ABI Bankruptcy Blog Exchange

The ABI Bankruptcy Blog Exchange collects several blogs about bankruptcy into one convenient site.
The most recent posts are shown at the top.

Bankruptcy Law Network - Real Lawyers, Real Solutions

The Misery Index reaches 11.3%

Posted: September 7th, 2008, 6:27am PDT by Eugene S. Melchionne, Connecticut Bankruptcy Attorney

The unemployment figures for August 2008 were released this week, reaching an unexpected 6.1%. As a result, the Misery Index is likely to go even higher. The Misery Index is a measure of the rate of inflation and the unemployment rates. The rate attempts to show the pressures placed on consumers in the United States. The [...]
Bankruptcy Can Stop Cancellation of Debt Tax

Posted: September 6th, 2008, 5:01pm PDT by Kent Anderson, Oregon Bankruptcy Attorney

The IRS considers debt that is cancelled, in full or in part, to be taxable income to the debtor to the extent the financial position of the taxpayer has been improved by the debt cancellation. This means that a credit card company settlement can result in an income tax bill from the Internal Revenue Service. It [...]

Georgia Bankruptcy Blog

Georgia School Superindendent Kathy Cox Wins $1 Million On "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?"

Posted: September 6th, 2008, 11:14am PDT

... and the remaining Clayton County School Board members need some of those fifth graders to help them figure out how to hold a meeting.

Credit Slips

Connect the Dots

Posted: September 6th, 2008, 10:43am PDT by Elizabeth Warren

As I was reading last night, I came across three separate little dots of information. The first dot was good news for AmEx, the credit card of choice for higher-income, less financially stressed families, from JD Powers rating company:

American Express ranks highest among all credit card companies and performs well across all of the five customer satisfaction factors. Amex’s customers are generally what the industry calls “transactors” – customers who pay off their bills in full every month and the company focuses on the rewards and benefits of its cardholder experience and it excels in meeting their expectations. Nearly 8 out of ten transactors select their card because of the value they feel they get from its rewards programs, with interest rates of little importance because of their purchasing style.

The second dot was bad news for AmEx:
The second dot was bad news for AmEx:

Credit-card groups were among the key casualties as fears grew of rising defaults. American Express fell 5.3 per cent to $38.75 after Lehman Brothers forecast net charge-offs - a measure of uncollectable debts - on its cards would rise to 8.5 per cent of loans by next year.

The credit card company that probably has the maximum number of customers who pay their bills and has more customers who love their AmEx cards than any other company will likely experience an astonishing 8.5% default rate on its outstanding loans next year. For decades, credit card default rates remained in the 3-4% range. A number like 8.5% puts AmEx credit cards in the same kind of reversal-of-fortune as Countrywide.

The third dot tells what AmEx is up against: Credit card solicitations have dropped back to a mere four billion pre-approved offers in 2008. That's a bit under 40 mail solicitations for every household in America--plus the college and mall marketing, the print ads, the television ads, etc.

I connect the the dots this way: First, the projected defaults for AmEx suggest that trouble is climbing the income ladder. Second, the projected defaults suggest that the economic news is going to get uglier in 2009. And, third, the credit card issuers' plan to avoid complete collapse is to find more people to borrow money, presumably at prices high enough to offset the losses. And all three dots suggest the plan won't work.

BankruptcyProf Blog

10th Circuit BAP Rules That Debtor May Deduct Vehicle Ownership Table Even Though Vehicle is Owned Free and Clear

Posted: September 6th, 2008, 9:24am PDT by Bankruptcy Prof

In re Pearson, --- B.R. ---, 2008 WL ----------- (10th Cir BAP, July, 2008) Issue: May a debtor take the ownership deduction for a vehicle even though the vehicle is owned free and clear? Holding: Yes. These are above-median chapter...

