Recent Entries

Ohio’s March Madness Over Change in Homestead Exemption

By Stephen Franks, Attorney

Ohio recently received a major boost to its homestead exemption.  Effective March 27, 2013, Ohio’s individual homestead exemption increased to $125,000.00.  Previously, the individual exemption had only been $21,625.00.  This dramatic increase moves Ohio from one of the lowest state exemptions to one of the highest state exemptions. 

How Does the Homestead Exemption Apply in Bankruptcy?
The homestead exemption protects homeowners from the forced sale of their home in bankruptcy.  The exemption acts as a shield that protects a certain amount of equity in the home from creditors and trustees.  The homestead exemption is applied after consensual mortgage liens, but before judgment liens. Therefore, judgment liens are routinely stripped in bankruptcy cases due to lack of equity in the property.  Bankrupt homeowners in Ohio can now protect $125,000.00 of equity in their home as a result of the increase. 

For example, borrower owns his own home and files bankruptcy.  The home is valued at $200,000.00.  He only owes $100,000.00 to the first mortgagee.  However, there exists a $20,000.00 judgment lien on the property.  The $100,000.00 equity cushion that previously existed in Ohio would’ve supported the judgment lien as the borrower could only have exempted $21,625.00.  Pursuant to the new exemption limit however, the borrower can now protect an additional $125,000.00 of equity after the $100,000.00 first mortgage.  The judgment lien is now stripped where it would have previously survived in Ohio.

Joint filing bankrupt debtors in Ohio can each claim the $125,000.00 exemption, thereby allowing them to claim a total exemption of $250,000.00.  Most states do not allow jointly filing homeowners to each claim the exemption, but cap the exemption at the individual amount.  Ohio is one of the few states that allow both debtors to claim the exemption. 

What does this mean for creditors? 
This increase will have the most impact on judgment liens as illustrated above.  The increased exemption will make it virtually impossible for any judgment lien to survive a Chapter 7 discharge.  Now, a judgment lien will have to survive the superior mortgages, plus an additional $125,000.00 or even $250,000.00 of the homeowner exemption.  The exemptions will prove virtually insurmountable for liens to survive. 

Further, unsecured creditors and trustees will be losing out on a possible source of revenue.  For the same reasons as listed above, Chapter 7 Trustees will no longer have excess equity in real estate available to sell for the benefit of the estate.  The selling of excess equity could have provided substantial recovery for the estate.

At the end of the day, the change in exemptions is a huge windfall for debtors and major loss to creditors and trustees.

Stephen Franks is an attorney in Bankruptcy with a focus on consumer and commercial work and is located in the Brooklyn Heights office of Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA. He can be reached at 216.739.5645 and sfranks@weltman.com.

Non-Dischargability Review of Nursing Home and Medical Debt

By Keri P. Ebeck, Attorney and Ashley L. Sweeney, Attorney

Through the years, bankruptcy has become a powerful tool for debtors wanting to eliminate their debt.  However, even though the bankruptcy tool is powerful, it is not invincible.  Not all debts are discharged by bankruptcy.  Although, the debts discharged vary under each chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, the most common type of dischargeable debt is credit card and other unsecured debt, unpaid medical and utility bills, and deficiency balances from repossession or foreclosure.  Section 523(a) of the Code lists specific categories of debts which are not discharged by bankruptcy. Therefore, the debtor must still repay those debts even after filing.

Generally, the exceptions to dischargability apply automatically if the language prescribed by section 523(a) applies. The most common types of non-dischargeable debts include certain types of tax claims, debts not listed by the debtor on the paperwork the debtor must file with the court, debts for spousal or child support or alimony, debts for willful and malicious injuries to a person or property, debts owed to the government for fines and penalties, debts for most educational loans or benefit overpayments, debts for personal injury caused by the debtor’s operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated, debts owed to certain tax-advantaged retirement plans, and debts for certain condominium or cooperative housing fees.[1]   Debts dischargeable in a Chapter 13, but not in Chapter 7, include debts incurred to pay non-dischargeable tax obligations and debts arising from property settlements in divorce or separation proceedings.[2]

Even some of the commonly discharged debts can become non-dischargeable due to certain exceptions.  For example, even though credit card and unsecured debt is typically dischargeable, excessive credit card use in the months prior to a debtor filing his or her bankruptcy will turn that credit card use into a form of non-dischargeable debt.[3]   The creditor can and should challenge the debtor’s request to eliminate the entire balance on the credit card by alleging that the debtor never intended to pay for those purchases. Examples of excessive use include purchasing expensive vacations or high-priced merchandise prior to filing bankruptcy, i.e. what the Code classified as luxury items.

