I recently answered a question posed by a fellow bankruptcy attorney, and thought you might find the discussion interesting.

Here’s an edited version of my colleague’s question:

A Chapter 7 debtor who is a real estate broker had some listings prepetition.  He opened escrow postpetition, and eventually sold the properties.  He received a $20,000 commission, none of which can be exempted.  The Trustee has demanded all the commission received.  What can be done?

Here’s my response:

Three cases that help to answer the question from different vantage points are: In re Fit zsimmons, 725 F. 2d 1208 (9th Cir. 1984), In re Ryerson, 739 F. 2d 1423 (9th Cir. 1984), and In re Wu, 173 B.R. 411 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1994).

I.    The Key Statutory Provision

According to 11 U.S.C. § 541(a), when a debtor files for bankruptcy protection, the act of filing the papers “creates an estate.”    The prepetition debts then become postpetition claims against that estate.

In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the Chapter 7 Trustee liquidates the estate to produce a dividend to the debtor’s creditors.  The debtor can exclude assets from that estate by appealing to an appropriate exemption table (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 704 for homeowners with equity in their principal residence, and Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 703.140 for everyone else).  Anything the debtor cannot exempt is fair game for the Trustee to seize.

What goes into the estate?  The gist of 11 U.S.C. § 541(a) is that everything the debtor owns or has an interest in on the day of filing the bankruptcy papers, anything the debtor becomes entitled to through bequest, inheritance, devise, or through life insurance proceeds during the 180 days after the petition day, and anything that is the fruit of estate assets (e.g., interest earned on an estate asset) is part of the estate.

But § 541(a)(6) has a carve-out for income earned by the debtor for services rendered postpetition.  It is this provision that is at the heart of the answer to my colleague’s question.
Continue Reading Can The Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee Seize Your Postpetition Commissions?

In 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down an opinion that shed light on the meaning of the word “defalcation” as it is used in the Bankruptcy Code’s list of nondischargeable debts.  The opinion disabuses of their error those who thought the word had something to do with a bathroom bodily function.  In this post we will look at the Supremes’ decision in the larger context of nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

I.  Nondischargeable Debts In A Personal Bankruptcy:  Section 523(a)(4)

As readers of this blog know, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) contains the exceptions to discharge in Chapter 7, 11, 12, and 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b) hardship discharge Chapter 13 bankruptcies.  Included in that list is the following:

A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228 (a), 1228 (b), or 1328 (b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt— . . . for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny.

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

The list of debts that are nondischargeable in a completed Chapter 13 plan discharge ― found in 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a) ― is shorter than the list of exceptions to discharge found in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).  However, § 1328(a) includes § 523(a)(4) by reference, so a debt incurred through “fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny” is never dischargeable in any personal bankruptcy.

However, § 523(a)(4) is not self-executing.  According to 11 U.S.C. § 523(c)(1):

[T]he debtor shall be discharged from a debt of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of subsection (a) of this section, unless, on request of the creditor to whom such debt is owed, and after notice and a hearing, the court determines such debt to be excepted from discharge under paragraph (2), (4), or (6), as the case may be, of subsection (a) of this section.

Thus, the creditor can only make the debt survive the bankruptcy discharge by successfully prosecuting a special kind of lawsuit in the Bankruptcy Court.  That kind of lawsuit is called an adversary proceeding.
Continue Reading What Is Defalcation In Bankruptcy?

I recently received an email that posed an interesting scenario in Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation.  Although I have written on the subject of Chapter 7 liquidation I haven’t addressed the specific fact pattern in detail.  This post fills that lacuna.

The question posed was a bit long, so I will summarize it.  The questioner asked whether a sufficiently large tax lien on a debtor’s principal residence would dissuade a Chapter 7 Trustee from seizing and liquidating the house.  My answer not only deals with the question posed, it also includes a discussion of the exemption implications as well.