Credit Slips

8th Circuit Rules Section 526(a)(4) Unconstitutional as Applied to Attorneys

Posted: September 5th, 2008, 5:34pm PDT by Adam Levitin

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit just ruled on a matter of first impression among circuit courts--the constitutionality of the treating attorneys as "debt relief agencies" under provisions of the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and ~~Creditors'~~ Consumers' Protection Act. (Freudian slip...) In so doing, the 8th Circuit struck down a major BAPCPA provision that inartfully restricts attorneys' ability to give clients advice about how to prepare their finances in contemplation of filing for bankruptcy.

For those readers not familiar with the intricacies of BAPCPA, the Act contains a provision, codified at 11 U.S.C. Sec. 526(a)(4), that provides that a "debt relief agency" may not advise a client (whether or not in bankruptcy) to incur more debt more debt in contemplation of such person filing a case under this title or to pay an attorney or bankruptcy petition preparer fee or charge for services performed as part of preparing
for or representing a debtor in a case under this title." A "debt relief agency" is defined as "any person who provides any bankruptcy assistance to an assisted person in return for the payment of
money or other valuable consideration..." 11 U.S.C. 101(12A). The question before the 8th Circuit was whether an attorney is a "debt relief agency," and if so, whether 526(a)(4) is an unconstitutional abridgment of First Amendment free speech rights of attorneys.

The 526(a)(4) issue is important because levels and types of consumer debt determine a consumer's eligibility for Chapter 7 (liquidation) bankruptcy instead of Chapter 13 (repayment plan) bankruptcy. The centerpiece of BAPCPA was "means testing"--looking at a consumer's income relative to other consumers in the state under a complicated formula, with above-average consumers required to file in Chapter 13. A well-informed consumer might be able to structure his or her finances so as to avoid Chapter 13, which requires living on a court-supervised repayment plan for 3-5 years, but in which creditors' might have larger recoveries.

The Eighth Circuit held that attorneys are "debt relief agencies" within the meaning of the statute, but that restrictions on their ability to advise clients are unconstitutional. The Eighth Circuit, however, upheld the requirement that attorneys, as debt relief agencies, advertise using specific precatory language.

The arguments about section 526(a)(4) are reasonably straightforward. The government, defending the statute, argued that section 526(a)(4) is designed to prevent consumers from "gaming" the system. The court, however, noted that it interferes with advice that has nothing to do with gaming the system: it might be financially better for all creditors for the debtor to refinance a mortgage into one with lower monthly payments (not least because of 1322(b)(2)'s mortgage anti-modification provision) or to purchase a reliable automobile, as that might not be possible once in Chapter 13. More generally, one can think of other cases, in which a consumer might expect to end up in Chapter 13, but might not want to gamble with the local Chapter 13 trustee's personal sense of what are reasonably necessary expenses (orthodontia? replacing a furnace with a cracked heat exchanger? Probably no monoxide poisoning, but do you want to gamble?)

Here's the thing about 526(a)(4)--it really doesn't prevent gaming of the system. First, a well-informed consumer can game the system without advice from an attorney. Second, at least on its face, section 526(a)(4) doesn't prevent an attorney from suggesting that a consumer cease or reduce working in order to lower monthly income. Third, section 526(a)(4) doesn't prevent an attorney from explaining--very clearly--the state of the law, including how the means test works and how a person with more debt of certain types would be able to qualify for Chapter 7. 526(a)(4) doesn't prevent gaming of the system, it just places a very artificial constraint on attorney advice and thereby reduces attorneys' ability to give clients the best advice that might have nothing to do with gaming the system and thereby undermines the attorney-client relationship. (I know not to romanticize the attorney-client relationship in volume-based consumer bankruptcy practice, but still, we give homage to that sacred theoretical bond).

So what does the 8th Circuit's ruling mean for consumer bankruptcy law? I'm going to be a contrarian and argue that it really doesn't change much. All it does is show that the emperor has no clothes, but everyone who deals with consumer bankruptcy knew that already. The 8th Circuit's decision results in the worst of all worlds jurisprudentially--poorly constructed means testing and the ability to game it with competent counsel. But this sorry state of affairs is no different than what exists outside the 8th Circuit--poorly constructed means testing and the ability to game it by sophisticated debtors or slightly more competent counsel. The 8th Circuit's decision just illustrates what a Through the Looking Glass world BAPCPA has made.

