Recent Entries

U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of PA Welcomes Newly Appointed Honorable Judge Ashely Chan

By Keri P. Ebeck, Esq.

In June 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania nominated Ashely Chan as a United States Bankruptcy Judge to succeed the retiring Honorable Bruce I. Fox. Judge Chan has been formally nominated, appointed and confirmed.

Judge Chan started her career as a law clerk for the Honorable Gloria M. Burns of the Unites States Bankruptcy Court of New Jersey and has concentrated her practice primarily in bankruptcy since 1996. Prior to being appointed and sworn in, Judge Chan was an attorney with the firm of Morgan Lewis & Bockius and a shareholder with the firm of Hangley Aronchick, where she co-chaired its bankruptcy practice.


Reaffirmation and the Advantages for Credit Unions

By Joe McCandlish, Attorney

For many creditors, when a debtor files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, getting the debtor to sign and return a reaffirmation agreement is only the first challenge. Depending on the debtor’s financial situation, a hearing may be held, at which the debtor would need to prove he or she can make the payments. In some situations, the court can disallow the reaffirmation agreement.

Credit unions have an advantage – the debtor’s budget should not be a consideration. Although 11 U.S.C. § 524(m)(1) requires courts to review reaffirmation agreements “if the debtor’s monthly income less the debtor’s monthly expenses…is less than the scheduled payments on the reaffirmed debt”, that provision “does not apply to reaffirmation agreements when the creditor is a credit union”.  11 U.S.C. § 524(m)(2). So, if a debtor or debtor’s attorney explains that the debtor’s budget will not allow the debtor to reaffirm, it may be worthwhile to have your credit union’s attorney get involved and explain the applicable law accordingly.

If your credit union’s uniform procedure is to deny a debtor’s membership benefits if a debtor causes a loss to the credit union, this may also be a good time for the credit union’s attorney to explain the additional advantage of reaffirming the debt – that the debtor may enjoy the benefits of being a member of the credit union if the member’s debt is reaffirmed and paid.

For additional questions regarding a credit union’s rights when a member goes bankrupt, feel free to call Joe McCandlish at (614) 801-2619.

The 8th Circuit Opens the Door to Partial Discharge of Student Loans and Upends the Totality of the Circumstances Test

By Monette Cope Attorney Junior Partner

Most student loans are nondischargeable in bankruptcy unless a debtor can show that repayment of the loans will cause the debtor an “undue hardship”.[1] The Eighth Circuit is the only Circuit that does not apply the three prongs set out in Brunner v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp[2]. As the test of undue hardship. Rather, it employs a “Totality of the Circumstances” test which looks in part at “the debtor’s past, present and future financial resources”.[3] In Conway v. National Collegiate Trust (In re Conway)[4], the debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2009, obtained a discharge, and then reopened the bankruptcy in 2011 to seek a discharge of her student loans. While she had other student loans, the only ones that were considered at trial were fifteen loans owing to one private loan holder. She graduated with a B.A. in Media Communications in 2005, had held two full-time jobs, but was laid off of each one.

At the time of the trial, she held two part-time jobs as a server in restaurants. The bankruptcy court denied her a discharge of her student loans, finding she had at least 30 years to establish herself in the world of work and that her future financial resources should allow her to pay her student loans. While not disturbing the factual findings upon which the bankruptcy court found that the debtor will have reasonably reliable future finances to pay, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (B.A.P.) reasoned differently. Instead of looking to future possibilities, the court stressed it could not engage in speculation, and looked only to the debtor’s past and current earnings as evidence of what she may make in the future.[5] The 8th Circuit B.A.P., in accordance with most other courts, stated in Conway that it had no authority to grant partial discharges of student loans. It then turned around and found a way to do it. The case was reversed and remanded to the bankruptcy court to individually determine the dischargeability of each of the fifteen student loans in light of the debtor’s current yearly income.[6]

This is a stunning ruling because it effectively prevents a bankruptcy court in the 8th Circuit from looking at any evidence of future earning potential other than a debtor’s past and current income. So, if a highly trained professional chooses to work part-time in a low-paying job and establishes a pattern of low earnings, is the court only to look at those earnings in determining a future ability to earn and pay student loans? Can future income potential still be part of the totality of circumstances test?
While this case is only applicable to bankruptcy cases in the 8th Circuit, courts in other circuits may start to relax their analysis of the undue hardship test in Brunner.

[1] 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(8).
[2] 831 F.2d 395, 396 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1987).
[3] Reynolds v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency (In re Reynolds), 425 F.3d 526 (8th Cir. Minn. 2005).
[4] 495 B.R. 416(8th Cir. BAP 2013) ( affirmed June 2014 by 8th Cir.).
[5] Id., at 423
[6] Id., at 424.

Election of Remedies: Foreclosure, Money Judgment and Bankruptcy

By Anne Smith, Attorney

When a borrower defaults on a promissory note that is secured by real estate through a mortgage or deed of trust, lenders have a decision to make. Is it better to foreclose on the property, take a deed in lieu of foreclosure, or sue on the promissory note? The choice made at the outset may affect how the obligation is handled in the event your borrower files bankruptcy. When choosing a remedy to pursue, lenders must consider the cost as well as the effects of each alternative. Most states adhere to an election of remedies doctrine, which means a lender must choose one remedy over the other. When a lender decides to file a lawsuit, the attorney will usually file one complaint that will describe two separate remedies: one remedy will be to foreclose the lien, and the other remedy will be for a money judgment. After the suit is filed, the lender must choose one of the remedies, as it cannot pursue both simultaneously. If a lender chooses to foreclose, the unit will be sold to the highest bidder at judicial foreclosure sale, frequently the lender itself. Alternatively, the lender may seek a money judgment, which would allow the lender to immediately attempt to collect the judgment amount from the debtor through garnishment and attachment, but will extinguish its lien on the property.

