meet with a bankruptcy lawyer to explore your options, you need to explore all your options—bankruptcy and otherwise.  And that might be not saving your home.

When you’re having financial problems and seek advice, you should take the opportunity to review your entire financial situation.  Can you afford your vehicle payments? Can you “tighten the belt” and cut back on some unnecessary expenses?  And most significantly, “should you try to save your home?”

In my Charleston, South Carolina bankruptcy practice, I get calls every week from folks facing foreclosure.  The potential bankruptcy client’s question is always a “can we?”  Can we stop foreclosure?  Can we make the lender listen?  Can we catch up on these payments we’ve missed?  Can we protect our home? Can Chapter 13 bankruptcy help?

But I always focus on the “should we.”  Here are some factors to consider when deciding whether you should use Chapter 13 to keep your home:

• Can you afford the mortgage payments?  Do you have large house payments you can’t really afford, perhaps with more than one mortgage?  For example, it may be that you can afford payments of $1800 a month, but your current payments are $2800 per month.  Absent a mortgage modification, that’s a tough nut to crack every month.
• Is your interest rate scheduled to adjust?  It may be that you can afford your payments now but maybe not once your payments adjust.
• Do you have equity in your home?  (Equity is the value of the property less any liens (like mortgages, outstanding taxes, assessments, and home owner’s dues).  Lately, I’ve been getting calls from clients who not only have no equity, but actually have “negative equity.”  For example, your house might be worth $250,000 and you owe $350,000.  If that’s the case, you might not want to try to save your home from foreclosure.  You’d actually have more equity if you rented!
• Is this where you want to live for the indefinite future?  If not, perhaps you should use your financial problems to reevaluate where you want to live.  Perhaps renting in another area would lessen your commute or allow your children to enroll in a better school?

These are just a few factors you should consider.  You should weight all the pros and cons of saving your home. You can then have your bankruptcy lawyer help you decide whether filing Chapter 13 bankruptcy to save your home really makes sense.

Jonathan's note: in addition to the very relevant points Russ makes, let me add this:  if you decide that saving your house in a Chapter 13 does not make sense, a "fresh start" Chapter 7 could be appropriate.  Similarly, you can still file a Chapter 13 to reorganize  your other debts while you surrender your home.   My point – personal bankruptcy is not a "one size fits all" solution – a good bankruptcy lawyer can offer you several options to consider, many of which you may have never considered.

If there is one lament that I hear from my colleagues, it is this – "I wish my clients would call me earlier, when there is time to evaluate bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy options."  Sometimes, when there are only days or hours to go before a foreclosure, an emergency Chapter 13 may be your only choice.   Even if bankruptcy is something you really do not want to think about, you would be wise to establish a relationship with a bankruptcy lawyer before you end up facing a crisis.

I bring this case to your attention for several reasons.  First, you should recognize that Chapter 7 trustees are very conscious of the likelihood that a certain percentage of debtors will fail to disclose assets.  While it may seem that your Chapter 7 trustee is not paying much attention to any particular case, I suspect that trustee training programs provide trustees with profiles of the types of debtors likely to omit important information as well as resources to search for evidence of hidden assets.

In the Texas debtor's case I wonder how he thought that a vehicle sale would be missed by the trustee, given that vehicle liens are public record, as are vehicle registrations.

These days almost any sale of real estate or motor vehicles will generate a paper trail of tax forms, insurance records and title documents.  Further I have personally seen situations where an unhappy ex-wife or a former friend will draft a "poison pen" letter to the trustee will allegations about improper activities by a bankruptcy debtor.

Second, be aware that Chapter 7 trustees and the U.S. trustee like to pursue fraud cases periodically to send a message to debtors and debtors' lawyers that the trustees are paying attention.   Bankruptcy lawyers may be tempted to say "don't worry about it," to avoid extra expense and complication but playing fast and loose with disclosure rules can create major problems for both debtors and their lawyers.

Occasionally I meet with a client who may say something like "between you and me, no one knows this but…."    This type of statement is the last thing that any bankruptcy lawyer wants to hear.  From my perspective that client is really saying "I am thinking about committing a federal crime and I want you to help me."  My license to practice law is not worth the fee for any one case and I have and will continue to decline representation for any client who wants to use my office to file inaccurate schedules.

Nobody likes to surrender assets, especially in a bankruptcy case that may have come about because of factors beyond one's control (such as a layoff, unfair treatment by a lender, a lawsuit judgment that you did not know about).   In most bankruptcy cases you will not lose in assets.   However, losing a few hundred or thousands of dollars is a far better fate than federal prison.

• You are, or have gone through a bankruptcy proceeding
• You are insolvent either before filing a bankruptcy or while your petition is pending;
• You have not paid a dischargeable debt

Let's take a closer look at what the Code actually says.  Pay particular attention to the different language that applies to government employers vs. private employers.

Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code contains the following language:

As to governmental units:

[with limited exceptions] a governmental unit may not deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a license, permit, charter, franchise, or other similar grant to, condition such a grant to, discriminate with respect to such a grant against, deny employment to, terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, a person that is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or a debtor under the Bankruptcy Act, or another person with whom such bankrupt or debtor has been associated, solely because such bankrupt or debtor is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or debtor under the Bankruptcy Act, has been insolvent before the commencement of the case under this title, or during the case but before the debtor is granted or denied a discharge, or has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in the case under this title or that was discharged under the Bankruptcy Act.

As to private employers:

No private employer may terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, an individual who is or has been a debtor under this title, a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act, or an individual associated with such debtor or bankrupt, solely because such debtor or bankrupt—

(3) has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in a case under this title or that was discharged under the Bankruptcy Act.

As you can see, the restrictions on discrimination are not identical.

Specifically the limitation on governmental action against insolvent or bankrupt employees or job applicants includes the following prohibitions:

• deny employment to
• terminate the employment of
• discriminate with respect to employment against

By contrast the limitations on private employers against insolvent or bankruptcy employees includes the following prohibitions:

• terminate the employment of
• discriminate with respect to employment against

Now I have not litigated this issue – but I think that a private employer could make a strong argument that the Bankruptcy Code does not forbid denying employment to an insolvent or bankruptcy individual who is applying for a job.

Further, as Mr. Balena points out, if you are applying for a job as an "at will" employee, a prospective employer does not have to explain why he is not hiring you – it can be for any reason.  I can't imagine that too many employers would specifically put into writing that you are not being hired because of your credit issues.

In my view, within the context of private employment, Section 525 protections have much more relevance to an employee who already has a job as opposed to a job applicant.  Further, I think that Section 525 is somewhat of a toothless tiger in that few employers would specifically identify a bankruptcy as the sole reason for termination (note the language "solely because").

As a practical matter, I cannot recall the last time I observed or even heard of a bankruptcy debtor facing termination or a refusal to hire because of a bankruptcy filing.  The sheer numbers of bankruptcy filings in the Northern District of Georgia, for example, are such that almost every company of any size has had one or more employees go through the bankruptcy process.  Still, I counsel my clients that Section 525 offers very little in the way of real protection and that there is some risk, even if it is small, that their bankruptcy filing could have a negative impact on employment.