We could, of course, fix this nonsensical situation by leveling up or leveling down--getting rid of means testing or making it a sensible system. The current situation, however, makes little sense. That's not to say it was wrongly decided--the problem was a means testing system that relied on muzzling attorneys to have any shot at being effective, and that's not a system we should have. The BAPCPA's problems are, unfortunately, too big for courts to clean up piecemeal. Courts can try to make sense out of a poorly conceived and drafted statute, but fixing it into a sensible, cohesive system remains a legislative task.

[Hat tip to my student Robert for the ruling!]

Total Bankruptcy

State Bankruptcy Filing Rates

Posted: September 5th, 2008, 10:53am PDT

Bankruptcy filings are up all around the country. See how individual states are fairing.

BankruptcyProf Blog

9th Circuit 2007 Annual Report

Posted: September 5th, 2008, 8:38am PDT by Bankruptcy Prof

This report, just issued, is really nice, judges, cases and goings-on in the district, packed with information - 71 pages. You can access it here.

Georgia Bankruptcy Blog

Eighth Circuit Says Bankruptcy Lawyers Can Advise Clients To Run Up Pre-Bankruptcy Debt

Posted: September 5th, 2008, 8:14am PDT

In Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. U.S., --- F.3d ----, 2008 WL 4068448 (8th Cir. September 4, 2008) (click here for .pdf), the Eighth Circuit struck down the part of the Bankruptcy Code that prohibits lawyers from telling their clients they cannot incur more debt before filing a petition.

The code section at issue is 11 U.S.C. § 526(a)(4), which provides as follows:

(a) A debt relief agency shall not–
. . .
(4) advise an assisted person or prospective assisted person to
incur more debt in contemplation of such person filing a case
under this title or to pay an attorney or bankruptcy petition
preparer fee or charge for services performed as part of preparing
for or representing a debtor in a case under this title.

The Court held this as prohibiting free speech under the U.S. Constitution -

Nonetheless, § 526(a)(4), as written, does not allow attorneys falling within the definition of debt relief agencies to advise assisted persons (or prospective assisted persons)—i.e. clients (or prospective clients) meeting the definition of assisted person—to incur such debt. Thus, § 526(a)(4) is not narrowly tailored nor narrowly and necessarily limited to prevent only that speech which the government has an interest in restricting. Therefore, we hold that §526(a)(4) is substantially overbroad, and unconstitutional as applied to attorneys who provide bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons, as those terms are defined in the Code.

The Court, however, did hold that bankruptcy attorneys are "debt relief agencies" under the Code and had to disclose it.

Because attorneys were not specifically excluded from the definition of debt relief agencies, we hold that attorneys that provide "bankruptcy assistance" to "assisted persons" are "debt relief agencies" as that term is defined by the Code. Interpreting the definition of "debt relief agency" to exclude bankruptcy attorneys would be contrary to Congress's intent. ...

Section 528 requires debt relief agencies to disclose: "'We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.' or a substantially similar statement," in all of their bankruptcy-related advertising materials directed to the general public. 11 U.S.C. §§ 528(a)(4), (b)(2). The requirement does not prevent those attorneys meeting the definition of debt relief agencies "from conveying information to the public; it . . . only require[s] them to provide somewhat more information than they might otherwise be inclined to present." Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 650. Moreover, if any of these attorneys are concerned that the required disclosures will confuse the public, we note that nothing in the Code prevents them from identifying themselves in their advertisements as both attorneys and debt relief agencies. Olsen, 350 B.R. at 920. Simply put, attorneys that provide bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons are debt relief agencies under the Code, and the disclosure requirements of § 528 only require those attorneys to disclose factually correct statements on their advertising.12 This does not violate the First Amendment. ...

