IRA and 401(k) Obtained Through Divorce Not Exempt

Posted by NCBRC - February 14th, 2020

Incorrectly relying on the decision in Clark v. Rameker, the Eighth Circuit found that the chapter 7 debtor was not entitled to exempt funds in his ex-spouse’s IRA and 401(k) which he obtained through a dissolution agreement but which had not been transferred to his name at the time of his bankruptcy petition. Lerbakken v. Sieloff & Assoc., P.A. (In re Lerbakken), No. 18-3415 (8th Cir. Feb. 7, 2020).

The debtor acquired his ex-wife’s IRA and half of her 401K in a dissolution. When the debtor failed to pay his divorce attorney’s fees, his lawyer obtained an order from the court placing an attorney’s lien on the funds in the IRA and the 401K. The lien exceeded the value of the accounts. Six months later, Mr. Lerbakken filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy seeking to exempt the two accounts under section 522(b)(3)(C). At the time of his petition, he had not filed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), nor had the accounts been transferred to his name. Upon objection by the divorce attorney, the court found the two accounts were not “retirement funds” and disallowed the exemption. The BAP affirmed. Lerbakken v. Sieloff & Assoc., P.A. (In re Lerbakken), 590 B.R. 895 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2018). Read More

Tax Debt from Late-Filed Tax Return Dischargeable

Posted by NCBRC - February 11th, 2020

The Eleventh Circuit broke with the First, Fifth and Tenth Circuits to find that section “523 does not incorporate a mandatory precondition that a tax return must be timely filed to be dischargeable.” Mass. Dept. of Rev. v. Shek, No. 18-14922 (11th Cir. Jan. 23, 2020).

The debtor filed his 2008 Massachusetts tax return seven months late. Six years later, he filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in Florida. After discharge, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue commenced collection efforts to collect on the 2008 tax liability. Mr. Shek reopened his bankruptcy seeking to have that debt included in his discharge. Both he and the MDOR filed for summary judgment. The bankruptcy court found that, under the Beard test, section 523(a) did not except Mr. Shek’s tax liability from discharge. The district court affirmed. [blogged here]The MDOR appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. Read More

Fifth Circuit Approves Alternative to Judicial Estoppel Reaching Same Result

Posted by NCBRC - February 4th, 2020

Finding its decision “odd” and “not the route we would have taken,” the Fifth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order declining to apply judicial estoppel to put an end to the debtor’s personal injury litigation against Wal-Mart, but ordering the debtor to turn over any recovery he made through the lawsuit for distribution to creditors. Wal-Mart Stores v. Parker, No. 18-30378 (5th Cir. Jan. 8, 2020) (unpublished).

While Mr. Parker’s chapter 13 case was pending, he suffered a work-related injury during a delivery to Wal-Mart. He filed a civil lawsuit in state court against the company. He failed to notify the bankruptcy trustee or court of the lawsuit. He completed his plan, received discharge, and his case was closed. Wal-Mart moved to reopen to seek dismissal of Mr. Parker’s personal injury case on the basis of judicial estoppel. The bankruptcy court found that the elements of judicial estoppel were met, but declined to apply the doctrine. Instead, the court ordered Mr. Parker to turn over any proceeds from the lawsuit to the bankruptcy trustee for distribution to creditors. Wal-Mart sought and obtained leave to appeal directly to the Fifth Circuit. Read More

Non-Debtor Spouse’s Share of Tax Refund Not Part of Estate

Posted by NCBRC - January 31st, 2020

The debtor’s non-debtor spouse had no obligation to contribute her share of their joint tax refund to the debtor’s chapter 13 plan even though her income was being used to fund the plan. In re Pelardis, No, 15-10949 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2020) (unpublished).

