Source: http://shenwick.blogspot.com/2010/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:09:37+00:00

Document:
Today, New York State Governor David Paterson signed into law S.7034-A/A.8735-A, which will increase the amount of exemptions in bankruptcy proceedings and money judgments and provide a choice between State and Federal exemptions. The new law will be effective on January 22, 2011. Our previous coverage of these bills can be found here. Happy holidays indeed!
In California, where foreclosures are more abundant than in any other state, homeowners trying to win a loan modification have always had a tough time.
Now they face yet another obstacle: hiring a lawyer.
Sharon Bell, a retiree who lives in Laguna Niguel, southeast of Los Angeles, needs a modification to keep her home. She says she is scared of her bank and its plentiful resources, so much so that she cannot even open its certified letters inquiring where her mortgage payments may be. Yet the half-dozen lawyers she has called have refused to represent her.
Lawyers throughout California say they have no choice but to reject clients like Ms. Bell because of a new state law that sharply restricts how they can be paid. Under the measure, passed overwhelmingly by the State Legislature and backed by the state bar association, lawyers who work on loan modifications cannot receive any money until the work is complete. The bar association says that under the law, clients cannot put retainers in trust accounts.
The law, which has few parallels in other states, was devised to eliminate swindles in which modification firms made promises about what their lawyers could do, charged hefty fees and then disappeared. But foreclosure specialists say there has been an unintended consequence: the honest lawyers can no longer afford to assist Ms. Bell and all the others who feel helpless before lenders that they see as elusive, unyielding and skilled at losing paperwork.
The revelations three months ago that large banks were sloppy and negligent in preparing foreclosure documents underscore just how important it is for distressed homeowners to have representation, lawyers and consumer advocates say. Homeowners whose cases were handled improperly have little way of knowing it. Even if they found out, they would be hard-pressed to challenge a lender without a lawyer.
The problem for lawyers is that even a simple modification, in which the loan is restructured so the borrower can afford the monthly payments, is a marathon, putting off their payday for months if not years. If the bank refuses to come to terms, the client may file for bankruptcy. Then the lawyer will never be paid.
Alice M. Graham, a lawyer in Marina del Rey, said a homeowner in default recently tried to hire her. When Ms. Graham declined, the despairing owner begged her in vain to accept payments under the table.
“The banks have all the lawyers they want, and the consumers are helpless,” Ms. Graham said.
In some states, including New York and Florida, foreclosure proceedings are overseen by courts. In California, the process is more of a private matter between the bank and the homeowner. Through Sept. 30, lenders filed notices of default on 229,843 homes in California this year, according to the research firm MDA DataQuick.
The length of time California households spend in foreclosure, which was rising as owners pursued modifications, fell in the third quarter to 8.7 months, from 9.1 months in the second quarter. That could indicate that the absence of defense lawyers is beginning to accelerate the process.
While lawyers for nonprofits like Mr. Hackett continue to represent clients, they are too overwhelmed to help everyone. “A homeowner in California is going to have an extraordinarily difficult time finding an attorney,” he said.
That group includes Ms. Bell, who owned two properties free and clear and then gave in to a friend’s urging to “put your money to work.” That friend was an agent, and soon Ms. Bell owned two more properties and was making unsecured loans.
The loans went bad, the investments went bust, and Ms. Bell is trying to salvage her home. She wants an advocate but is reluctant to respond to any of the solicitations that fill her mailbox. “I know better,” she said.
Many people did not. Defaulting owners saw television commercials or heard radio ads where a lawyer promised relief. They handed over a few thousand dollars and heard no more.
Two years ago, the state bar association had seven complaints of misconduct in loan modifications. By March 2009, there were more than 100 complaints, and a task force was formed to deal with the problem. Soon, there were thousands of complaints.
Politicians heard complaints, too. Ron Calderon, a state senator who represents several communities east of Los Angeles, sponsored a bill that prohibits advance payments for modifications and required lawyers to warn clients that they could do the job themselves without professional assistance. Lenders were supportive of the bill, Senator Calderon said.
It passed 36 to 4 in September 2009. The maximum punishment is a $10,000 fine and a year in jail.
The law is working well, Senator Calderon said. “You do not need a lawyer,” he said.