The challenged sections of § 528 only require debt relief agencies to include a disclosure on certain advertisements. Although less intrusive means may be conceivable to prevent deceptive advertising, § 528's disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the government's interest in protecting consumer debtors from deceptive advertising, and thus the section passes constitutional muster.

See the Wall Street Journal Law Blog and Wall Street Journal article for further discussion.
Atlanta Bankruptcy Lawyer Hayden Kepner Debates Neal Boortz On Fair Tax

Posted: September 5th, 2008, 7:54am PDT

Hayden Kepner, a bankruptcy partner at Scroggins & Williamson, recently participated in a roundtable debate over the Fair Tax. The debate was moderated by CNN's Rick Sanchez, and included Neal Boortz, John Linder, and others.

You can access the video of the debate, which aired on CNN, by clicking here.

Bankruptcy Law Network - Real Lawyers, Real Solutions

Federal Appeals Court Upholds “Debt Relief Agency” Rules, But Strikes Down Rule Against Advising Clients To Incur More Debt

Posted: September 4th, 2008, 11:46pm PDT by Craig Andresen, Attorney at Law

On September 4, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, issued its ruling in the Milavetz v. United States case, No. 07-2405. The appeals court upheld the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act’s requirement that attorneys identify themselves as “debt relief agencies,” but struck down the prohibition on attorneys advising clients to incur more debt in [...]

Miami Florida Bankruptcy Law

Chapter 13's Section 1325 (a)(5) - A New Tool to Attempt to Stop Foreclosure and Save Your South Florida Home

Posted: September 4th, 2008, 2:46pm PDT by Jordan E. Bublick, Bankruptcy Attorney

Chapter 13 is widely used to stop a home mortgage foreclosure and propose a Chapter 13 plan to reinstate one's home mortgage. This involves catching one's mortgage up-to-date over a period of up to five years while maintaining further monthly payments. Chapter 13 is also widely used to avoid an "unsecured" second or other junior mortgage if there is no equity to support the second or junior mortgage.

What can be done for the many homeowners in South Florida whose home values have fallen vastly below the amounts due on their first mortgage? For example, if the value of the home has fallen to $200,000.00 and $300,000.00 is owed on the mortgage. Generally, one is not allowed to force a mortgage company to modify one's mortgage on his principal residence. This means, one cannot force the mortgage company to reduce the amount owed, lower the interest rate, or stretch out the term of the mortgage on one's principal residence.

Due to the continuing deterioration of the mortgage foreclosure situation in South Florida, it appears that section 1325 (a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code may be a provision whose time has come. Section 1325 (a)(5) provides that a Chapter 13 plan should be approved by the Bankruptcy Court if the holder of a secured claim, such as a home mortgage, has accepted the Chapter 13 plan. That is, Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code contemplates approval of a Chapter 13 plan if the mortgage company accepts the Chapter 13 plan even if the Chapter 13 plan proposes to modify a home mortgage.

In normal times, it would be beyond contemplation that a mortgage company would voluntarily accept the modification of a home mortgage. But these are not normal times in South Florida and in many parts of the United States. In fact, public policy and indeed economic self-interest seems to be growing that a mortgage company should accept and even seek the modification of a home mortgage. The serious campaign begun a few weeks ago by the FDIC as the receiver of Indymac is one example of this policy being put into effect in earnest.

It would seem that in today's economy, the use of Chapter 13 should be considered to seek a mortgage companies acceptance of the modification of a home mortgage as proposed under a Chapter 13 plan. While the Bankruptcy Court may not be able to force a mortgage company to modify a secured mortgage on one's principal residence, section 1325 (a)(5) would appear to indicate that one is at least able to request the mortgage company to voluntarily modify one's mortgage.

