Source: http://ebankruptcyassistants.com/blog/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 17:49:29+00:00

Document:
Medical – Standard medical deductions have been reduced from $60 per person to $54. Senior citizen medical deductions have been reduced from $144 to $130. These changes represent a 10% reduction. Funny, because according to an article in Forbes dated June 15, 2015, healthcare costs in 2015 alone, outpaced overall inflation by 3.2%.
Transportation – The new IRS standards for operating costs for automobiles in the Western Region of the US have fallen from $236 per vehicle to $213 per vehicle, another 10% reduction. Okay, so maybe gas prices have fallen from $4.50 per gallon but I just paid $2.99 a gallon today, and we all know what happens when summer hits.
Auto Finance Deduction – Instead of subtracting 1/60th of the secured auto debt from the old standard of $517, the new standard will be $471, an 8.9% drop. Has there really been an almost 9% fall in the cost of new cars? According to to U.S. News & World Report, “new car prices increased by 1.4 % in October 2015 compared to October 2014.
Food, Clothing & Personal Care – The new Means Test standards show minor reductions varying on the number of people in the household, anywhere from no change to down $15 per person. However, according to the most recent reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Consumer Price Index states that these costs are up 1.53% from March 2015. It looks like the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the IRS are drawing from different economic sources.
Housing Costs – In a cursory review of the California numbers, very, very few housing numbers increased. Almost all housing deductions fell; some by as much as 15% (Sierra County). Only one County, Mariposa, saw its housing deduction increase (about 2%).
Utilities – The IRS data showed parallel reductions for allowable utility costs on a county-by-county basis. This data is similarly indexed by the number of ‘heads-on-beds’ and while there were a few increases, the numbers as a whole show a marked reduction. I wonder how these reductions square with the recent 7% increase in rates for PG&E?
The bottom line is that it will be more difficult for debtors to pass the Means Test and Debtors will be paying higher plan payments in Chapter 13. You may be using more special circumstances and justifying to your trustees actual expenses in the real world!
The income does not match schedule I and there is no explanation attached.
The net income for a business is listed instead of gross.
In some jurisdictions: Taking the IRS standard deduction for a vehicle instead of the actual vehicle amount over sixty months (This is required in Central District California, Riverside Division).
Listing the average taxes over the six month period prior to filing instead of the current tax deduction when debtors have changed their tax deductions moving forward. This applies to other deductions like retirement and life insurance.
Childcare is not listed in the Means Test but is listed on Scheduled J or vice versa.
Telecommunications expenses are inflated and unsupported by evidence.
Proof of charitable contributions are not provided to the trustee.
Proof of money spent on the care of a disabled or elderly family member is not provide to the trustee.
Business expenses are not reviewed to see if the debtor is double dipping on utilities, transportation, insurance, etc.
“Special Circumstances” are listed without providing documentation including a declaration of the debtor.
Whether you, the bankruptcy attorney, are preparing your own petitions or you have someone else preparing petitions for you, make sure you have all the necessary documentation and that the information presented in the petition is accurate. This is especially important if the debtor claims to have extraordinary expenses. It may consume more time up front but back tracking later will create a much greater time and expense deficient.
By now we are all aware of the student debt crisis this country and the lack of relief available through bankruptcy. Borrowers have a huge hurdle when it comes to meeting the undue hardship test, and qualifying for a discharge of their student loan. While the government has addressed the problem through Income Based Repayment Plans, private student loans remain an extreme economic burden for millions of people. While some Courts seem to be loosening the standard for a showing of undue hardship, the noose remains tight. However, there is some good news. In this case of first impression, the Ninth Circuit has found a loophole, allowing for the discharge of certain student loans without a showing of undue hardship. In Meridian University vs. Christoff, BAP No. NC-14-2336-PaJuTa (9th Cir. B.A.P. February 29, 2015) (In re Christoff), the Ninth Circuit addresses whether tuition advanced to debtor by a for-profit college is excepted from discharge pursuant to §523(a)(8)(A)(ii). Debtor, Tarra Nicole Christoff, attended Meridian University, a private for-profit California licensed institution offering studies in psychology. Meridian advanced tuition as credit to be repaid when debtor received her degree. There was no third party lender and debtor did not receive any funds directly from Meridian. Debtor signed a few promissory notes which included interest on the unpaid balance of nine percent per annum, compounded monthly and was to be paid at $350.00 per month. After completing the program, debtor made payments on the notes but subsequently defaulted and filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy. Meridian filed an adversary proceeding against debtor claiming the debt was excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(8)(A)(ii). The Bankruptcy Court granted debtor’s motion for summary judgment and held that debtor’s “loans” were not excepted from discharge under §523(a)(8)(A)(ii). Meridian appealed and the Ninth Circuit BAP (“Panel”) affirmed.
Meridian then argues that the term “loan” as defined in §523(a)(8)(A)(i) is synonymous with the term “funds received” as described in §523(a)(8)(A)(ii) and since the Ninth Circuit has already determined that funds do not need to be exchanged in order for an agreement to be considered a “loan”, Meridian’s arrangement with the debtor constitutes a dischargeable student loan.