The analysis depends primarily on 724(a), 726(a)(4), and 11 U.S.C. §§ 551.  Based on these Code sections, the tax lien has two potentially negative implications to the case.

I.  The Trustee Can Avoid The Tax Lien To Create Equity For The Estate

A.  The Taxing Authority Will Release The Lien

If there appears to be no realizable equity solely because of a tax lien, the Trustee is free to ask the taxing authority ― whether the IRS, or the FTB, or both ― to release the lien to create realizable equity for the bankruptcy estate.  A taxing authority is willing to release a lien in this context because upon liquidation of the asset, its priority tax claim will be paid ahead of the general unsecured debt ― meaning that the taxing authority will get money right away rather than having to wait for the debtor to sell or refinance the property.  In addition, after the Court grants the debtor a discharge, the taxing authority will still have a claim against the debtor for the unpaid, nondischargeable portion of the tax debt.  Thus, from the taxing authority’s perspective, there is no down side to releasing the lien.
Continue Reading Liquidation Of An Asset In A Chapter 7 Bankruptcy II

Is a debt incurred as a result of a DUI (or DWI depending on the argot used where you live) dischargeable in bankruptcy?  There are three parts to the answer.  Although my discussion makes use of California and Ninth Circuit law, its substance will undoubtedly apply, mutatis mutandis, to any jurisdiction in the United States.

I.   A DUI Fine Is Not A Dischargeable Debt

If a debtor tied one on, got behind the wheel, and received a citation for drunk driving, the resultant fine is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.  To establish this requires a two-step analysis.

A.  Bankruptcy Other Than In A Completed Chapter 13 Plan

11 U.S.C. § 523(a) contains the exceptions to discharge in Chapter 7, 11, 12, and 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b) hardship discharge Chapter 13 bankruptcies.  Included in that list is the following:

A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228 (a), 1228 (b), or 1328 (b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt— . . . to the extent such debt is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit . . .

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7) (emphasis added).

 

B.  A Completed Chapter 13 Plan Discharge

The list of debts that are nondischargeable in a completed Chapter 13 plan discharge ― found in 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a) ― is shorter than the list of exceptions to discharge found in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).  In particular, § 523(a)(7) is not included in the Chapter 13 list.  However, 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a)(3) excludes from discharge (emphasis added):  “any debt— . . . for restitution, or a criminal fine, included in a sentence on the debtor’s conviction of a crime . . .”

Is a DUI a crime?  Yes.  Here is the reasoning:
Continue Reading Is A DUI/DWI Debt Dischargeable In Bankruptcy?

I am regularly asked what happens when a Chapter 7 Trustee sells a debtor’s asset in a bankruptcy.  This post answers that question.

I.      Business Chapter 7

If a business files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, the Chapter 7 Trustee assigned to the case seizes all of the business’s assets and liquidates them.  As part of the liquidation the Trustee pays off all encumbrances against the assets — e.g., mortgages against real property — pays the cost of selling the assets, takes the statutory cut found in 11 U.S.C. § 326(a), and distributes the remaining proceeds to the creditors according to the priority rules found in 11 U.S.C. §§ 507(a) and 726(a).

When the smoke all clears the debtor ceases to exist, which is why a business is ineligible for a Chapter 7 discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(1).

II.     Personal Chapter 7

I am pleased to report that although the title of Chapter 7 in the Bankruptcy Code is “Liquidation,” no individual debtors are liquidated in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  However, there can be a liquidation component to the case.

A.  Exempting Assets

I have already written about exempting assets many times — see, e.g., the September 16, 2011 post.  Therefore, I won’t discuss that topic here; other than to say that in a personal Chapter 7 bankruptcy the debtor keeps the exempt assets, while the Chapter 7 Trustee seizes and liquidates the nonexempt assets for the benefit of creditors.