Mark Stone, a 56-year-old general contractor in Sierra Madre, feels differently. A few years ago, he got sick with hepatitis C. Unable to work full time, he began to miss mortgage payments. The drugs he was taking left him “a little confused,” he said.
Mr. Stone knew that his condition put him at a disadvantage in negotiations with his bank. So he hired Gregory Royston, a real estate lawyer in Redondo Beach. It took Mr. Royston nearly a year, but he restructured the loan.
The legal bill, paid in advance, was $3,500. “Worth every penny,” said Mr. Stone, who is now back at work.
Mr. Royston said winning modifications was never easy and often impossible. “The banks stymie the borrower, and they really stymie any third party who works on behalf of the borrower,” he said.
A spokesman for the Mortgage Bankers Association said it simply wanted to protect homeowners from fraud. “Be very careful about anyone who wants you to pay them to help you get a loan modification,” said the spokesman, John Mechem.
As for the swindlers singled out by the law, they appear unfazed. The state bar is investigating 2,000 complaints of modification fraud.
“I wish the law had worked,” Ms. Anderson said.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Wells Fargo agreed to modify about 14,900 adjustable-rate loans made by banks it acquired, according to filings released on Monday.
The agreement with the state attorney general will result in more than $2 billion in principal write-downs, interest-rate reductions and other concessions through June 2013, said Franklin Codel, chief financial officer of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.
The deal applies to mortgages marketed as “pick-a-payment” loans by Wachovia and World Savings Bank, a subsidiary of the Golden West Financial Corporation.
Wachovia bought World Savings in 2006, and Wells Fargo bought Wachovia in 2008.
The mortgages were so named because their terms allowed borrowers to make payments at various levels each month, including a payment option that increased the loan’s principal by covering less than the monthly interest owed.
In these troubled economic times, we're getting calls from many potential clients who owe money to the IRS and other taxing authorities. They're seeking our counsel about whether their taxes are dischargeable in bankruptcy or a strategy for dealing with their tax liabilities. Some advice and strategies for the discharge of taxes in bankruptcy are provided below.
1. Trust fund taxes (money withheld from an employee's wages (income tax, social security, and Medicare taxes) by an employer and held in trust until paid to the Treasury) and sales taxes are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
2. So called "old income taxes" for which (i) the tax return was filed more than two years before the bankruptcy filing, (ii) the tax was due more than three years before the bankruptcy filing and (iii) the tax was assessed more than 240 days before the filing of the bankruptcy petition can be discharged in bankruptcy.
3. Taxpayers should file their income tax returns on a timely basis, whether or not they can pay the tax that is due.
4. Never file a fraudulent tax return-fraudulently filed tax returns aren't dischargeable in bankruptcy.
5. If a taxpayer didn't timely file income tax returns for several years and then did a "batch filing" of returns for multiple years, the IRS or other taxing authorities can argue that these batch filings were "an attempt to evade or defeat the tax" and taxes for those years may not be dischargeable, according to both the Bankruptcy Code and case law.
6. A determination of what taxes may be dischargeable in bankruptcy begins with a review of a taxpayer's tax transcript, the types of taxes that are due and the dates the taxes were assessed.
Please note that the interrelationship of taxes and bankruptcy law is quite complex and requires experienced counsel. The general guidelines listed above should not be construed as legal advice for your particular circumstances. Anyone who has questions concerning the dischargeability of taxes in bankruptcy should contact Jim Shenwick.
Changing the face of foreclosure in America will take some time, several state attorneys general said Wednesday, cautioning that an agreement with major lenders over revamped foreclosure practices was not imminent.
Ever since the law enforcement officials from all 50 states signed on last month to a highly publicized investigation of big mortgage lenders, there has been a public tug of war.
The banks, who have been subjected to bad publicity, have played down the investigation and want to see it end as quickly as possible. The state attorneys general, however, say that there is an opportunity to fundamentally change the way banks deal with defaulting borrowers so that more people can stay in their homes by modifying their mortgages, and that they will take the time needed.
The major lenders are scheduled to appear on Capitol Hill on Thursday for the second hearing this week on their foreclosure procedures. The pressure to reach a settlement with the attorneys general will likely intensify after the hearing, which will be led by Representative Maxine Waters, a Democrat from California and outspoken critic of the mortgage lending industry.
