About Me
“ Craig D. Robins, Esq., has been a practicing Long Island bankruptcy attorney for over twenty-four years ”
Bankruptcy Procedure
What happens if a Chapter 7 debtor realizes that he or she forgot to include a creditor after the case has closed?Then, sometime thereafter – it could be days, months or years – the debtor calls to say that he or she inadvertently omitted a creditor. The anxious client explains that this failure was an innocent mistake.
Counsel might then instinctively think, “no problem.” The case can be reopened by motion, and an application can be brought to amend the schedule of creditors to include the omitted one. Right?
Some bankruptcy courts routinely grant debtors’ motions to amend schedules to list previously omitted creditors. One line of cases focuses on whether there is prejudice to creditors or whether there was fraud.
Some courts will refuse to permit the case to be reopened, because they believe omitted debts are non-dischargeable. Yet other courts will refuse to permit the case to be reopened because they believe that omitted debts are automatically discharged even if they are not listed, and therefore reopening the case serves no purpose.
Even in our own jurisdiction, I have seen different judges over the years have different policies with this issue. Understandably, there has been a good deal of confusion as to the appropriate remedy dealing with the problem of the omitted creditor.
So what is the Long Island bankruptcy lawyer to do?
In that case, the debtor filed a motion to reopen his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case for the purpose of amending the schedule of creditors. He did this over 11 years after he filed his petition. The debtor hoped to include a debt owed to his former business partner.
The Court, however, after conducting a trial, determined that the debtor was not a credible witness and that the debtor’s failure to disclose the debt was either the result of recklessness or intentional design. Because of that, and the significant delay, Judge Milton denied the application.
Under the “mechanical approach” courts have denied motions to reopen no-asset cases, finding that the debt owed to an omitted creditor is discharged “as a matter of law.” Under this approach, there is no reason to reopen a bankruptcy case, provided that it is a no-asset case and the debt is not otherwise excepted from discharge.
Based on my own familiarity with cases here, I would say that prior to this decision, most judges in the Central Islip Bankruptcy Court utilized this approach.
Judge Milton then explained that under the “equitable approach,” courts consider whether the debtor’s omission was the result of fraud, recklessness or intentional design, or if it would prejudice the creditor’s rights. Good faith is an important element. Courts adopting this approach have held that motions to reopen no-asset cases to list omitted creditors should be liberally granted.
Judge Milton did not use the mechanical approach, and instead relied upon the equitable approach. He did so because the facts of the case (the debtor’s bad faith) would have produced an unfair result by permitting the debt to be discharged under the mechanical approach.
The judge found the debtor lacked good faith as it appeared the debtor had known about the debt for years, but neglected to amend earlier. It also appeared that the debtor lied about this knowledge at trial. The court also found that the length of time that elapsed between the filing of the petition and the request to reopen the case also suggested bad faith and prejudiced the debtor.
However, in situations where the creditor raises objections to this approach, be prepared to file a motion to reopen, in which case the court will probably consider the various factors in the equitable approach.
Although Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees seek to liquidate assets, they close most cases as no-asset cases
Written by Craig D. Robins, Esq. and Ian RibaldCalifornia’s Supreme Court decision this past week, upholding the ban against same-sex marriage in that state, has been very controversial.
A major concern for many same-sex married couples is whether their marriage would be recognized by states that do not allow same sex marriage. Can a same-sex married couple that was married in another state, and then moves to New York, file for joint bankruptcy relief in New York, or would the couple have to file individual bankruptcy petitions?
Written by Ian RibaldThe death of a Chapter 7 debtor does not render the bankruptcy case moot; in fact, the case will continue as if the debtor had not died at all. The trustee of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate must continue to administer the case so that it can conclude in the same or similar manner.
Defending Motions to Lift the Stay
Posted on
Written by Craig D. Robins, Esq.
Motions to lift the stay must comply with the various rules. The most common type of motion in consumer bankruptcy practice is a motion to lift the stay. Such motions are typically brought by a secured creditor, such as a mortgagee or auto lender, because the debtor has fallen behind with his or her payment obligations.
Almost all creditors’ attorneys now bring “lift-stay” motions by filing and serving a “notice of presentment of a proposed order lifting the stay,” as this type of application alleviates the need to make a court appearance unless opposition is filed. However, the judges in this district have strict chamber’s rules pertaining to how such applications can be brought, which are in addition to Bankruptcy Code and local rule requirements. The various court rules seek to protect a debtor by requiring that various due process requirements be satisfactorily addressed.