B.  The Liquidation

When faced with a nonexempt asset, a Trustee must answer a question:  Is it worth the time, effort, and expense to do the liquidation?  Here is the analysis the Trustee will do:

1.  How much is the asset worth?

Although the debtor provides an estimated value in the bankruptcy papers, this estimate does not bind the Trustee — even if the estimate was a professional appraisal of the property.  The only way to really determine the value of the asset is to put it on the market because an asset is only worth what the market will pay for it.  Of course, a professional appraisal may dissuade the Trustee from taking further action because the appraisal may indicate the futility of selling the asset due to the required payout discussed below.
Continue Reading Liquidation Of An Asset In A Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

A fellow bankruptcy attorney recently posed an interesting question regarding the dischargeability of an obligation to pay workers compensation insurance premiums.  Here is the exchange I had with him:

Question:

Is money owed to the “State Fund” for unpaid workers compensation insurance premiums by a debtor as a responsible officer of a defunct corporation

Credit bureauMany of my clients express concern over their ability to obtain credit and take out loans after they have gone through a bankruptcy.  I have written in great detail about the topic, and included tips on rebuilding credit after bankruptcy, so I won’t rehash it here.

Instead, I suggest that if you have gone through a bankruptcy, and are in the process of using my tips for rebuilding credit, you get your credit reports each year and review them for errors.  You can do so at http://www.annualcreditreport.com/.

When you go to the site, focus on the credit reports rather than on any ads that may pop up.  After all, the point is to see what’s going on with your credit, not to purchase goods and services you probably don’t need.

As you review the reports, keep in mind that the reporting bureaus rely on your creditors, and not on you, for their information.  Therefore, if a creditor has sent erroneous data the report will contain errors.  These errors can be fixed.
Continue Reading Post-Bankruptcy Credit Reports

Cartoon of man with billA very recent Eleventh Circuit decision, Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 13-12389 (11th Cir., July 10, 2014), highlights an interesting split among the circuits, which makes things ripe for an appeal to the Supremes.

First let’s get a little background.

BACKGROUND

I.                The Automatic Stay And The Discharge Injunction

When a person files for bankruptcy protection, the automatic stay is triggered.  The stay prevents creditors from taking action against the debtor, the debtor’s possessions, and the bankruptcy estate that is created upon filing.  I have written about the automatic stay in many previous posts, so I won’t spend a lot of time exploring it here.

[T]he stay . . . continues until the earliest of —

(A) the time the case is closed;

(B) the time the case is dismissed; or

(C) if the case is a case under chapter 7 of this title concerning an individual or a case under chapter 9, 11, 12, or 13 of this title, the time a discharge is granted or denied.

11 U.S.C. § 362(c) (2).

If the debtor receives a discharge, then once the stay terminates it is replaced by the permanent discharge injunction of 11 U.S.C.  § 524(a), that forever prohibits creditors from attempting to collect discharged debts.

II.              The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

The Bankruptcy Code is federal law, made pursuant to Congress’s enumerated power “to establish . . . uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”  U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4.  It affords debtors marvelous protections — including the automatic stay and the discharge injunction — against the depredations of their creditors.

Another federal law that protects debtors, in this case from debt collectors, is the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) found in 15 U.S. Code § 1692, et seq.  The FDCPA contains significant limitations on what a debt collector can do.  By the way, the limitations here are not on the creditor, just on the collector.

III.            The Doctrine Of Federal Preemption

The U.S. Constitution contains the following provision:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.S. Const., art. VI, para. 2.

This means that federal laws are binding on everyone.  Thus, if there is a conflict between a federal statute and a state statute, the federal statute always wins.  This is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of federal preemption.

But notice what the Constitution does not say.  It does not say anything about the relationship between two federal statutes.  Therefore, if there were an inconsistency between two federal statutes, there is no formula for determining which statute controls.  And if there were no conflict between two federal statutes, there is no indication that one should be preferred above the other.