But quick fixes are not likely, the attorneys general said. Richard Cordray, the Ohio attorney general who lost his bid for re-election this month, was hesitant to predict a significant outcome.
Some experts were willing to go even further, saying the lenders were impervious to change. For 18 months, the Obama administration has promoted modifications that would keep families in their homes over foreclosures that would kick them out. The programs have had some success but ultimately have done little to stem the tide.
“The banks’ act was to put their tail between their legs, act contrite before Congress and change nothing,” said Adam Levitin, an associate profesor of law at Georgetown University who testified before Congress on Tuesday and will testify again on Thursday.
There were fresh reports on Wednesday that the foreclosure situation was deteriorating. Another 35,000 households entered foreclosure in October, the data company Lender Processing Service said, despite freezes instituted by lenders as they reviewed their practices. About 4.3 million households are either in serious default or in foreclosure.
The housing market also showed fresh signs of trouble. CoreLogic, a data company, said Wednesday that home prices fell 2.8 percent in the last year. Earlier this week, another information company, DataQuick, said sales in the Southern California market had dropped 24 percent in October from last year.
“We agree with the attorneys general that a housing market recovery is vital to restoring economic growth, and the sooner we resolve the outstanding issues, the better,” said Lawrence Di Rita, a Bank of America spokesman.
For the banks, the immediate cost of halting foreclosure is not significant. Brian Moynihan, the chief executive of Bank of America, said it totaled $10 million to $20 million a month. Bank of America has frozen foreclosures in 27 states.
A far greater threat to the broader financial system is the possibility that investors will force financial institutions to buy back hundreds of billions of dollars in soured mortgages, according to a Congressional Research Service report prepared for Thursday’s hearing and obtained by The New York Times.
Loan buybacks could shift $425 billion in losses on mortgage-backed securities from the investors that owned them to the banks that helped originate or assemble the securities, according to the report, far more than most estimates floated on Wall Street.
While bank officials agree that a settlement with the attorneys general is not in the making anytime soon, they remain eager to put the controversy behind them. Bank of America’s reputation, in particular, was hammered last month as the uproar grew over claims that the industry had pursued foreclosures in cases where documents were lost, missing or barely reviewed before they were signed by bank officials, a practice known as robo-signing.
What is more, as the nation’s largest mortgage servicer — it handles roughly 14 million home loans, or one in five American mortgages — it has more to lose as the investigation drags on. The majority of its troubled portfolio was picked up in 2008 when it bought Countrywide, whose aggressive subprime lending practices made it a symbol of industry excess.
As the beneficiary of two government bailouts, both repaid, it has been eager to maintain good relations with regulators.
Representatives from Bank of America and the other main players in the mortgage servicing industry — Ally Financial, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Citigroup — will testify at Thursday’s hearing. A top mortgage executive at Citi plans to testify that the company identified 14,000 foreclosure cases where errors may have been made, including 4,000 where a notary may have been absent when they were signed. The bank, which until now has defended its processes, still insists that in each case the original decision to foreclose was correct and that the paperwork will be refiled.
Mr. Levitin, the Georgetown professor, will argue in Thursday’s testimony that the business model at servicing giants like Bank of America and Wells Fargo “encourages them to cut cut costs wherever possible, even if this involves cutting corners on legal requirements, and to lard on junk fees and in-sourced expenses at inflated prices.” That results in foreclosure, rather than modification, being a better bet for servicers.
In removing such incentives, the attorneys general have the task of encouraging a new system that changes behavior. “We are trying to create a paradigm shift in the way foreclosures are handled,” said Mr. Madigan, the assistant Iowa attorney general.
The following is a talk on this topic given by James H. Shenwick, Esq. at the Douglaston Club on November 10, 2010.
a. Chapter 11-This is the same kind of bankruptcy used by major corporations to reorganize. The primary reason that individuals file for Chapter 11 is that they have too much income and assets or they have debts that fall outside the statutory limits for filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
b. Chapter 13-This is usually the type of bankruptcy individuals file when they want to reorganize their debts, if (for example), they have too much equity in their house. However, this means that the debtor will have to repay a portion of their debts, and their are limits on the amount of debt you can have to qualify for this type of bankruptcy (more on that later).
c. Chapter 7-the most common type of personal bankruptcy, this allows debtors to liquidate or discharge most (but not all) of their debts (again, more on what debts are dischargeable in Chapter 7 bankruptcy later).
a. The nominal unemployment rate is close to 10% [9.6% in September], while the real unemployment rate is closer to 18-19%.
b. The unemployment rate for recent college graduate is 20-21%.
c. We are seeing a record number of foreclosures–most of our personal bankruptcy clients who have purchased a home in the last three to four years are “underwater” (the owner owes more on the mortgages(s) then the home is worth).
d. 41.8 million Americans are on food stamps, and the White House estimates that number will soon rise to 43 million.