Lift-stay motions often contain fatal mistakes. Most lift-stay motions are prepared by secretaries and paralegals. A large percentage of these applications are not sufficiently reviewed by supervising attorneys and do not meet all of the court’s requirements. Consequently, it is often possible to spot a fatal procedural flaw, which, if brought to the attention of the court, could end up buying your client more time in their home. A former law clerk estimated that as many as one-fourth of all lift-stay motions are initially defective.
Reviewing a lift-stay motion for errors can help your client. Even in situations where there is a low likelihood of the debtor ultimately saving the subject premises, you may be able to extend the debtor’s time in the house by bringing these fatal flaws to the attention of the court. No matter how solid a creditor’s position is, the creditor still has an absolute obligation to make sure that its motion papers are properly prepared and conform to the Bankruptcy Code as well as local rules and chamber’s rules. I have focused the following discussion primarily on lift-stay motions brought by mortgagees (as opposed to other secured creditors like car loan lenders), as efforts undertaken by a foreclosing mortgagee will probably affect your client the most. However, the same principals apply to all lift-stay motions.
Were the motion papers properly served? Make sure that service of the motion was proper. The moving party must file with the court an affidavit of service or certificate of mailing indicating that all proper parties were served. This includes the debtor, debtor’s counsel, and the bankruptcy trustee, all of whom are indispensable parties who must be joined. In addition, notices of presentment must have a time period of at least 20 days from the date of service to the date of presentment.
Did the motion include the necessary supporting documents? A motion to lift the stay must include a copy of the mortgage note and mortgage, and these documents must show the date of recording. In addition, the debtor must be a party to the note or mortgage. All exhibits must be legible. This is important as exhibits are often generated from microfiche where the legibility may be poor.
Did the moving party establish standing? Mortgages are frequently assigned. If the moving creditor is not the same entity as the creditor set forth in the mortgage and note, then there must be a recital in the motion papers explaining that either the mortgage was assigned or that the movant is a servicing agent. If the mortgage was assigned, a copy of the recorded instrument of assignment must be attached to the motion papers. If the movant is the servicing agent, then the motion papers must contain a copy of the servicing agreement or power of attorney authorizing the servicing agent to take legal action to enforce the mortgage.
Is there a supporting affidavit from the loan representative? It is elementary law that all motions must be supported by an affidavit from someone who has actual knowledge of the relevant facts. Accordingly, there must be a notarized and executed affidavit from a loan representative. This affidavit must set forth the post-petition payment defaults and the total amount of the mortgage indebtedness. In addition, the affidavit must either indicate that the stay should be lifted for cause, in which event the specific cause should be set-forth, or the stay should be lifted because the mortgage indebtedness exceeds the value of the property. Finally, the affidavit must correctly identify the address of the subject property.
Has the mortgagee properly demonstrated the value of the property? When the mortgagee asserts that the ground for lifting the stay is that the mortgage indebtedness exceeds the value of the property, then the mortgagee must include a valuation report such as an appraisal or broker’s price opinion letter as an exhibit to the motion. The valuation report must be current, which generally means that it must have been made within the preceding 90 days, or within 90 days of the petition date. Anything older than that can be considered obsolete. The valuation report must be signed and must also contain language in the form of an affidavit that the person who prepared the report attests that he or she is disinterested and is not a broker or selling agent under a listing agreement and does not anticipate acting as the broker or listing agent for any party in interest. The person who signs the valuation report must include a statement of his or her professional qualifications. The report must contain a suitable description of comparable values of properties that have been recently sold. If the moving party is taking the position that the mortgagee lacks adequate protection, then the moving papers cannot contain any inconsistent statements which indicate that the mortgagee is fully secured. In lieu of providing a valuation report, the mortgagee can rely on the debtor’s admission of the value of the property as indicated in the debtor’s bankruptcy schedules. In such an event, the creditor must include a legible copy of the debtor’s schedule “A” or “D” as an exhibit.
Is the motion seeking proper relief? Generally, a motion to lift the stay, when brought by notice of presentment, may not seek any type of equitable relief other than an unadorned vacating or modifying of the stay to permit the mortgagee to enforce its state law remedies. Accordingly, a proposed order cannot seek payment of costs and attorney’s fees as this creates an inconsistency between section 362 (a)(d)(2) and section 506 (b).
