The Dave Ramsey Mistake

Recently I received a call from a woman in her 70s seeking information about bankruptcy. This woman, a widow, had tried just about everything to deal with her debts: credit counselors, direct negotiations with creditors, and drawing down her savings to keep up with payments. With that savings quickly approaching zero, she finally reached out to a attorney to explore bankruptcy.

I've always had a soft spot for older people with debt problems. They often take it very hard, perhaps because they come from a generation where debt problems and bankruptcy were more stigmatized. So, we spoke about her options. Given her low income and meager assets, she qualified easily for Chapter 7, which would result in a discharge of about $40,000 in consumer and medical debt. However, our conversation wasn't just about money. She told of me of her great emotional reluctance to file bankruptcy. Only one inescapable fact made her consider it at all, that she would soon have nothing left and be unable to even eat without some serious debt relief. Then she mentioned that she listened to the Dave Ramsey radio show.

I don't really listen to Dave Ramsey, but I've seen him on TV a few of times, and I am familiar with his message. Mr. Ramsey is well known as a fierce anti-bankruptcy crusader despite famously filing bankruptcy himself several years ago and discharging about $4,000,000 in debt. Despite this small mercy that allowed him to move on with his life, he now counsels people to avoid bankruptcy at all costs and does everything he can to re-stigmatize the process.

Behind the scaremongering, Mr. Ramsey's makes two basic wrong points. His first avenue of attack is that bankruptcy damages credit. Bankruptcy does damage credit for several years. However, the simply truth is that people considering bankruptcy already have or shortly will have severely damaged credit. Not paying debts on time severely damaged credit. When this is inevitable, very little additional damage is done by filing bankruptcy. In fact, bankruptcy can even clean up the cluster bomb of multiple debt defaults by replacing the credit balances on a report with zeros. In any event, a Google search of "credit after bankruptcy" will quickly illuminate the well-trod path to rebuilding credit after bankruptcy--something that is not an option while you're still mired in debt.

The second avenue of attack is more insidious. Mr. Ramsey lays it on thick about the psychological cost of bankruptcy, comparing it to the death of a loved one and having the nerve to suggest that it might be one of the worst experiences of your life. This is just insane. I've been practicing bankruptcy law since 2002 and I can say without any reservation that the reverse is true. People are so relieved after getting a debt discharge after struggling with it for so long. Permission to move on with your life is freeing and cathartic. By way of an example, check out this message board I found tonight discussing Dave Ramsey and people's real experiences with bankruptcy. You can also read my site to read about people's experiences with us and the bankruptcy process.

The truth is that Mr. Ramsey did what many rational and intelligent people do when faced with an insurmountable debt problem: He sought refuge in the legal system created to help him. Counseling people to do otherwise is irresponsible. I usually don't mind anti-bankruptcy posturing, but when it affects someone in their 70s, it does bother me. I say live what life you have left for yourself and your family, and not for the credit card companies. The credit card companies--the beneficiaries of Mr. Ramsey's rhetoric--can take care of themselves and have had plenty of influence on the bankruptcy laws on the books today. One should pay their debts if they can, but if someone simply cannot pay and qualifies for bankruptcy, they are doing themselves and their family a great disservice by not taking the help that the law provides.

Defense of Marriage Act Declared Unconstitutional

The big legal news of the day is that Judge Tauro of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) declared the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), 1 USC sec. 7, unconstitutional. The case is styled Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, et al. (link opens .pdf opinion). The case was brought by same-sex spouses married under Massachusetts law. The Court held that "DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

On the federal level, DOMA limits the recognition of marital rights to heterosexual spouses. The Court held that Congress' reasons for enacting the law bore no rational relationship to the goals it set. The Court also expressed a strong sentiment that the federal government should stay out of the business of defining marriage because that is the traditional and exclusive purview of the States.

I recently wrote about same-sex spouses and some of the special issues they face in bankruptcy, such as that DOMA has been interpreted to bar such spouses from filing joint bankruptcy petitions which, among other things, increases the overall cost of bankruptcy. That may change now, and I would like to bring a test case if presented with the right clients. Judge Tauro's opinion is not binding on the bankruptcy court and it may yet be appealed. However, it broke new ground and will carry considerable weight when used to support a challenge to a joint bankruptcy petition on behalf of same-sex spouses.

Bankruptcy Issues for Same-Sex Spouses

We have represented many same-sex couples in bankruptcy throughout the years, before and after the landmark decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health which provided legal recognition to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Despite this decision, there continues to be several special issues in same-sex bankruptcy cases.

Bankruptcy is a federal proceeding and same-sex marriage is not recognized on a federal level. See Defense of Marriage Act. This means that same-sex spouses cannot file joint bankruptcy petitions. The impact of this is primarily technical: One can get the same relief with two petitions as with one. Also, here in Massachusetts, if two bankruptcy cases are filed simultaneously, the creditor meeting for each will be assigned the same date, time and trustee. This allows same-sex spouses to experience the creditor meeting together, though--unlike in the case of heterosexual couples--they will still be examined under oath individually.

One significant drawback to the treatment of same-sex spouses in bankruptcy is that the cost of two bankruptcy cases is always higher than for one case. However, it has been my experience that same-sex spouses tend to have less joint debt than heterosexual couples (although this may change with time). Consequently, if only one spouse has debt problems, it may be advisable for just that spouse to file bankruptcy. This is a right that all married people have, which may be more often advantageous for same-sex spouses.

Means testing for same-sex couples:
There isn't any real difference in how a means test is formulated for roommates, same-sex couples, straight couples, or anyone else. There are differences with how the forms are filled out, but those are just details. The crux of it is that both spouses are counted in household size for the means test and then any contribution to the debtor's household expenses from the other spouse is also included. This is essentially what happens in a traditional joint case. The mechanics are different, but in a way that benefits gay spouses: the non-filing spouse's total income does not need to be included and then diminished by the so-called "marital adjustment." For a same-sex spouse the non-filing spouse's actual net household contribution need only be listed on the means test.

P.S. I wrote a post a few days after this one reporting on how one Massachusetts (federal) judge declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. It can be viewed here.