Mortgage loan delinquencies increased for the eleventh straight quarter.  Payments on 6.25 percent of residential mortgages were sixty days or more past due during the third calendar quarter of 2009.  The delinquency rate during the second quarter was 5.81 percent.  Year over year, mortgage borrower delinquency is up approximately 58 percent from the delinquency rate of 3.96 percent during the third quarter of 2008.  These statistics are gleaned from approximately 27 million anonymous, randonly sampled, individual credit files.  These files represent approximately ten percent of U.S. consumers who have credit.

The highest delinquency rates were found in Nevada and Florida, while the lowest delinquency rates were found in smaller populated states like North and South Dakota and Vermont.

The average national mortgage debt per borrower dropped slightly from $193,811 in the second quarter to $193,121.  On a year over year basis, the third quarter 2009 average was up slightly from $192, 287 in the third quarter of 2008.

While it continues to be a positive sitgn that the increase in mortgage borrower delinquency rates has slowed for three consecutive quarters, we have to keep things in perspective.  Delinquency rates are rising and expected to peak at record levels.  Until the housing market can consistently demonstrate several months of home value appreciation and the unemployment rate improves, mortgage delinquencies will continue to rise.  Unfortunately, as delinquencies rise, home values likewise will become more depressed.

What obligations does a bankruptcy discharge cover?  During the past 20 years, the common practice among bankruptcy lawyers has been to assure debtors in no asset bankruptcy cases–cases in which there are not any non-exempt assets available for distribution to creditors–that even if the debtor failed to list a creditor on his schedules, the obligation will be discharged. This practice arose from a no harm, no foul reading of Bankruptcy Code section 523.

The federal bankruptcy rules permit a bankruptcy court in no asset cases to choose not to fix a bar date in which proofs of claim must be filed. Thus, courts adopting the no harm, no foul reasoning found that there was no date in which to timely file the proof of claim and therefore no triggering of Bankruptcy Code section 523(a)(3)(A). See, e.g., In re Beezley, 994 F.2d 1433, 1435-37 (9th Cir. 1993).

Recently, however, the First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this reasoning, and held that even in a no asset case, if a debt or claim is not scheduled, then the debt is not discharged absent a reopening of the bankruptcy case.

The court’s reasoning in Colonial Surety Co. v. Weizman, 564 F.3d 526 (1st Cir. 2009), is based upon the equities of the situation. Providing notice, even in a no asset case, allows creditors to participate in the case and to argue that there may be assets available. An honest debtor can still have the debt discharged if he asks the bankruptcy court to reopen the case to list the creditor who was inadvertantly omitted and who would have received no benefit from the initial notice. This properly leaves the burden squarely on the debtor’s shoulders to disclose the debt or to explain why it was omitted.

The court appears to protect the institutional integrity of the bankruptcy court so that debtors can not argue that it doesn’t make any difference anyway. Creditors and parties in interest, by this decision, are being afforded a modicum of due process and an opportunity to be heard even in no asset bankruptcy cases.

The lesson to learn from Weizman is to include every possible claim or debt against a debtor on the bankruptcy schedules. We always advise clients to err on the side of over disclosure. Even if a debtor isn’t sure whether a particular debt has been paid or is still owed, we advise the debtor to list the claim. The debtor can always list the creditor as holding a disputed claim. However, by the Colonial Surety case, if a debtor inadvertantly omits a creditor from his bankruptcy filng, it becomes expensive later to move to reopen the case and amend the debtor’s schedules.

Claims that are omitted from the schedules may later be discharged but only after the debtor pays to reopen the case and only provided that the debtor can prove the omission was inadvertant and otherwise innocent.

Every layperson will tell you the same thing: the administration’s Making Home Affordable program is failing to stem the tide of foreclosures. Not only are voluntary mortgage modifications lagging in the face of ever-rising foreclosure figures, but the modifications offered by lenders fail to meet the program’s own requirements, not to mention the needs of the borrowers. The program itself introduces new barriers to the already burdensome process of obtaining a loan modification. Unfortunately, this program represents government at its worst: cumbersome, tedious, expensive and, as it is turning out, useless.

At a recent hearing before the House Financial Services Committee Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts fired a warning shot across the bow of mortgage servicers everywhere: shape up, or watch us pass cramdown legislation, Frank said. Legislation that would allow bankruptcy judgtes to modify mortgages on primary residences is becoming increasingly relevant as reported problems with the program surface.

Tongue in cheek, Congressman Frank said, “The best lobbyists we have for getting bankruptcy legislation passed are the servicers who are not doing a good job of modifying mortgages. And if they do not improve their performance, they improve the chances of that legislation.”