III. How can personal bankruptcy be of use?
a. 98% to 99% of our personal bankruptcy clients wind up filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy for the “fresh start” of liquidating most of their debts.
b. In 2005, the New York State legislature increased the homestead exemption from the bankruptcy estate (the assets available to pay their creditors) to $50,000 per spouse. Most of our Chapter 7 clients can reaffirm their mortgages and keep their houses. And the homestead exemption may be increasing soon (more on that later in my talk).
c. Debtors can also reject unfavorable leases and guarantees through a Chapter 7 filing.
d. Congress radically revised and amended Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy laws by enacting the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). These changes include median income and means testing, where if an individual (single, married or with children) has income that exceeds a certain dollar amount, then the bankruptcy filing is considered an abuse of the system and facially they are not permitted to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
e. The first test under the revised code is whether a debtor exceeds the median income for their family size based on their state of residence. Pursuant to the 2005 amendments, a case where the debtor makes less than the median is presumed to be a non-abusive filing, and a below-median debtor may file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Effective March 15, 2010, the median income of a single person in New York State is $46,320. For a family of two, the income threshold for the Median Income Test is $57,902, for a family of three it is $69,174 and for a family of four it is $82,164. Add $7,500 for each individual in excess of four. Median income figures are periodically revised by the Census Bureau.
f. However, all is not lost for a debtor who exceeds his or her state median income threshold. If an individual’s income exceeds the median income for their respective state and family size, they may still be allowed to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy if they pass the so-called “Means Test,” i.e. the results show that the bankruptcy filing is not a presumption of abuse under § 707(b)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Means Test (officially known as Form 22A, “Chapter 7 Statement of Current Monthly Income and Means-Test Calculation”) is one of the most complicated calculations in the law. It consists of eight pages, and is similar to doing a 1040 tax return for an individual. The Means Test incorporates the debts that an individual has (both unsecured and secured (i.e. mortgages and car loans), taxes that they owe, and expenses specified by the IRS in its financial analysis standards–food, clothing, household supplies, personal care, out-of-pocket health care and miscellaneous (National Standards); housing and utilities (non-mortgage expenses), housing and utilities (mortgage/rental expense), with adjustments, transportation (vehicle operation/public transportation/transportation ownership or lease expenses)(you are entitled to an expense allowance in this category regardless of whether you pay the expenses of operating a vehicle and regardless of whether you use public transportation)–as well as many other factors.
g. Another requirement to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy is that the Debtor’s monthly net income (their average monthly income less their average monthly expenses) must be zero or a negative amount.
h. Chapter 13 bankruptcy can useful for debtors who have unincorporated businesses that they want to keep. Like Chapter 7 debtors, Chapter 13 debtors can also exempt up to $2,400 in equity in a motor vehicle and $50,000 in equity in a principal residence from their bankruptcy estate.
i. However, § 109(e) of the Bankruptcy Code places limits who can qualify to be a debtor under Chapter 13. To qualify, a debtor must have regular income and noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts of less than $360,475 and noncontingent, liquidated, secured debts of less than $1,081,400.
a. New York bankruptcy exemptions may be about to undergo their biggest transformation in years. New York State Senate bill S.7034A and Assembly bill A. 8735A have been passed by the Legislature and are expected to be signed into law by Governor Paterson in the very near future.
• Debtors will now be able to choose whether to use the New York exemptions or the federal exemptions. This will be especially useful for Debtors who do not own a home, since the “wildcard” exemption in § 522(d)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code allows Debtors to exempt a significant amount of cash.
b. Student loans are not usually dischargeable in bankruptcy, but the House of Representatives is currently considering H.R. 5043, the “Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2010,” which would allow debt from private loans issued by for-profit lenders to be dischargeable in bankruptcy. H.R. 5043 is currently in the House Judiciary Committee. A similar bill, S. 3219, the “Fairness for Struggling Students Act of 2010,” is currently under consideration in the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.