A foreclosure is costly and time-consuming, and creates new obligations for the lender. There are numerous requirements to include all parties, owners and lienholders, requirements to participate in mediation or loss mitigation, and delays for any number of issues. However, many states now permit a lender to seek a deficiency judgment on the remaining balance after a sale. If the property has chain of title or assignment issues, environmental issues, or is a non-desirable property for other reasons, seeking a money judgment may be preferable. A money judgment permits attempts at immediate recovery, and may be the best course of action for a junior mortgage or lienholder. A primary recommendation after obtaining a money judgment is to make sure a judgment lien is recorded in the county deed records, if required by your state to effectively attach to real property. You can then proceed with garnishment or attachment while maintaining a lien on the real estate. Keep in mind that your lien priority will change upon taking the judgment and filing the lien, but that may be a non-issue if you hold a junior mortgage with little or no equity available to you.

One problem with a money judgment is the effect of a bankruptcy filing on its collectability.  Once a lender takes a money judgment, its claim will be deemed unsecured in a bankruptcy estate, as the lender will be seen as having waived its option to enforce the mortgage.  If the lender has filed a judgment lien in the deed records, that may provide some measure of security, but it is likely that the debtor will seek to avoid the lien. Most importantly, if the judgment lien is filed within ninety (90) days of the bankruptcy filing, it may be avoided as a preference, and stripped from the real property. Lenders have many decisions to make with regard to a defaulted note, and as always, timing is everything. Please contact legal counsel with any questions about a particular situation or state’s laws.

Amendments to Pennsylvania’s Law on Powers of Attorney

By Keri P. Ebeck, Attorney

Profile Image

On July 2, 2014, Governor Tom Corbett signed into law as part of Act 95 of 2014, House Bill 1429, which provides for the amendments of Title 20 Chapter 56 (20 Pa. C.S. §§5601-5612). Title 20, Chapter 56 provides for the laws that govern all power of attorneys (hereinafter “POA”) used in financial and property transactions.

The amendments of Title 20 specifically change the law involving third party acceptance, reliance and civil liability of POA(s). This amendment was established to legislatively overturn a prior Pennsylvania Supreme Court case of Commonwealth v. Vine, 9 A. 3d 1150 (2010). The Vine case held that a third party is not reasonable to rely upon a power of attorney submitted by an agent where the POA may be defective or void, even in cases where the third party had no knowledge of such.[1]

The amendments of Title 20 were partially enacted to correct the Vine case decision by amending §5608 to state as follows:

5608(c) Genuineness.–A person who in good faith accepts a power of attorney without actual knowledge that a signature or mark of any of the following are not genuine may, without liability, rely upon the genuineness of the signature or mark of:

(1) The principal
(2) A person who signed the power of attorney on behalf of the principal and at the direction of the principal
(3) A witness
(4) A notary public or other person authorized by law to take acknowledgments [2]

By this amendment, a third party may accept in good faith (without specific knowledge) the POA that an agent submits without consequences and civil liability. Additionally, the amendments went on to state in §5608(d) that “A person who in good faith accepts a power of attorney without actual knowledge of any of the following may, without liability, rely upon the power of attorney as if the power of attorney and agent’s authority were genuine, valid and still in effect…”[3] This amendment specifically changed the law in PA, as previously a rejection or refusal of a POA may have resulted in civil liability.  The POA law now states that “A person who is asked to accept a power of attorney may request and, without liability, rely upon without further investigation…(1) an agent’s certification under penalty of perjury; (2) an English translation of the POA; (3) an opinion of counsel as to the POA.”[4]

These amendments to Title 20 directly affect all banks and their employees, who accept POA(s) for their customers on a daily basis to conduct business. The amendments allow for a greater protection from liability for accepting the POA(s) in question. The legislation of Act 95 of 2014 also incorporates the standing Pennsylvania law as part of the Uniform Power of Attorney Act, which is effective and law in fifteen (15) other states.[5]  Should a lender or third party have a question on a particular POA, it is recommended to contact legal counsel for interpretation of the current standing law and amendments recently enacted.

The amendments of Title 20, Section 56; §§ 5601(f), 5608, 5608.1, 5808.2, 5611 and 5611 are effective as of July 2, 2014. All other parts of Act 95 of 2014 are effective as of January 1, 2015.

If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Ms. Keri P. Ebeck, Esq. Keri is an attorney who practices in bankruptcy and is based in the Pittsburgh office. She can be reached at 412.338.7102 and

[1] Commonwealth v. Vine, 9 A. 3d 1150 (2010)
[2] House Bill 1429 (Act 95 of 2014)
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Important Changes Enacted to Pennsylvania’s Power of Attorney Law, Pepe, Raymond, June 26, 2014;…/Important_Changes_to_Pennsylvania’s_Power_of_ Attorney_Law_Take_Effect_Jan2015