When reviewing claims associated with a hospital stay, doctor visits or ambulance service may be eliminated in bankruptcy through the debtor obtaining a bankruptcy discharge as most of these debts are classified as unsecured, but some exceptions do exist.  For example, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has ruled that the wife of a nursing home resident was contractually bound through the home’s admissions agreement to apply for medical assistance on behalf of her husband and because she failed to do so, could not discharge the amount due to the nursing home through her bankruptcy.[4]   The Court found that her “failure to obtain the Medicaid benefits and the subsequent failure to meet the financial obligations for [her husband’s] care were a breach of her obligations under the admissions agreement as the party responsible for [her husband’s] financial assets and liabilities.”[5]   The Court held that the debt was non-dischargeable under Section 523 (a)(4) because of the defalcation by the Defendant.  The Court defined defalcation as: “the willful neglect of one’s duty, even if not accompanied by fraud or embezzlement.”  Had the debtor’s wife not violated the admissions agreement and properly sought the Medicaid benefits, the debtor’s wife may have been able to discharge the outstanding nursing home debt of her husband.

Every nursing home admissions agreement states that the responsible party is only responsible for making sure that the nursing home gets paid from the resident’s own funds.  But then they typically go on to say that if the resident does not have sufficient funds, the responsible party will help apply for Medicaid and, if Medicaid does not pay, then the responsible party may be called to pay from their own funds.  As a general principle of law, the adult child of a parent who receives medical care at a nursing home is not the guarantor of the parent’s medical debt, unless the adult child agreed to be the guarantor of the debt in the admissions agreement.  However, certain states, such as Pennsylvania, have filial duty statutes that require adult children or other close relatives of an indigent person to provide financial support for that person.[6]   Thus, in states that have such laws, a child is responsible to pay for the medical debt of their parent if the parent does not have the funds to pay,[7]  even if the child did not guarantee the payment of such debt in the terms of the admissions agreement.  If the child is found responsible for the medical debt of their parent, they may be able to discharge that debt with a bankruptcy, dependent upon the circumstances around how the debt was incurred. If the child had a fiduciary duty and failed to act, the debt may be deemed non-dischargeable, as held in In Re Plybon.[8]  

Although a debtor may try to discharge certain unsecured debts that they or relatives may have incurred, it does not mean the creditor should assume it to be discharged. The creditor may have certain rights under the Code to have the debt declared non-dischargeable. If there is a question on whether or not a debt is dischargeable, the creditor should seek legal advice immediately to protect any and all rights it may have. 

Keri Ebeck is an attorney in Bankruptcy and Ashley Sweeney is an attorney in Consumer Collections, and both are located in the Pittsburgh office of Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA. Keri can be reached at 412.338.7102 and kebeck@weltman.com while Ashley can be reached at 412.338.7147 and asweeney@weltman.com.

[1] See 11 U.S.C.S. §523 (2013).
[2] See id.
[3] See, e.g., Mercantile Bank v. Hoyle (In re Hoyle), (1995, BC DC Kan) 183 BR 635; In re Doggett, (1987, BC SD Ohio) 75 BR 789; In re Pozucek, (1987, BC ND Ill) 73 BR 110.
[4] In re Plybon (U.S. Bankr. E.D. Ky., No. 11–10146, March 9, 2012).
[5] Id.
[6] 62 Pa.C.S.. § 1973 (2013).
[7] See, e.g., Presbyterian Med. Ctr. v. Budd, 832 A.2d 1066, 1075 (stating that “[a] nursing home providing an indigent parent with shelter, sustenance, and care has sufficient ‘interest’ under 62 P.S. § 1973 to bring a support action against the parent’s child”); Albert Einstein Med. Ctr. v. Forman, 243 A.2d 181, 182 (Pa.Super. 1968) (permitting hospital to bring action against two children for unpaid medical bills of indigent mother).
[8] For example, the educational loan debt of an indigent child for which the mother cosigned would not be discharged by the mother’s bankruptcy.

CFPB’s Proposed Rule Regarding Non-Bank Student Loan Servicers

By Joseph M. McCandlish, Attorney

On March 14, 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed a rule that will allow it to supervise certain student loan servicers. “Under the rule, any non-bank student loan servicer that handles more than one million borrower accounts will be subject to CFPB supervisory authority. With that threshold, the Bureau estimates that it would have authority to supervise the seven largest student loan servicers.” Those seven servicers handle most of the activity in the student loan servicing market. http://www.consumerfinance.gov/pressreleases/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-proposes-rule-to-oversee-nonbank-student-loan-servicers/.

Both federal and private student loans will be covered. As to federal loans, according to the CFPB’s press release, the Bureau would continue to work closely with the U.S. Department of Education.

As to private student loans, the Bureau cited several reasons for proposing this rule. They included: confusion among borrowers as to exactly how much is owed; borrowers dealing with servicers that were unaware of what resources were available to the borrowers, and which transferred the borrowers calls from person to person; lost paperwork and delayed payments; and others.

