November 30, 2009

Surrendering a car in chapter 13 bankruptcy will negatively effect amount paid unsecured creditors for Mesa Arizona Bankruptcy Filers

A chapter 13 bankruptcy requires that an "above median" debtor take a "means test" in order to determine how much that debtor must pay to unsecured creditors during the plan. This amount is called "disposable monthly income"

A key to obtaining a favorable i.e. low number is to be able to show the highest "budget" possible when taking this test.

In an attempt to do so, many bankruptcy filers throughout the U.S. have been showing as part of their budget the debt owed on cars they know will be surrendered, with some mixed results.

The question of whether this is possible has ended in the 9th circuit.

In American Express v. Smith, the Court of Appeals has ruled that subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) of section 1325 of the bankruptcy code provide that if an expense is not reasonably necessary "for a debtor's and/or dependants' maintenance and support, it is not included in the calculation of disposable income"..."items that a debtor has surrendered or intends to surrender are not necessary for his or her support or maintenance."

In other words, if you know you are not going to keep the car for whatever reason, the amount you owe on it can't be used to determine the amount you can pay your unsecured creditors in a chapter 13 bankruptcy. i.e. you will end up paying more to unsecured creditors if surrendering the car.

Bookmark and Share

September 21, 2009

Ride Thru, Reaffirmation Agreements and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, has decided the issue of whether a reaffirmation agreement is necessary in bankruptcy in relation to personal property.

Prior to the 2005 changes to the bankruptcy code that resulted in what is now known as "bapcpa", a debtor could "retain and pay" or "ride through" on it's car loan as long as he stayed current on the car payment.

The creditor with the security interest in the car was left without any legal obligation to sue on, should the car be surrendered or repossessed and a deficiency balance existed.

No reaffirmation agreement was typically necessary. (read more about what a reaffirmation agreement is here)

Not signing a reaffirmation agreement was good for the debtor because he obtained the best of both worlds as a result. i.e. Keep the car and make the payment, but not be liable on any deficiency balance should he not be able to afford the car down the road and after surrender.

Many attorneys felt as a result, that advising a client to sign a reaffirmation agreement with the creditor on the car loan inside of the bankruptcy case was malpractice. Especially if the car was upside down, i.e. it was worth much less then what was owed on it.

If the reaffirmation was signed unnecessarily and the debtor lost the car down the road he would then owe what sometimes amounted to a large deficiency balance nullifying some of the "fresh start" benefit gained in the bankruptcy case.

Continue reading "Ride Thru, Reaffirmation Agreements and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals" »

Bookmark and Share