Representatives from the administration testified, however, that while there is room for improvement, the program is on track to meet its goal of assisting 3 million to 4 million borrowers over a period of three years–and a ramp-up period was expected. Forty-eight servicers representing more than 85 percent of the market have signed contracts with the administration. Through August 2009, servicers have extended more than 571,000 loan modification offers, and 360,000 modifications are in the trial period required before the modification becomes permanent.

The problem, however, is that even when operating at full capacity, the program will address no more than one-third of all foreclusres. Consequently, between 2009 and 2012, more than nine million families are expected to lose their homes to foreclosure.

The legislation is failing miserably. This is the reason we advocate the prompt passage of Chapter 13 mortgage cramdown legislation so that the homeowner can finally obtain some meaningful assistance.

This article is the continuation of a September 2nd post on how to find a competent, experienced Indiana bankruptcy lawyer.  In that post, I offered six tips to retain the right lawyer that meets your needs and who will get the job done.  To that end, below are some more steps the reader should take to find a qualified Indiana bankruptcy attorney. 

7. Ask Questions.  Once you have found some candidates, interview them or someone in their law firm.  Be sure to ask:

a. How many bankruptcies do you handle in a month or in a year?

b. How many of those bankruptcies are consumer or business filings?

c. How much access will I have to an attorney during the pendency of my bankruptcy case?

d. If I’m not working directly with you (the lawyer), with whom will I be working?

e. Can I interview the person with whom I will be working?

f. How much of my time will you require throughout the bankruptcy case?

This is a critical decision, so if you get evasive answers, it is probably a red flag that this is not the firm for you.

8. Evaluate the responses.  Your attorney should be available to answer your questions and to timely return phone calls.  In the end, 90% to 95% of people who file for bankruptcy do not have comploicated issues.  It is, however, important to use the interview process to determine whether you can work well with the whole firm as well as a particular attorney.

9. Understand your role.  Go over time frames and filing requirements with the firm.  Make sure you know what is expected of you because if you do your part, you will increase the likelihood of a successful bankruptcy case.  A lawyer who briefs you on your role is probably a keeper.

10. Do Not Hire the Cheapest Lawyer.  You are obviously filing because you do not have alot of cash to spare.  But like most things in life, taking the cheap route in bankruptcy could cost you even more in the end if a bargain attorney makes mistakes.  If you suffered from brain cancer, would you hire the cheapest brain surgeon?

11. Get fee specifics. Find out exactly what the costs of bankruptcy are.  What services are included in your retention agreement and what are not?

12. Stay involved.  Once you hire a lawyer, do not be content to let him handle it alone.  Double check all filings.  Did any of your creditors get dropped off the list?  Remember, it is not just who you know, but what your lawyer knows, especially since the bankruptcy laws were changed in 2005.

Call our office for a free consultation to discuss personal and/or business issues.

Senate Majority Whip, Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), has renewed a pledge to again introduce legislation affording bankruptcy judges the power to modify and otherwise restructure home mortgage loans.  The senator’s last effort failed by 15 votes last April. Durbin’s bill, which is opposed by the mortgage lending industry, would be a welcome tool by debtors who need to restructure their home loans.

Durbin’s new bill might contain ”bank sweeteners” such as affording homeowners extra time to stay in their homes by letting them pay lenders reduced installment payments pending foreclosure.  Presently, in Indiana and many other states nationwide, it’s taking eight months or longer for lenders to foreclose mortgages. Generally, after a lender accelerates and makes demand on a note, the lender will no longer accept installment payments. Consequently, Debtors have been able to stay in their homes without paying their mortgage debt until the sheriff’s sale is completed. Apparently, Durbin may seek to change this practice with his new legislation.

Senator Durbin believes there should be federal funds for cities that implement mandatory mediation between parties to foreclosure proceedings. Further, Durbin posits that those banks failing to significantly contribute to the administration’s goal of 500,000 loan modifications by November 1, 2009 should be penalized. One of those penalties could be a cramdown option, in which judges would lower a loan amount to the fair value of the debtor’s home.

We will be following this legislation closely as it affects many of our clients and prospective clients..

Chapter 11 is the business reorganization section of the Bankruptcy Code.  Sometimes Chapter 11 must be applied to an ailing business so that it can continue operations while reorganizing.  Other times, alternatives to Chapter 11 may be applied that are less expensive and yet just as effective to reorganize a business.

Since last year, the housing bubble burst. The Dow fell over 6,500 points. The commercial credit markets rendered borrowing almost impossible. Lenders, who once competed over loans, are now declining everyone except for the most creditworthy borrowers. Consumers are starting to save, just when the government needs them to spend. As cash becomes scarce and loans become due, businesses need to assess their options.