The debtor’s confirmed chapter 13 plan committed the amount in excess of $1,500 from his anticipated tax refund. When he and his non-debtor spouse received their joint refund of $6.938, he contributed only his half-share to the bankruptcy estate. The trustee moved to dismiss the case, arguing that because the debtor’s non-debtor spouse had committed her entire income to the debtor’s estate, she was obligated to contribute her portion of the tax refund, and the failure to do so was a material default. Read More

Illinois Workers’ Comp Settlement Proceeds Exempt

Posted by NCBRC - January 28th, 2020

Answering a question certified to it from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the Illinois Supreme Court held that, under Illinois law, “the proceeds of a workers’ compensation settlement are still exempt from the claims of medical-care providers who treated the illness or injury associated with that settlement,” notwithstanding 2005 amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act. In re Hernandez, 2020 IL 124661 (Sup. Ct. Ill. Jan. 24, 2020).

Elena Hernandez filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy owing over $120,000.00 in medical bills incurred for treatment of work injuries. In her bankruptcy schedules she listed a pending workers’ compensation claim. Shortly after filing her petition, and without consulting the bankruptcy trustee, Ms. Hernandez settled the workers’ compensation claim with her employer for approximately $30,000.00. Ms. Hernandez maintained that, under the state Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), the settlement was exempt from liability to creditors. Her medical creditors objected to the exemption arguing that 2005 amendments to the Illinois exemption law had made such settlements accessible to health care providers. The creditors also argued that the settlement was the product of fraud.

The bankruptcy court sustained the objection on process grounds rather than on application of the Illinois exemption. Affirming, the district court relied on its interpretation of the 2005 amendments to the state WCA. On appeal to the Seventh Circuit, (case no. 18-1789), that court determined that both sides offered seemingly valid interpretations of the exemption statute. It certified the question to the state supreme court. Read More

Failure to Disclose Employment is not a Statement under 523(a)(2)(A)

Posted by NCBRC - January 24th, 2020

Failure to report a change in employment status is not a “statement respecting financial condition” within the meaning of section 523(a)(2)(A) and, therefore, a debt based on overpayment of public assistance benefits made in reliance on the non-disclosure, is nondischargeable. State of Oregon v. Mcharo, No. 19-1010 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020) (unpublished).

When applying for public assistance benefits, Blake Mcharo and his wife signed DHS0415R averring that they would inform the DHS of any change in their eligibility status. After signing the application and receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits, Mr. Mcharo found employment. Neither he nor his wife informed the DHS of his employment.

In the Mcharo’s chapter 7 bankruptcy, the DHS filed a claim for the amount it had overpaid in TANF benefits after Mr. Mcharo was employed. The DHS also sought an order that the debt was non-dischargeable under 523(a)(2)(A). The bankruptcy court issued a default judgment against Ms. Mcharo but declined to do the same against Mr. Mcharo, finding that his failure to report his employment was an unwritten statement respecting financial condition falling outside the purview of either section 523(a)(2)(A) or (B). The State of Oregon appealed to the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Read More

District Court Refuses to Dismiss FCRA Class Action Lawsuit For Negligent Incorrect Credit Reporting On Discharged Student Loan Subtitle: Court finds CRA’s failure to have a procedure in place to distinguish which student loans are discharged is negligence.

Posted by NACBA - January 24th, 2020

Prior to filing for bankruptcy, the Debtor incurred a student loan (ultimately held by Navient) to attend the Reformed Theological Seminary. The seminary was not a Title IV accredited institution.

The Debtor filed bankruptcy, listed this loan and received an order of discharge. Both Navient and Experian Information Solutions LLC. (“Experian”) received notice of the discharge order. Experian prepared the Debtor’s credit report and described the Navient Loan as “account charged off,” with an outstanding balance and a past due balance.

On April 29, 2019, the Debtor filed a Complaint against Experian in the District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) found at 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act (“NY FCRA”) which has similar provisions. The Debtor claimed that Experian negligently (Count I) and intentionally (Count II) violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) and the companion New York statutes (Counts III and IV).

15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) states

Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.