In fact, one of the largest complaints of homeowners is that they are is unable to reach anyone at the mortgage company and that they only get the runaround when they attempt to reach a mortgage company to attempt to workout or modify their home mortgage. It is widely reported that many mortgage companies appear to be overwhelmed, understaffed, and unable to handle the volume of telephone calls. The benefit of Chapter 13 is that once the bankruptcy case is filed, the mortgage company retains a bankruptcy attorney who the Chapter 13 debtor is at least able to communicate with and request a voluntary mortgage modification.Jordan E. Bublick, Miami, Florida, Attorney at Law, Practice Limited to Bankruptcy Law, Member of the Florida Bar since 1983

Insolvencyblog.com

Netherlands insolvency increase

Posted: September 4th, 2008, 2:09pm PDT

The credit crunch is hitting mainland Europe, raising insolvency rates, according to Legal Week's recent article NautaDutilh launches 20-strong Benelux team. Most UK insolvency practitioners felt the economy starting to bite in midsummer and all the signs here are that,...

Total Bankruptcy

55+ Americans More Likely to File Bankruptcy Than Younger Generations

Posted: September 4th, 2008, 11:13am PDT

New analysis shows between 1991 and 2007, the bankruptcy filing rate increased for older Americans, while people less than 55 years of age saw a decrease in filings.

BankruptcyProf Blog

Prof. Nancy Rapoport Article on Ethics in Bankrupty Court

Posted: September 4th, 2008, 8:42am PDT by Bankruptcy Prof

"(Almost) Everything We Learned about Pleasing Bankruptcy Judges, We Learned in Kindergarten," July, 2008 can be accessed here. This is an amusing way of looking at very old rules, "Be Prepared," "Don't Lie," etc.

Credit Slips

Congress is Costing You Thousands of Dollars...?

Posted: September 3rd, 2008, 6:58pm PDT by Angie Littwin

The other day I heard an alarming advertisement on the radio. It began by warning that a new federal law could cost "you" thousands of dollars. It then proceeded to say that, if you want to avoid paying this money, you'd better hurry, hurry, hurry and purchase a home by September 30, when the statute goes into effect. The ad had the tone of a going-out-of-business sale: "Think you have all year to buy a home? Not anymore! Act now while you can still afford to make your dream of home ownership a reality! Offer (or law, in this case) expires on September 30, 2008." (Not an exact quote.) By this point, I was waiting with bated breath to find out how Congress was going to drain potential homeowners of so much money. Didn't it just pass a law designed to help homeowners weather the mortgage meltdown?

Well, it turns out that the thousands of dollars new home buyers will be paying are their own down payments. After some careful listening and some less careful inference based on the September 30 date, I came to the conclusion that the ad was referring to the ban on seller-financed down payments in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. The bill was signed into law on June 30 and will go into effect on the October 1 (hence the rush to sell before then). The law's main focus is providing help for current struggling homeowners, but it gets just a little bit proactive about prevention by banning sellers from lending money for down payments. This provision is intended to protect homeowners in the long run. It forces buyers to do a sticker-shock test on whether they can really afford their new homes. And it eliminates some incentives for seller-lenders to overprice houses. When a seller is financing the down payment, there's a temptation to overstate the price because, in the company's role as a lender, it will have the final say over whether the buyer can really afford to spend that much. The only pricing obstacle left to overcome is the buyer, and it's reasonable to think that buyers will be slightly less sensitive to price when they're not paying as much of it right away.
So it's easy to see why real estate developers would be against this provision. But what struck me about the ad is its attempt to pass on this sentiment to buyers, an attempt that borders on misrepresentation. While it's true that the new law "costs" consumers money in the short-term since they'll now have to pay their down payments upfront (or borrow from somebody else, anyway), a borrowed down payment is hardly the same thing as a free one. In the end, buyers who finance their down payments will almost certainly pay more for their houses than those who don't.

