NCLC Student Loan Resource Page

The National Consumer Law Center recently launched a new web site designed to help people facing student loan problems. Both student loan collection law (such as the availability of non-judicial garnishment) and the general non-dischargeability of student loans in bankruptcy make these loans some of the most difficult to deal with. The NCLC site is a good resource for people looking recover from student loan default.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Unemployment Income and the Means Test

Judge Rosenthal recently held In re Munger, --- B.R. ----, 2007 WL 1810701 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass. 2007) that unemployment income is not included in the "current monthly income" for purposes of the means test.  The Court stated that the "way in which Congress chose to phrase the references in the sections supports the view that 'a benefit received under the Social Security Act' in § 101(10A)(B) was purposefully intended to be broader than 'a social security benefit.' 'Unemployment compensation' is included in this broader definition."

Bankruptcy and Trusts Decision

In the recent Massachusetts case of In re Grassa,--- B.R. ----, 2007 WL 756321 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass. 2007) Judge Somma held that the true owner of a house held in trust (and then transfered) was the bankruptcy debtor and trustee of the trust. The result of this will be that the house (which was transfered to the debtor's husband) will be recovered and sold by the trustee. This type of result can be avoided with the aid of legal counsel and careful planning. Real estate trusts and bankruptcy are often a toxic mix. The key in this case was that the debtor as trustee held the right to terminate the trust and transfer the trust asset (the house) to anyone she wanted -- including herself. This is what is known as a general power of appointment. Such a power makes the trust property subject to claims of the trustee's creditors because the trustee is considered the true owner under Massachusetts law.

Cadle Company Denied Debt Collection License in Massachusetts

The Cadle Company, a debt collection company well-known for hardball tactics, was recently denied a license to operate as a debt collection agency in Massachusetts. Cadle sued the Massachusetts Division of Banks in state superior court seeking to overturn the decision to deny it a license, but the superior court took the Division's side citing, among other things, the substantial evidence of complaints and outstanding litigation against Cadle.

First Circuit B.A.P. Issues Disposable Income Decision

The First Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has issued its decision in re Kibbe affirming the bankruptcy court's determination that actual anticipated income instead of the historically income found on the B22C form shall be used to determine disposable income in Chapter 13 cases.

Judge Hillman Rules No Fraudulent Conveyance in Divorce Transfer

In the recent case of In re Prichard, 2007 WL 458021 (Bankr.D.Mass., Feb 12, 2007) Massachusetts bankruptcy judge William C Hillman found in favor of the debtor in a fraudulent conveyance action brought by the trustee. Mr. Prichard had owned a house with his ex-wife which he transfered to her alone pursuant to a separation agreement incorporated into a judgment of divorce. The case was brought under the old Massachusetts version of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act which was repealed in favor of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in 1996. However, much of the reasoning in the case applies under both laws. In the actual-fraud prong of the trustee's case, he alleged that the debtor had an actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors when he made the transfer. This sort of allegation requires an examination of the indicia or so-called "badges" of fraud. My guess is that the trustee brought this case because after the divorce the debtor moved back in with his ex-wife. His wife testified that this was not a "normal situation" but it also appears from the testimony that the couple did not resume a married lifestyle but merely carried on a civil co-existence. The judge stated: "I could conclude that the Trustee met his initial burden of demonstrating actual fraud under § 7 of the UFCA simply because Thomas conveyed his property in favor of a family member over his creditors." The court then went on to find additional badges of fraud that solidified its conclusion that the trustee had met his initial burden. The issue then became whether there was "sufficient evidence of a legitimate supervening purpose for the transfer of the Property, such as to rebut the indication that [the debtor] effected the transfer of the Property with fraudulent intent." The judge declined to find that the marital difficulties leading to the transfer were a sham, stating that at "at the time of the transfer, Thomas did not retain any interest in the Property, but transferred his interest in it to [his ex-wife] who assumed complete responsibility for the Property and household's upkeep. To conclude now that this transaction was some sort of sham would require that I find that [the debtor and his ex-wife] staged their marital difficulties, while Thomas set up separate residences in 1989 and for the five years following, with the full intention of eventually returning to live in the Property in 1994. The evidence does not so prove and I do not so conclude."

The New Two Year Exemption Rule

I recently posted something about the new two-year bankruptcy exemption rule on the Bankruptcy Law Network site. The provision is found at 11 U.S.C. 522(b)(3)(A). Here's an example of how that rule works as applied to a hypothetical Massachusetts bankruptcy debtor. Let's say the hypothetical debtor has lived in Massachusetts for the past year, lived in Vermont for the year before that, and before that lived in Florida for five years. The Massachusetts resident files bankruptcy. Because the debtor did not live in the same state for the entire two-year period before the filing it is necessary to go back and look at the 180 day period before the two-year look-back period. During that time the debtor lived in Florida. So Florida's state exemption law applies. This means that the debtor has Florida state law exemptions to utilize; but it also means that Florida's opt out provision applies, rendering the federal exemptions unavailable. These federal exemptions would normally be available in Massachusetts, but here the only exemption law available would be what exists under the state law of Florida and under federal nonbankruptcy law.