IV.            The Ninth Circuit’s Walls Decision

In 2002 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F. 3d 502 (9th Cir. 2002), that has created a problem for Ninth Circuit practitioners.
Continue Reading Fair Debt Collection Practices Act And Bankruptcy

Home equityLast Sunday, July 20, 2014, Liz Weston of the L.A. Times gave an interesting answer to a question posed by a reader of the newspaper’s Money Talk feature.  Today’s post adds to Liz’s advice.

The reader had accumulated $28,000 in credit card debt over the previous eight years, and had considerable law school debt and a home mortgage.  He wanted to know whether a home equity loan was a smart choice to solve his problems.

Liz gave a good answer, but the LA Times’ space constraints made it impossible for her to cover things in detail.  Her response included the statement:  “Bankruptcy probably isn’t in the cards for you, of course, given your resources.”  This led me to today’s post.

But first, a caveat:  In order to give the reader an accurate analysis of the application of bankruptcy to his problems, I would need a lot more information.  Thus, what I am about to say focuses on general principles, and is not a substitute for a thorough evaluation of the case using detailed documentation.

I.              Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

I suspect that Liz had Chapter 7 bankruptcy in mind when she made her comment.

In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the debtor’s dischargeable debts are discharged without the creditors getting anything.  Since this is such a big hit on the creditors, there are some limitations.  One such limitation is on what the debtor gets to keep.  The debtor keeps exempt assets,  but the Chapter 7 Trustee assigned to the case seizes and liquidates the nonexempt assets for the benefit of the creditors.

Given that the reader has enough equity that he was considering a home equity line of credit (“HELOC”), it may be that he has too much equity to fully exempt.  If that is the case, then a Chapter 7 bankruptcy might be a poor choice since he and his wife would lose their home to the depredations of the Chapter 7 Trustee assigned to the case.  Again, more detailed information about his assets and encumbrances against them are needed to say for sure.

However, two other chapters of the Bankruptcy Code may be worth considering because debtors filing bankruptcies under those chapters can keep their assets regardless of their value or exempt status.
Continue Reading Comment On Liz Weston’s Column: Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Is An Option

Multiple clocksI recently had an email exchange regarding statute of limitations tolling in bankruptcy, with a friend who is a fellow bankruptcy attorney.  My friend posed a couple of questions based on an interesting fact pattern.  Herewith I offer a slightly edited version of the exchange.

First, here is my friend’s email:

Salient Facts:   Chapter 7 case filed.  Debtor has some accounts receivable.   On the petition filing date, there are 4 months left on the Statue of Limitations to bring an action on the accounts receivable.  The Chapter 7 Trustee sold the accounts receivable to someone we’ll call, Doug.

Questions:

1.  How long does Doug have to bring suit on the accounts receivable he purchased from the Trustee?

2.  Section 108(a) gives the Trustee 2 years from the petition date to commence an action.  It also seems to extend the statute of limitations by some period, which I used to assume was the pendency of the bankruptcy case, ending when it closed.  But now that I read the language, it is not at all clear.  Section 108(a)(1) has the statement:  “[I]ncluding any suspension of such period occurring after the commencement of the case…”; What the heck does that mean?  Does there need to be a formal suspension, or is it automatic, and if so, for how long?

Before I give you my response, here is some helpful background.

I.              Statutes Of Limitations

At the risk of gross oversimplification, we can think of noncriminal law as a mechanism for resolving competing interests.  In particular, litigation is the means we use for resolving disputes without the parties resorting to duels.  If only Aaron Burr had resolved his dispute with Alexander Hamilton through litigation.

One of the goals in this process is to resolve disputes in a reasonably timely fashion, before the witnesses’ memories become distorted with the passage of time.  Therefore, the statutes under which plaintiffs bring their suits contain time windows during which the actions must be initiated.  If a plaintiff fails to take action within the relevant time window, the suit is time-barred.  The plaintiff is said to have “slept on his rights.”
Continue Reading Tolling A Statute Of Limitations In Bankruptcy