By the way, I was in the car when I heard the ad, so I couldn’t write down the details. I remember the advertiser being a company called Portrait Homes, but when l looked it up, all I found was a web site for Pasquinelli & Portrait Homes. Yes, it is a Texas real estate company, but, if it's the same company, its position on the Housing and Economic Recovery Act has certainly changed: the web site features an ad based on the $7,500 tax credit the new law offers certain first-time home buyers. So it sounds like Portrait Homes is treating the changing-of-the-law like a sale after all. Throughout September you'd better buy a home right away before old law expires, but if you happen to stop by on October 1, they may just have a new legislative provision that will still save you money. If any Credit Slips readers out there hear this advertisement, I would greatly appreciate a confirmation about whether or not the company behind this gem is, in fact, Portrait Homes.

Chicago Bankruptcy Lawyers & Attorneys

Life After Bankruptcy

Posted: September 3rd, 2008, 4:21pm PDT by David M. Siegel

Check out the latest video regarding Life After Bankruptcy.

Credit Slips

Revisiting the 2005 Amendments When Times Get Hard

Posted: September 3rd, 2008, 6:08am PDT by Elizabeth Warren

As a follow up to my earlier post about the forces that have made bankruptcy less workable for reorganizations, I note a new Businessweek article. Retailers are feeling the pain of reduced consumer spending and tough credit terms, and now they are discovering that the 2005 bankruptcy amendments will make it harder--or impossible--for some of them to reorganize.

In an article entitled, When Chapter 11 is the End of the Story, reporters have started interviewing failing retailers who are facing new hurdles because of the changes in the law. The conclusion? Companies that might have reorganized before 2005 may now be pushed into liquidation.
Bobby's comment on the earlier piece is right on point: bankruptcy laws will determine who bears the losses. But that's the problem with many of the amendments. Special interest lobbying means that one group gets favored over another, with no real policy justification. Worse yet, in some cases, companies that could reorganize if all the creditors shared the hit will be forced to liquidate.

Creditors want their money, of course. But giving creditors so much power that businesses that could have been reorganized will end up liquidating makes no business sense for anyone.

Congress was enthusiastic about dismantling some key Chapter 11 protections in boom times. When those amendments are tested in hard times, they seem much less attractive.

BankruptcyProf Blog

August Bankruptcy Filings

Posted: September 2nd, 2008, 8:41pm PDT by Bankruptcy Prof

Total bankruptcy filings for August were 93,987 or 4,476 per day. This compares to 96,385 for July or 4,381 per day. At this rate, the third quarter will be about 285,000 compared to 272,000 in the second quarter and 240,000...

Credit Slips

Bankruptcy Filings Reach New High in August

Posted: September 2nd, 2008, 6:56pm PDT by Bob Lawless
The U.S. bankruptcy filing rate climbed again in August, reaching a new post-2005 high of 4,476 filings per day. The year 2005 is significant because it was the year that the bankruptcy law changed making it more expensive and more time-consuming to file bankruptcy as well as making bankruptcy less effective once debtors got to bankruptcy court. Despite these changes, the bankruptcy rate has become staggeringly high, and we appear to have returned to an era where we will have well more than 1 million annual bankruptcy filings.

By almost any estimate, bankruptcy filings will be over 1 million for this year. For the 2008 calendar year, bankruptcy filings will be:
- 1,049,000 filings if bankruptcy filings continue for the rest of the year at the same daily rate (4,160 per day) as they have averaged for the first eight months of 2008
- 1,075,000 filings if bankruptcy filings continue for the same daily rate (4,476 per day) as they have averaged for August 2008
- 1,080,000 filings if bankruptcy filings for the remaining four months of 2008 constitute the same proportion of total filings as the last five months of 2007 constituted for total filings that year (about 34.9%)
The August filing rate of 4,476 filings per day is 2.2% higher than July 2008 when the filing rate was 4,381 filings per day. Although the total number of filings in August (93,987) is actually less than it was in July (96,385), it is the daily filing rate that is most important. The total number of bankruptcy filings in a month is sensitive to the number of business days in the month, and July had an extra business day as compared to August.
Although August's 2.2% increase may seem small, the figure is deceivingly low because it actually translates into a 29.2% annual growth rate. In other words, if bankruptcy filings increased 2.2% each month of a year, the total bankruptcy filings for that year would be 29.2% greater than it was the previous year. (Because of compounding, the calculation is not as simple as taking 2.2% times twelve months.) This is a tremendously high growth rate in bankruptcy filings. At this growth rate, bankruptcy filings in 2009 would be over 1,300,000.