Chapter 11 is still the first option that most decision-makers think of when grappling with an insolvency situation in their business. Still, that is appropriate. Bankruptcy offers features that are unavailable anywhere else. Under Chapter 11, debtors are afforded the automatic stay, the ability to reject burdensome contracts, and the power to impose a plan that most constituents agree upon and bind holdouts to the deal. These are powerful tools and bankruptcy is often the best, if not the only viable, option for some companies. But bankruptcy should not be the only option that businesses consider. The market for debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing has become scarce. Even when DIP financing is available, its pricing has increased and the usual term of the loan has been shortened.

If a company does not need the tools tafforded under the bankruptcy laws, there may be faster, less expensive, ways to reorganize or liquidate. This is especially true for smaller businesses.

For businesses that need to reorganize while continuing their operations, a composition may be attractive. A composition is simply an agreement between a company and its creditors to restructure the company’s debt. If it can be achieved, it can be quick, quiet, and less expensive than Chapter 11. The main obstacle to a composition’s success is the holdout. If one or more creditors refuse to compromise their claims, a composition does not offer a way to compel them to accept it. Everyone else takes a haircut, while the holdout keeps its full claim and reaps the benefit of an improved balance sheet for its borrower. Of course, that doesn’t sound fair. Well, compositions work only in situations where few creditors hold the majority of the company’s debt.

Shareholders and/or management who need to liquidate a company and provide a cost effective way for creditors to get the proceeds of liquidation have at least two non-bankruptcy options. First, the company’s management can oversee the company’s own liquidation subject to relevant state corporations law and “Going out of Business” statutes, if relevant. Second, they can use an assignment for the benefit of creditors (“ABC”), if the company is located in a state that offers an acceptable ABC process.

Under an ABC, the company chooses an assignee and conveys its assets to the person or entity to conduct that liquidation. Indiana boasts a favorable ABC statute but, interestingly, it is little used by insolvency lawyers. It’s one of Indiana’s best kept secrets!

Once the assignment is perfected, the assignee, not the company or its officers, directors, or shareholders, is responsible for the unpleasant tasks that accompany liquidation, like telling creditors that they will not be paid in full. It does allow, however, the company to choose its liquidator.

In contrast, in bankruptcy court, a trustee or a creditors’ committee is often perceived as always looking for someone to sue, to place blame for a corporate failure. And, while an assignee also has a duty to investigate potential causes of action, assignees are less likely to bring speculative suits viewed more as shakedowns than anything else.

Creditors of a company that undertakes an ABC are often satisfied that a third party is overseeing the liquidation. Moreover, the creditors will enjoy a larger recovery than would be otherwise available in a bankruptcy because of an ABC’s significantly reduced costs, including reduced professional fees.

ABC laws vary from state to state, and in some states an ABC is not a viable option. Many practitioners are unfamiliar with the process. I’ve served many times both as an assignee in an ABC and as bankruptcy trustee so this firm has ample experience in both of these types of proceedings. Where they fit, ABC’s offer significant advantages over bankruptcy.

While many situations, especially those involving companies with public securities, large numbers of executory contracts or unexpired leases, assets in multiple states, or union, pension, or mass tort liabilities require the supervision of a bankruptcy judge under Chapter 11, many other situations do not. You should understand all available alternatives before choosing the right one for your company’s situation.

Often, the first thing a prospective client says in a client meeting is that “I don’t want to be here and filing for bankruptcy relief is the last thing I ever wanted to do.” I’m sympathetic always. My response is usually words to the effect : “Yet, here you are so let’s analyze the problem.”

Depite the fact that a client may have little or no equity in his home (if he owns one), and despite the fact that the client does not have any assets that can be marshalled by a trustee in bankruptcy, the client still has a negative opinion about the word “bankruptcy.”

What I usually say is that bankruptcy makes more sense than decimating retirement accounts and depleting other assets otherwise protected under the bankruptcy laws. The federal bankruptcy laws enacted by Congress are uniform throughout the United States. Consequently, wherever you exercise your rights under the laws, the same statute applies subject to certain state law exemptions.

Unfortunately, when people are in real trouble, they often wait too long to get the relief they need. Bankruptcy is designed to afford folks with a fresh start when no other reasonable alternative exists.

Discharging debts and moving on with your life is often the smartest move a burdened consumer can choose. To those who qualify, Chapter 7 relief discharges most debts. A Chapter 7 discharge generally discharges credit card debts, medical bills, personal loans, and other unsecured debts.

For those who need to stop a foreclosure proceeding or sheriff’s sale, Chapter 13 enables the consumer to pay some or all of his debts through a payment plan but still being afforded protection under the automatic stay provisions of the Code.

Some prospective clients say they need to avoid bankruptcy because they think they have perfect credit. These folks, respectfully, are usually fooling themselves. When one has overwhelming debt, one’s credit isn’t perfect at all. In fact, one may be making timely minimum monthly payments on credit card and other debts, but I explain, if one now applies to a lender for additional loans, one’s application will be rejected based upon the amount of the prospective borrower’s existing debt compared to his income.