The Complaint pled that Experian prepared Debtor’s credit report with an inaccuracy in that Debtor’s debt with Navient should have been reported as discharged in his bankruptcy. This is because the loan was for a non-Title IV school and therefore was not subject to the exceptions to discharge found at 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B).

Experian filed a motion to dismiss. Experian first argued that the Complaint pled only a dispute about the legal effect of the discharge, not a factual inaccuracy. The Court disagreed.

To read more go to NACBA News or click here.

Denial of Motion for Relief from Stay is Final and Appealable

Posted by NCBRC - January 16th, 2020

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court’s denial of a motion for relief from stay constitutes a final, appealable order under section 158(c)(2). Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, No. 18-938, 589 U.S. ___ (2020). NACBA filed an amicus brief in support of the Respondent.

Ritzen Group and Jackson Masonry entered into a land-sales contract. The deal fell through and Ritzen filed suit against Jackson in Tennessee state court for breach of contract. On the eve of trial, Jackson filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. Ritzen sought relief from stay to allow the state civil trial to go forward. The court denied the motion, and Ritzen did not appeal. After a hearing in which it found Ritzen at fault for the failure of the contract, the bankruptcy court also disallowed Ritzen’s claim against the bankruptcy estate. Ritzen then appealed to the district court challenging both the denial of the motion for relief from stay and the ruling on the contract dispute. The district court found the relief from stay appeal was untimely, and ruled against Ritzen on the merits of the contract appeal. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. In re Jackson Masonry, LLC, 906 F. 3d 494 (2018). Read More

Debtor Not Required to Turnover Proceeds From Sale of Appreciated Property

Posted by NCBRC - January 8th, 2020

A chapter 13 debtor may not be compelled to turn over proceeds from the sale of appreciated real estate which had revested in him post-confirmation and was therefore no longer part of the bankruptcy estate. Black v. Leavitt (In re Black), No. 18-1351 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Dec. 31, 2019).

The debtor filed chapter 7 bankruptcy listing real property valued at $52,300 for which he sought to take his homestead exemption. The trustee objected on the grounds that the property was used as rental property rather than the debtor’s residence. The debtor received his chapter 7 discharge and moved to convert the case to chapter 13. The bankruptcy court sustained the trustee’s objection to the exemption and granted his motion for turnover. It then granted the debtor’s motion to convert. Read More

Fire-Damaged Home Valued as of Pre-Restoration Petition Date

Posted by NCBRC - January 3rd, 2020

The chapter 7 debtor was entitled to avoid a judicial lien that impaired her homestead exemption where the home, which had been damaged by fire pre-petition, was valued as of the petition date rather than after post-petition restoration had enhanced the residence’s value. Waltrip v. Sawyers (In re Sawyers), No. 19-6016 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. Dec. 19, 2019).

Prior to filing for bankruptcy, Ruby Sawyers’s home was damaged by fire and she received insurance proceeds in the amount of over $132,000 for its restoration. At the time of her petition, she had not yet restored the home and it was valued at $3,000 – $6,000. She claimed a homestead exemption on 100% of the fair market value of the residence to the maximum exemption of $15,000. After the fire and prior to the bankruptcy petition, David Waltrip and the debtor entered into a consent judgment in the amount of $256,739.31 which resulted in lien against the property. The trustee made no distributions and abandoned all assets. The case was closed. Using the insurance proceeds, Ms. Sawyers then made improvements to the residence increasing its value to $95,000 – $103,000. The judgment creditor instituted a sheriff’s sale of the property. Ms. Sawyers reopened her bankruptcy and moved to avoid the judgment lien as impairing her homestead exemption. Mr. Waltrip objected. Using a formula under which the value of the property was subtracted from the sum of the liens and the exemption amount, the bankruptcy court found that the judicial lien impaired Ms. Sawyers’s homestead exemption and granted her motion for summary judgment to avoid the lien in full. The creditor appealed to the bankruptcy appellate panel for the Eighth Circuit. Read More