After BAPCPA, there were three distinct sections of §523(a)(8) wherein Congress created (A)(i) added (A)(ii) and (B). The creation of new subsections A(i) and A(ii) separated the pre-BAPCPA §523(a)(8) language into two distinct subsections. Debtor argues that since Congress did not use the term “loan” in the newly created (A)(ii), it intended for the exception to discharge to extend to a different type of debt – one where the debtor “received funds”. Therefore, Johnson and McKay don’t apply because those cases dealt with “loans” as defined in (A)(i), and not the newly created (A)(ii) which specifically leaves out the term “loan” and instead reserves the term “funds received”.
The Panel further reviewed Ohio Univ. v. Hawkins (In re Hawkins), 469 F.3d 1316, 1317 (9th Cir. 2006). While Hawkins was another pre-BAPCPA case, it construed the same language at issue in the current case. In Hawkins, Ohio University and the debtor contracted that admission to the medical school would be predicated on debtor practicing medicine in Ohio for at least five years after licensure, otherwise she would be subject to liquidated damages. The Hawkins Court determined that the agreement was not a “loan “as described in §523(a)(8) because the agreement contained arbitrary repayment terms. The Court then had to decide if the agreement was “an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit” (under the second part of pre-BAPCPA §523(a)(8), now §523(a)(8)(A)(ii)). The Court found the plain language to be clear. Funds received means funds received and since debtor did not receive funds, the debt did not meet the requirement for nondischargeability.
The Panel ultimately agreed with the analysis in Hawkins and further agreed with debtor that when Congress severed §523(a)(8) it meant to distinguish “loans” made in connection with non-profit and government agencies from “funds received” by for-profit institutions clearly creating a prerequisite that funds be received from a for profit college in order to be classified as a nondischargeable student debt. While this decision is sure to help many student borrowers seeking bankruptcy relief, undoubtedly the overall problem endures with nearly 1.2 trillion in student loan debt. If we could just get Congress to pass Senator Durbin’s student loan bill, The Fairness for Struggling Students Act of 2015, we would be on our way to deactivating this student loan debt bomb in America.
In 2012, California received $350 million as part of the Attorneys General National Mortgage Lenders Settlement. California’s Attorney General, Kamala Harris, negotiated that borrower assistance programs be covered under the settlement. As a result the settlement funds were earmarked to help troubled borrowers avoid foreclosure by providing counseling and educational services. However, state financial officials diverted a majority of the funds to help relieve California’s deficit by paying debts. Three non-profit groups sued California, and on Friday a judge ruled that California is to refund $331 million to the settlement fund to be used for the specified purpose of helping homeowners avoid foreclosure. The three plaintiffs in the lawsuit were: The National Asian American Coalition, the COR Community Development Corporation and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. According to the plaintiffs, there are “more than 800,000 borrowers in distress in California”. These groups further stated that they have reason to believe other states have also misused the funds, and they intend to take action where it is warranted.
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. was one of the largest for profit secondary education companies in the country. It fell into chapter 11 bankruptcy this spring amidst charges of fraudulent recruitment tactics including: (1) luring students with false employment prospects, (2) encouraging students to lie on their federal aid forms, and (3) charging exorbitant fees. Its subsidiaries include the 150 year old Heald College, Everest, WyoTech, Everest University Online, and Everest College Phoenix. According to an article in the Huff Post, about $3.6 billion in federal student loans were given to students of Corinthian Colleges since 2010. On June 8, 2015, the Department of Education (“DOE”) announced that these students may discharge their federal student loans if they were enrolled in a Corinthian school at or after June 20, 2014 and that school eventually closed. This new measure expands the prior relief which enabled Corinthian students to discharge their student loans if they left a school within 120 days of the school closing. For students who stayed at a school that was sold but feel they were still victims of fraud, and for those students who left a school before the June 20, 2014 deadline, realizing early on that they had been duped, there is a claim for fraud as a defense to repayment. The DOE’s new student loan debt relief guidelines call for a streamlined process for providing relief to this latter group of students. The DOE is to appoint a Special Master to help those students facilitate the claim of fraud against their school. But what sort of red tape and bureaucratic obstacles will students have to overcome? More information can be found at www.studentaid.gov/Corinthian. In the meantime, students raising this defense to repayment can get a forbearance on their student loan while their claim is reviewed. While this helps ease some of the huge student loan debt burdening our country, there is a long way to go. The DOE stated that is it committed to building a better debt relief system for all students who have been victims of abusive career colleges. We shall see.
When you retain a new consumer bankruptcy client, they are usually relieved that you will be resolving their problem. But what your client expects you to do and how they expect you to do it depends on how you set their expectations. If you don’t advise them that there are several steps along the way to discharge, you will see a decrease in client satisfaction. Let’s say your client has paid in full and the next step is to collect documents. Which of the following conversations would you prefer to have?