The first step to moving towards a debt free future is meeting with an experienced bankruptcy attorney. Our offices provide free, confidential consultations.

When any bankruptcy petition is filed, a powerful federal law immediately cloaks the debtor with protection from creditors. The protection is a federal injunction known as the automatic stay. The automatic stay is a stay of all collection actions against the debtor including, but not limited to, phone calls, dunning by letter or any other communication, collection lawsuits, foreclosures, repossessions, and other types of litigation. In other words, the stay prohibits any creditor from taking any action to collect a debt.

The minute your petition is filed, the law requires that debt collectors stop calling you. It could take a few days for creditors to receive notice of the filing which is mailed by the bankruptcy court.

If a creditor or creditor’s representative calls you after the bankruptcy petition is filed, you need to tell him that you filed for bankruptcy relief and give him the bankruptcy court case number and location.

Once clients retain our law firm, we direct them to tell their creditors they have retained our law firm.  Clients should give the creditors our telephone number. After that information is provided, the creditors are not permitted by law to contact the debtor again, unless the attorney/client arrangement dissolves, or if the debtor does not file for bankruptcy relief within a few months. If a creditor continues to contact the debtor, after the creditor learns that an attorney has been involved, the creditor violates the federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.  Consequently, the debtor has remedies against the creditor.

Once creditors know that their customer has retained counsel, they do not continue to call. Thus, once you retain our law firm, you will receive certain important and valuable protections immediately.

Marion attorney Jeffrey A. Schreiber has been invited to speak at an upcoming continuing legal education seminar entitled “Basic Bankruptcy” scheduled for presentation on October 16, 2009, at the Grand Wayne Convention Center in Fort Wayne. He will be accompanied by the Hon. Robert Grant, the presiding U.S. Bankruptcy Judge in Fort Wayne, along with other experts in the field.

The program is sponsored by the Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum. It is the mission of the Commission for Continuing Legal Education to enhance the quality of legal services and professionalism in Indiana through administering, developing and regulating continuing legal education requirements, mediation training standards, and attorney specialization programs

In May of this year, Congress got it wrong.  This time it was the Senate. 

In a stunning 59-41 vote,  the Senate rejected the Durbin Amendment to the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act which would have sent much needed relief to American homeowners.

While Congress and the president are doling out billions of dollars to bail out, among others,  the banks, and the insurance and automotive industries, American consumers have taken the shaft.  And this legislation, which promised incredible amounts of relief to homeowners, would not have cost taxpayers a penny.

The legislation had significant bipartisan appeal.  It had the ingredients of a populist victory.  Only the Senate could grab defeat from the jaws of victory.  One of the most powerful lobby groups in America–the American Bankers Association–opposed the legislation which is what sounded its death knell.

By the Durbin amendment, 1.7 million mortgages would have been prevented from being foreclosed.  Over $300 billion in home equity for neighboring homeowners, who have made each of their own mortgage payments on time, would have been preserved.  The Durbin Amendment would have created the necessary lender incentives so that consumers could have modified home mortgage loans either outide or within the bankruptcy court.

The objective of the amendment was to encourage mortgage servicers to offer aggressive loan modification to homeowners unable to  pay their mortgage loans.  Compared to the foreclosure alternative, these modifications would be more profitable for the banks, more secure for the families, and more stable for the surrounding neighborhoods.  Borrowers at risk would have received assistance from the bankruptcy courts to restructure loans, but only if the servicer had not first offered to modify the loan outside of court.

If a mortgage servicer provided either a modification offer that reduced the family’s monthly payment to 31 percent or less of their income, or a refinancing offer at conventional rates, the offer would have precluded a borrower from trying to rewrite the terms of his mortgage loan in Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.  In addition, only first mortgages originated before 2009, with outstanding principal less than $729,750, that are at least 60 days delinquent, and for which a foreclosure notice has been sent, would have qualified for modification under Chapter 13.

For those borrowers who did not receive a modification offer from their servicer, the bankruptcy court would have been able to reduce the loan principal to the fair market value of the home, reduce the interest rate to a conventional rate plus a reasonable premium for risk (which currently would be approximately 5.5 percent), and lengthen the term of the loan.

Furthermore, the debtor would have been required to evenly split any price appreciation with the lender to the original principal amount if the home was sold during the term of the Chapter 13 plan.  After all, if we expect the banks to share the downside with the consumer, it’s only fair that that they share in the upside as well.

So, why is a post mortem so important?  We need to know what’s happening on Capitol Hill.  This time the Senate failed.  The next time these issues are raised, we need consumer lobyists, as well as lobbyists for the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, to swing into action and persuade our reps in the senate to vote for this common-sense proposal.

Next Page »