What happens if you demonstrate a fatal error? The mortgagee must usually start the entire motion process all over again. This means that the mortgagee must take the necessary time to correct and amend its motion. The mortgagee must then re-serve all necessary parties, and begin the twenty-day time period all over again. This can get your client an extra four to six weeks or more in their home. Keep in mind that this article focused on utilizing procedural errors as a defense. There are numerous substantive issues that you can raise as well.
Long Island Bankruptcy Attorney Craig D. Robins, Esq., is a frequent columnist for the Nassau Lawyer, the official publication of the Nassau County Bar Association in New York. This article appeared in the November 2004 issue of the Nassau Lawyer. Mr. Robins is a bankruptcy lawyer who has represented thousands of consumer and business clients during the past twenty years. He has offices in Medford, Commack, Woodbury, Patchogue, Mastic, Coram and Valley Stream. (516) 496-0800. For information about filing bankruptcy on Long Island, please visit his Bankruptcy web site: http://www.BankruptcyCanHelp.com.
A Primer on Adversary Proceedings
Posted on
Written by Craig D. Robins, Esq.
Adversary Proceedings. Even what appears to be the simplest Chapter 7 consumer bankruptcy filing may result in an adversary proceeding which is basically a federal lawsuit brought within a pending bankruptcy proceeding. The Bankruptcy Rules provide that certain contested matters in bankruptcy proceedings must be litigated in this way. Bankruptcy Rule 7001 sets forth ten such matters. They include objections to discharge; determination of the validity, priority, or extent of a lien or interest in property of the estate; actions to recover property of the estate; and proceedings to sell property in which the debtor is only a part owner. Bankruptcy Rule 7001 et. seq., sets forth all of the rules applicable to adversary proceedings.
Proceedings to Determine The Dischargeability of a Debt. These are by far the most common adversary proceedings that the consumer bankruptcy practitioner may encounter. With the proliferation of consumers seeking to discharge credit card debt through bankruptcy, many credit card companies, banks and other lenders are actively reviewing petitions and credit usage histories to determine if the debtor obtained the debt by way of any fraudulent or improper means. Under code section 523, a creditor can contest the dischargeability of a particular debt that was incurred through false pretenses, fraud, use of false financial statements, embezzlement, or larceny.
Contesting the Entire Discharge. Bankruptcy code section 727 allows an interested party to contest the entire discharge for intentional concealment, transfer or destruction of property; unjustified failure to keep books and records; dishonesty in connection with the bankruptcy code; or failure to explain loss of assets. If a trustee requests a debtor to provide documents at the meeting of creditors and the debtor is uncooperative, the trustee will bring an adversary proceeding under this section.
Federal Rules Govern. Virtually all of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding litigation apply to adversary proceedings. These rules are especially tailored to bankruptcy proceedings by Bankruptcy Rules 9001 et. seq. Leave your C.P.L.R. at home and get a copy of the Federal Rules. Sometimes the general practitioner is at a slight disadvantage because of an unfamiliarity with Federal law.
How Adversary Proceedings Are Commenced. The creditor or trustee will draft a complaint, setting forth the facts and allegations which the plaintiff believes justify the granting of relief against the debtor, and stating the relief requested. All adversary proceedings must be filed electronically through the court’s E.C.F. system. The court will also assign an adversary proceeding case number to the matter, which is different from the original bankruptcy case number. All adversary proceeding documents filed with the court must contain the full adversary proceeding caption, both case number and adversary proceeding case number, the type of chapter, and the name of the judge. The debtor can be referred to as either “debtor” or “defendant.”
Service. Most adversary proceedings are served pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7004(b) by first class mail upon both the debtor and his or her attorney, although service can be completed by other means as well. Service must also be made within 10 days of the summons date. Bankruptcy Rule 7004(f).
Be Aware of the Bar Date. In Chapter 7 proceedings, the court sets a statute of limitations for creditors to file objections to discharge. The bar date is 60 days from the date set for the first scheduled meeting of creditors. Bankruptcy Rules 4004 and 4007. Adjournment of the meeting of creditors does not affect the bar date. Failure to timely file a dischargeability adversary proceeding by the bar date will forever bar the creditor from objecting to discharge.