People often ask me why I think bankruptcy filings are rising. My answer is that it is both simple and complex. The simple answer is that hard economic times obviously contribute to rising filing rates. Tightening consumer credit markets also lead to short-term increases in bankruptcy filings as consumers find it difficult to borrow more to stave off the day of reckoning. That is the simple part. The more complex part of the answer is that we know people do not file bankruptcy immediately upon the onset of financial distress. Typically, consumers struggle for a long time--often two or more years--before filing bankruptcy. The job loss today or the harassing calls from creditors may precipitate a bankruptcy filing, but the seeds of that bankruptcy filing were sown long before it shows up as a statistic in the bankruptcy filings.

New York Bankruptcy and Consumer Law Blog

Creditors Trying To Collect After Bankruptcy? Credit Report Still Showing Balances Due?

Posted: September 2nd, 2008, 10:38am PDT by Jay Fleischman, New York Bankruptcy Attorney

“The fresh start promised by bankruptcy is under attack as big lenders keep squeezing money out of consumers whose debts were canceled by the courts.” – BusinessWeek, November 12, 2007

Bill collectors, debt buyers and credit card companies are breaking the law with they try to collect debts that have been discharged in bankruptcy. It’s also against the law when your credit report isn’t updated to show the fact that you discharged the debt in bankruptcy.

The problem is that these problems happen all the time. And collecting discharged debts means big money for the banks and debt buyers. In fact, some debt buyers do nothing but purchased discharged debt after bankruptcy.

The good news is help is available. You don’t need to live in fear of your old bills.

You filed for bankruptcy to get the collection letters and phone calls to stop, not so you could send them even more paper!

Lots of lawyers will tell you not to worry, that the letters and phone calls will just stop eventually. Other bankruptcy lawyers will tell yo to send a copy of your bankruptcy papers. But the fact is that this just takes up more of your time and effort, and increases your stress.

Creditors and collection agencies that keep trying to collect money after your bankruptcy can be held liable for money damages, and can be forced to pay your legal fees. They don’t get a free pass, and aren’t allowed to break the law. Not once, not ever.

The bill collectors will claim they made an honest mistake and will correct their records. Like a kid with their hand in the cookie jar - they’ll deny any wrongdoing just to get out of being in trouble. But the fact is that if a bill collector tries to collect from you after bankruptcy they don’t have any excuse - they got notice of the bankruptcy filing, of the discharge, and everything in between. They even have computer systems that automatically tell them when someone files for bankruptcy.

Bottom line is they have no good excuse except that they hope you pay them instead of finding a lawyer like me.

They don’t want you to know about me. I am a lawyer who sues bill collectors when they break the law. I can help you beat the bill collectors and make them pay.

Don’t let bill collectors break the law and steal your fresh financial start. Contact me to get a lawyer who knows their tricks and will make them pay.

I always felt that I was in good hands with you . . . Because one agency continued to report my debt, you went after them and obtained a cash settlement. I always say that I am the only person that I know that actually made money by filing for bankruptcy!

– Athena H., Staten Island, NY

All you need to do is call me now at 1-800-235-2203. Set up a free, confidential, no-obligation phone consultation. There’s never an up-front legal fee for me to take your case. And best of all – we can help you entirely by phone, fax mail and email.