Here at Shenwick and Associates, we have noticed an uptick in preference actions. For those of you who are not familiar with bankruptcy jargon, a preference action is an adversary proceeding (litigation) commenced by a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee or a Chapter 11 debtor seeking the return of monies that were paid by the company to a creditor, generally within 90 days of the bankruptcy filing. If the creditor is an "insider" (i.e. a relative, or, in the case of a company, a director or officer), the look back period (also known as the "preference period") for a preference action is one year.
1. If a customer or client owes money, and those monies are past due, attempt to have the bill paid by a third party.
2.Attempt to have a third-party guarantee payment of the debt.
3. The ordinary course of business defense -- the more ordinary the payment, the less likely the payment will be considered a preferential transfer. Additionally, if the terms of an invoice are net 30 days, and the invoices are 90 or 120 days past due, have the customer or client pay more recent invoices and avoid payment of the 90 or 120 day invoice.
4. The small payments exception-Under §§ 547(c)(8) and (c)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code, which were added as part of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, Trustees may not avoid a transfer: (1) in a case filed by an individual debtor whose debts are primarily consumer debts, the aggregate value of all property that constitutes or is affected by such transfer is less than $600; or (2) in a case filed by a debtor whose debts are not primarily consumer debts, the aggregate value of all property that constitutes or is affected by such transfer is less than $5,850 (as of April 1, 2010).
5. Attempt to shed your insider status prior to receiving payment if you will be deemed an "insider" under § 101(31) of the Bankruptcy Code.
6. Remember that if you ship goods to a debtor during the preference period and are not paid for those goods, those goods are deemed new value and decrease the amount of the preferential payments.
If you have questions regarding preference or fraudulent conveyance actions, please do not hesitate to contact Jim Shenwick.
The Chief Judge's announcement is here.
WASHINGTON — Who wouldn’t like to settle with the Internal Revenue Service for pennies on the dollar?
In recent years, some 20,000 people have turned to American Tax Relief of Beverly Hills, Calif., to do just that after seeing the company’s advertisements on television, the Internet or in print, where actors portraying clients say the company reduced their back taxes to say, $2,000 from $24,000 or $40,000 from $200,000.
But the Federal Trade Commission said Wednesday that despite collecting $60 million to $100 million in upfront fees from often-desperate clients in recent years, American Tax Relief rarely, if ever, delivered on its promises.
It did, however, according to the F.T.C., deliver $30 million in customers’ funds to the accounts of the company’s owners or their relatives — money that was spent on a $3.4 million house in Beverly Hills; a garage full of cars, including a Ferrari, a Rolls Royce, a Bentley, two Porsches and two Mercedes-Benzes; and other luxuries.
At the F.T.C.’s request, a federal district court judge in Chicago froze the assets of American Tax Relief and its owners on Sept. 24 and appointed a receiver to manage the company. The judge also approved a temporary restraining order prohibiting the company and its owners — Alexander Seung Hahn, who is on probation for an earlier marketing fraud case, and his wife, Joo Hyun Park, from making deceptive claims. The F.T.C. does not have criminal jurisdiction or the ability to assess fines.
According to an affidavit filed in United States District Court in Santa Ana, Calif., Mr. Hahn started American Tax Relief in 1999 after paying a secretary at the tax-relief firm where he worked to steal a copy of its client list.
From 2002 through 2008, 410 different consumers filed 497 complaints against American Tax Relief with the Better Business bureau, the F.T.C., or various law enforcement agencies. The complaints accused the company of failing to negotiate settlements with the I.R.S., resulting in penalties and additional interest charges for the customers, or making unauthorized charges to credit cards or withdrawals from bank accounts.
When customers complained to American Tax Relief that a debt was not settled, the company often blamed the clients for providing incorrect paperwork, missing deadlines or failing to pay all of the required fees, according to court papers.
Some of the $30 million that the F.T.C. says went to pay the personal expenses of Mr. Hahn and his wife were laundered through the accounts of his wife’s parents, Young Soon Park and Il Kon Park, according to the agency.