Attorney: Hi John, I’ve been trying to get a hold of you to collect the documents we need in order to proceed with your bankruptcy case.
Client: What documents? I thought I already filed bankruptcy. I paid you six months ago.
Attorney: You paid an initial retainer fee six months ago, and I just received your final payment last week. We are ready to move forward now and we need your pay stubs and some other documents in order to prepare your petition.
Client: I gave those to you when we first met.
At this point, attorney is afraid to even mention that client also needs to take the credit counseling class.
Attorney: Hi John, I’ve been trying to get a hold of you to collect the documents we need in order to proceed with your bankruptcy case. Do you still have the checklist I provided to you when we met?
Client: Oh sorry, I’ve been really busy. Yes I have the checklist, I will gather the documents and get them to you.
Attorney: Great, can you have them to me by the end of the day so we can start preparing your petition?
Client: Yes I will work on that today.
Attorney: Perfect, and it is also time to take your credit counseling class so once you email the documents to me, go to the website I provided you in your packet and take the class.
Client: Ok I will do that.
In the first conversation, client is confused and frustrated. Why? because he did not know what to expect. All he knew was that he hired an attorney to file his bankruptcy case and now he thinks his attorney isn’t doing a good job. In the second conversation, the client is apologetic and understands it is his responsibility to provide the attorney documents so the attorney can prepare his petition.
So how do you create expectations for your clients? Simple, at the initial consult, explain that there are a several steps to getting a discharge. A great way to do this without overwhelming clients is to provide them with a timeline. This is a quick and easy reference for them to know each step of the way and keep them accountable for moving their case along. Download a customizable timeline here and start including it in your initial consultation packages. Not only will this aid in a smoother process but it will also prompt your client’s memory of your initial discussion and help reduce client calls to your office.
According to the Wall Street Journal, consumer debt is on the rise. The increase in March and April of this year show an increase at an 11.57% annual rate. However, spending for cars and education slowed in pace. The increase in revolving debt could be a sign of an improving economy or a sign that money is tight and people are leaning on credit cards. Either way, this is good news for bankruptcy attorneys because the more that consumers charge debt, the more bankruptcies are on the horizon.
What happens to chapter 13 funds upon conversion to chapter 7?
The last thing you ever want to happen is to have your client’s home sold in a Chapter 7 because of non-exempt equity. But how do you determine a value? The simple answer is that YOU don’t. You are not an appraiser and you do not know the value. I have seen it happen at a 341(a) meeting where client says, “My attorney told me the value was X. He checked Zillow.” Well, if Zillow is wrong so are you. Advising your client to use Zillow could be risky as Zillow is not always an accurate source for values. The best thing to do is properly advise your client you are relying on the value THEY PROVIDE YOU, and if they are not sure what the value is they should seek the advice of an agent who knows their neighborhood, or an appraiser who can provide them an accurate value in writing. Of course, it can’t hurt to check Zillow and if the value of the property is significantly different than what the client believes it to be the more you want your client to get an expert opinion. If the value is even close to being non-exempt, you want to fully advise your client of the risks and consider a Chapter 13. At the end of the day, the only true way to determine value is by putting the house on the market. A trustee won’t care what your appraisal says. If the trustee thinks they can get more for the home they will list it, so be cautious when advising your clients about property values and always put your advice in a signed written memo. I have attached a sample memo that I recommend you have your clients sign on every case with real property regardless of the value. Better safe than sorry.
A common scenario in a Chapter 13 case is for debtors to wipe out a junior mortgage that is wholly unsecured. When proposing a Chapter 13 plan where you will be avoiding the junior mortgage, make sure you are including that lien in the unsecured debt pool. Otherwise, the distribution to unsecured creditors will be disproportionate to what is proposed in the plan, and as we saw in In re Schlegel, 526 B.R. 333 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2015), the case will be dismissed despite the debtors having made five years of payments. In the Schlegel case, the debtors proposed a Chapter 13 plan paying 48% to the unsecured creditors. Subsequently, debtors avoided a second mortgage but failed to add the avoided mortgage to their unsecured debt pool. With a much higher unsecured debt pool than initially proposed, the percentage to the unsecured creditors should have been reduced to what the debtors could afford after contributing all of their disposable income. However, the plan was never modified to make the adjustment. This failure to modify caused the plan to be significantly underfunded. The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that the debtors’ failure to pay the confirmed percentage distribution to unsecured creditors constituted a material default of the plan, and the Court denied a discharge. This case is a reminder to Chapter 13 debtors’ attorneys to not only include avoided liens in the unsecured debt pool but be sure to review all claims, and don’t ignore those notices of intent to pay claims filed by the trustee. I can only image how upset the Schlegels were after five years of performing in a Chapter 13 plan only to be denied a discharge for a simple failure of their attorney to modify the plan.

References: §523
 §523
 §523
 §523
 §523
 §523
 §523
 v. 
 §523
 §523
 §523
 §523