Stop the harassment and re-build your excellent credit. Don’t get turned down for a car loan or a mortgage because of old debts you no longer owe. Take the first step by calling 1-800-235-2203.

addthis_url = 'http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorkbankruptcylitigation.com%2F2008%2F09%2F02%2Fcreditors-trying-to-collect-after-bankruptcy-credit-report-still-showing-balances-due-it%25e2%2580%2599s-time-to-fight-back%2F'; addthis_title = 'Creditors+Trying+To+Collect+After+Bankruptcy%3F++Credit+Report+Still+Showing+Balances+Due%3F'; addthis_pub = '';

Total Bankruptcy

Unpaid Parking Ticket Results in Foreclosure

Posted: September 2nd, 2008, 8:46am PDT

Can you really lose your home to foreclosure because of old parking tickets? A Milwaukee, Wisconsin man found out the hard way that it can actually happen.

BankruptcyProf Blog

Judge Eileen Hollowell of Tucson Appointed to 9th Circuit BAP

Posted: September 2nd, 2008, 8:44am PDT by Bankruptcy Prof

The announcement is here. It doesn't say who she replaced.

Bankruptcy Law Network - Real Lawyers, Real Solutions

Chapter 13 Lien Stripping: Effective immediately?

Posted: September 2nd, 2008, 2:58am PDT by Michael Doan

Most legal professionals are of the opinion that a chapter 13 mortgage lien strip should not be effective until discharge or plan completion. They take this position, even though there is no such authority for the same anywhere in the code. The better position, is that lien strips of wholly unsecured mortgages should take place immediately. [...]
New Procedure For Car Cramdowns? Southern District of California Bankruptcy Court

Posted: September 1st, 2008, 10:30pm PDT by Michael Doan

In my previous blog, I had written about how a San Diego Bankruptcy Court ruled last week that a Chapter 13 plan could not be used to bind a 506 value on a creditor unless it was 1) “clearly and conspicuously stated in the plan,” and 2) the creditor is served in the same manner as lawsuits [...]

Feeds

The ABI Bankruptcy Blog Exchange collects several blogs about bankruptcy into one convenient site. The most recent posts are shown at the top.

Posted: September 7th, 2008, 6:27am PDT by Eugene S. Melchionne, Connecticut Bankruptcy Attorney

Posted: September 6th, 2008, 5:01pm PDT by Kent Anderson, Oregon Bankruptcy Attorney

Posted: September 6th, 2008, 11:14am PDT

Posted: September 6th, 2008, 10:43am PDT by Elizabeth Warren

Posted: September 6th, 2008, 9:24am PDT by Bankruptcy Prof

Posted: September 5th, 2008, 5:34pm PDT by Adam Levitin

Posted: September 5th, 2008, 10:53am PDT

Posted: September 5th, 2008, 8:38am PDT by Bankruptcy Prof

Posted: September 5th, 2008, 8:14am PDT

Posted: September 5th, 2008, 7:54am PDT

Posted: September 4th, 2008, 11:46pm PDT by Craig Andresen, Attorney at Law

Posted: September 4th, 2008, 2:46pm PDT by Jordan E. Bublick, Bankruptcy Attorney

Posted: September 4th, 2008, 2:09pm PDT

Posted: September 4th, 2008, 11:13am PDT

Posted: September 4th, 2008, 8:42am PDT by Bankruptcy Prof

Posted: September 3rd, 2008, 6:58pm PDT by Angie Littwin

Posted: September 3rd, 2008, 4:21pm PDT by David M. Siegel

Posted: September 3rd, 2008, 6:08am PDT by Elizabeth Warren

Posted: September 2nd, 2008, 8:41pm PDT by Bankruptcy Prof

Posted: September 2nd, 2008, 6:56pm PDT by Bob Lawless

Posted: September 2nd, 2008, 10:38am PDT by Jay Fleischman, New York Bankruptcy Attorney

Posted: September 2nd, 2008, 8:46am PDT

Posted: September 2nd, 2008, 8:44am PDT by Bankruptcy Prof

Posted: September 2nd, 2008, 2:58am PDT by Michael Doan

Posted: September 1st, 2008, 10:30pm PDT by Michael Doan

The ABI Bankruptcy Blog Exchange collects several blogs about bankruptcy into one convenient site.
The most recent posts are shown at the top.