Mr. Baker of the F.T.C.’s Chicago office said that companies like American Tax Relief had created a widespread misimpression that anyone with an outstanding tax debt could settle with the I.R.S. for less than they owed.
While the I.R.S. does have programs of the type pitched by American Tax Relief — an “offer in compromise” settlement and a “penalty abatement” — the government is likely to accept less than it is owed only if the taxpayer makes an offer that is equal to or greater than the taxpayer’s ability to pay, including the value of all of the taxpayer’s property, cars, bank accounts and other assets.
Most of the clients who received any service from American Tax Relief were eligible for no I.R.S. program other than an installment agreement, which usually requires the full amount of the debt to be paid over time. Installment agreements are easily arranged by individual taxpayers and rarely require expert assistance.
Mr. Vladek said that while the F.T.C. and other agencies determined that American Tax Relief took in about $60 million between January 2004 and October 2008, its continued business since then has probably pushed the total to more than $100 million.
The low price prompted a bidding war and the house is now in contract for $975,000. Mr. Sokich said he expected the bank to counter with a higher price. “We don’t know what the bank’s bottom line is,” he said. He added that because Mr. Hayes has several liens on the house, the first lien is probably the only one that will be repaid in full.
In our continuing series of posts regarding Chapter 13 bankruptcy, this month's topic discusses how much money a debtor must contribute to their Chapter 13 bankruptcy Plan. More specifically, what Plan contribution is required for a debtor whose income is over the median income (in New York State, the median income is currently $46,320 for a family of one, $57,902 for a family of two, $69,174 for a family of three, and $82,164 for a family of four (add $7,500 for each additional individual in excess of four)?
Prior to 2005, a Chapter 13 debtor was required to contribute their disposable income to fund a Chapter 13 plan. The disposable income number was based on the debtor's actual expenses on Schedules I (income) and J (expenses). However, as part of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, Congress added complexity by modifying and further detailing the definition of "disposable income" (in Section 1325(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code) and by requiring that debtors who exceed the median household income for their state contribute their "projected disposable income" to fund a Chapter 13 Plan.
Although "disposable income" is a defined term, both Bankruptcy Courts and bankruptcy attorneys have struggled with the definition of "projected disposable income." Recently, both the Supreme Court (in Hamilton v. Lanning, 560 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 487 (2010)) and the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York (in In re Almonte, 397 B.R. 659 (2008) and In re Mendelson, 412 B.R. 75 (2009), both decided by Bankruptcy Judge Grossman) have addressed this issue.
A common element in all three cases is that in the six months prior to the debtor's bankruptcy filing (which is the lookback period for "current monthly income," the starting point for determining "disposable income") they had non-recurring extraordinary incomesuch as severance pay for being terminated from a job and gifts or loans from friends or family. In these cases, the Chapter 13 Trustees said that based on their interpretation of the meaning of "projected disposable income," the debtor would have to fund a chapter 13 plan strictly based on their Chapter 13 Form 22C "means test" results. Counsel for the Chapter 13 debtors uniformly argued that the means test (in these cases) included sources of income that were extraordinary and not recurring, and this form should not be the sole basis for calculating Plan payments for the Chapter 13 debtor (which could be 36-60 months of future payments).
Judge Grossman in In re Almonte and In re Mendelson and the Supreme Court in Hamilton v. Lanning ruled for the Chapter 13 debtors, and indicated that the chapter 13 monthly payments should not include these extraordinary and non-recurring sources of income. Rather, they should use a "crystal ball" approach and look at the expected future monthly income of the debtor over the applicable commitment period of the proposed Plan.
Any individuals with questions about Chapter 13 bankruptcy should contact Jim Shenwick.
PALM BEACH, Fla. — For the companies that promise relief to Americans confronting swelling credit card balances, these are days of lucrative opportunity.
So lucrative, that an industry trade association, the United States Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives, recently convened here, in the oceanfront confines of the Four Seasons Resort, to forge deals and plot strategy.
Financial Freedom later negotiated for her to make $100 monthly payments toward satisfying her debt to the creditor, but Ms. Robertson rejected that arrangement, no longer trusting the company. She demanded her money back.
She also filed a report with the Better Business Bureau in Dallas, adding to a stack of more than 100 consumer complaints lodged against the company. The bureau gives the company a failing grade of F.

References: § 707
 § 109
 § 522
 § 101
 v. 
 v.