CFPB Director, Richard Cordray, commented that the “rule would bring new oversight to the student loan market and help ensure that tens of millions of borrowers are not treated unfairly by their servicers.” He also commented about the recent rapid growth in the student loan market.

The public has sixty days to comment on the proposed rule, from the date it was published in the Federal Register. The deadline for comments is May 28, 2013. To comment, go to https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/03/28/2013-06291/defining-larger-participants-of-the-student-loan-servicing-market and click on “Submit a Formal Comment” near the top-right of the screen. This citation also takes you to a website that will provide more information about the proposed rule.

WWR helps creditors recover their student loan receivables. This includes collection efforts, litigation, and representation when a bankruptcy is filed. 

Joe McCandlish is an attorney in the Bankruptcy Unit focused on the Education Loan Collection & Litigation Group located in the Columbus office of Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA. He can be reached at 614.857.4410 and jmccandlish@weltman.com.

Compliance Issues Remain a Hot Topic

By Alan C. Hochheiser, Partner

As with the past several months, our concentration continues to be on Compliance issues. It is the hottest topic in the collection and bankruptcy industries. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) continues to be in the news. On April 23rd, Richard Cordray, Director of the CFPB, provided his bi-annual report to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. A majority of his report was spent on the debt collection industry, the CFPB’s Complaint Database and the CFPB’s initiative to obtain data on millions of consumers.

As for Director Corday’s report to the House Financial Services Committee, it did not go forward as scheduled. Some Republican House members continue to dispute the validity of the Recess appointment of the Director. As a result, we cannot provide any additional guidance. Please note that the Government is requesting the United States Supreme Court look at the issue of the Director’s appointment via a writ of certiorari in the case of other recess appointments.

The CFPB continues to put forth new and revised rules on a regular basis.  Recently, the CFPB indicated that it will provide clarification and changes to the Ability to Repay and Servicing Rules. When they made the Mortgage Servicing Rules public, the CFPB indicated that it would provide further guidance throughout the year prior to the rules going into effect January, 2014.

As an update to the CFPB’s Complaint Database as of April 21, 2013, approximately 99,000 complaints have been filed since its inception. Mortgage based complaints make up approximately 54,000 of the issues raised by consumers.

Besides the updates that Weltman, Weinberg & Reis provides, the CFPB Monitor is an excellent website to see regular updates and breaking news from the CFPB at cfpbmonitor.com, or you can also get updates from the CFPB website at consumerfinance.gov.

Weltman, Weinberg & Reis will continue to keep you updated on the important issues that affect your bankruptcy and collection portfolios.

Alan Hochheiser is the managing partner of the Bankruptcy Group and is located in the Brooklyn Heights office of Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA. He can be reached at 216.739.5649 or ahochheiser@weltman.com.

ALFN Webinar April 25th

The American Legal & Financial Network (ALFN) is hosting a webinar on April 25, 2013, where Alan C. Hochheiser from WWR is moderating a panel.

Title:  CFPB Rules: Four Regulations Important to Your Business
Date:  Thursday, April 25, 2013
Time:  1:00 PM – 2:30 PM Central (11-12:30 Pacific, 12-1:30 Mountain & 2-3:30 Eastern)
Cost:  Free members
Speakers: 
Adam Silver, Esq., Managing Partner – Default Services, McCalla Raymer, LLC; Alan C. Hochheiser, Esq., Managing Partner – Bankruptcy, Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA; Corey S. Danzig, Esq., Associate Attorney/Compliance Counsel, Felty & Lembright Co., LPA; Lisa Lee, Esq., Shareholder, KML Law Group, P.C.; Maria V. Moskver, Esq., Director – Compliance Solutions and Senior Counsel, WALZ Group; Michelle Garcia Gilbert, Esq., President/CEO, Gilbert Garcia Group, PA.

Webinar Overview
This webinar will address four key areas of CFPB regulation: Mortgage Servicing Final Rules; Ability to Repay and Qualified Mortgage; Escrow Requirements; and High-Cost Mortgage and Homeownership Counseling. Presenbed by the ALFN Federal Consumer Lending Statutes and Legislative Issues & Solutions Committees, the webinar will also include an Inside the Beltway legislative update for attendees.

About ALFN Webinars
In today’s complex environment, loan servicing professionals need up to the minute information. ALFN presents our webinars as a free resource to the mortgage servicing industry to provide all the most important industry trends including legal updates, regulatory compliance, state  specific requirements and other hot topics in default servicing. Our webinars are led by ALFN members and other legal and mortgage servicing professionals to address the needs of our industry at every level. ALFN webinars are informative, timely & beneficial and we urge you to become a regular participant in these educational presentations. For more information on ALFN, visit www.alfn.org.

Register HERE