Recent Entries

Bankruptcy in the Making: A Look Back at Bankruptcy Law and Its Formation

By Keri P. Ebeck, Esq. and James P. Valecko, Esq.

“All bankrupts were insolvent, but few insolvents were bankrupt.”[1] This statement was very true of those who lived and conducted business in the American Colonies and subsequently in the newly formed United States of America. In colonial America, where cash was an incredibly scarce commodity, the mercantile economy operated almost solely on credit. When an economy relies so heavily on credit, default is inevitable. In order to deal with the significant rate of default, each individual colony and/or state established its own collection laws and practices with the ultimate, but highly unsuccessful remedy being debtor’s prison. The practice of committing debtors to debtor’s prison, a practice adopted from England, quickly produced the same flaws which haunted the British system: that a debtor committed to prison cannot provide for himself, his family or become a productive member of society. Creditors remain frustrated and unsatisfied, debtor’s and their families became wards of the social system and the economy was deprived of a potential entrepreneur. Recognizing the need for relief for debtors, several colonies and states made attempts at legislating insolvency laws. These laws which could allow a debtor to be freed from debtor’s prison would not provide a discharge of the underlying debt allowing the debt to follow the debtor for the rest his life.

The concept of bankruptcy finds its origins in England of the 1500′s.  A statute passed during the reign of Henry VIII is regarded as the first bankruptcy law. This statute authorized the imprisonment of debtors, the seizure of their property and assets and distribution of the estate among the creditors. English law viewed debtors as criminals but the remedies of collections were kept outside the courts and in the hands of individual creditors.[2] Many of the early English bankruptcy laws served as a model for the Bankruptcy Act of 1800, the first American bankruptcy law and each modern bankruptcy law thereafter. As an example, upon commencing a bankruptcy under English law, the Lord Chancellor would appoint a bankruptcy “commissioner” to oversee the bankruptcy and liquidate the debtor’s assets- this is clearly the origin of the modern Chapter 7 trustee.[3] English law from 1705 created a discharge provision but only upon creditor consent. And a 1732 English law introduced the concept of allowing the debtor to keep a modest amount of property as “exempt” from his creditors.

Early American attempts at bankruptcy law, the Bankruptcy Acts of 1800 and 1841, were enacted at times of financial and economic panic in the early United States but did not survive the test of time. The Act of 1800 only lasted three years, and the Act of 1841 only two years.  But with each law, the United States moved closer to modern bankruptcy law as we know it today. The Bankruptcy Act of 1800 allowed creditors to file involuntary bankruptcies against their debtors in an effort to collect their debts in a proportioned amount. This system hints at the modern goal of leveling the playing field amongst the creditors competing over a debtor’s estate. In fact, the Act of 1800 included provisions for bringing preferential payments back into the estate and avoiding fraudulent conveyances by the debtor.  The Act of 1800 was limited only to debtors having commercial debts and in excess of $1,000.00 – a significant amount for that time. This intentionally left the everyday destitute debtor without the potential for bankruptcy relief and the potential threat of debtor’s prison.

The Bankruptcy Act of 1841 was expanded to allow for voluntary bankruptcies. During the Acts’ two short years, 41,000 bankruptcy petitions were filed.[4] The Bankruptcy Act of 1867 introduced a concept for a plan for distribution, provided both for voluntary and involuntary bankruptcies, and gave original jurisdiction over bankruptcies to the federal district courts.[5]

After the failure of the railroads and the resulting court-ordered receiverships, the Bankruptcy Act of 1889 was enacted and remained in effect for eighty-eight years. This Act created the “referees” who were appointed by the bankruptcy courts, who later became known as bankruptcy judges in 1973.[6] Congress eventually passed several laws in the early 1930′s and 1940′s after the Depression, which made a move from pro-creditor bankruptcy to pro-debtor bankruptcy. By 1970, Congress took another pro-debtor step and enacted a law to allow the debtor to protect and enforce one’s bankruptcy discharge.

On November 6, 1978, President Carter signed the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, which governs bankruptcy law in the United States today, albeit with several amendments. This was the first bankruptcy act that was not put into place because of economic or financial downturn and was also the first that was not drafted or lobbied by creditors but by the bankruptcy community of lawyers. The most notable provisions from the Act of 1978 were the creation of the bankruptcy trustee and encouragement of debtors to utilize Chapter 13 reorganization.

Thomas Paine argued that “credit made freely available by paper money encouraged people to spend beyond their means, to consume rather than invest”[7] Commerce, trade and manufacturing depends upon the availability of credit, and with the availability of credit comes the possibility of default.

Written by Keri Ebeck, an associate in the Bankruptcy Group of Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA, located in the Pittsburgh office, and edited by James Valecko, a partner in the Bankruptcy Group. Keri can be reached at 412.338.7102 and .

Footnotes:
[1] Mann, Bruce H.  Republic of Debtors: Bankruptcy in the Age of American Independence, 2002. Print.
[2] Tabb, Charles J. “A Brief History of Bankruptcy Law” (1995). Web.
[3] Id.
[4] Hansen, Bradley. “Bankruptcy Law in the United States”. EH. Net. Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaples. Aug 14, 2001.
[5] Tabb, Charles J. “A Brief History of Bankruptcy Law” (1995). Web.
[6] Id.
[7] Mann, Bruce H.  Republic of Debtors: Bankruptcy in the Age of American Independence, 2002. Print.

Is a Debtor’s Ability to Strip Off Second Mortgages Expanding?

Recent holdings in the Southern Bankruptcy District of Florida[1] and elsewhere demonstrate that debtors are seeking to expand their ability to strip off junior liens on real property in a Chapter 13 reorganization after having received a prior Chapter 7 discharge, and the Courts are beginning to step out of the way.

Since the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (“BAPCPA”) in 2005, most courts have ruled that debtors in so-called “Chapter 20″ cases (in which a debtor who has received a discharge in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy files a subsequent Chapter 13 petition for relief within the ensuing 4 years) cannot strip off a wholly undersecured junior lien on real property. BAPCPA was enacted in part to reform the eligibility for personal bankruptcy and prevent abuse of the bankruptcy process.

“Lien stripping” is a process authorized by the Bankruptcy Code that permits a debtor to extinguish a junior lien on real property when the equity in the property is less than the amount of the first mortgage. In brief, because there is no equity to secure the junior lien, the Code permits the Court to extinguish the lien upon the debtor receiving a discharge through the bankruptcy process, leaving the junior lien holder with only an unsecured claim. Thus, the second mortgage holder must aggressively defend an attempted lien strip, or it risks a near complete loss.

“Chapter 20″ is a term for a debtor who has already availed himself of relief under Chapter 7, which allows him to liquidate his assets to satisfy his debts to the greatest extent possible, upon which he receives a discharge canceling his personal liability for his debts. The debtor then files another bankruptcy petition under Chapter 13, which allows him to reorganize and repay his remaining debts through a 3- or 5-year plan. However, under the revisions enacted in BAPCPA, if the debtor files a Chapter 13 within four years of receiving a Chapter 7 discharge, he/she is not eligible for another discharge.

Courts have not allowed Chapter 20 debtors to strip off junior liens because such a debtor is ineligible for a discharge in the Chapter 13 case. Previously, Florida Bankruptcy Courts have held that the plan confirmation requirements of the Bankruptcy Code do not allow confirmation of any plan that does not provide for secured claimants to retain their lien until the debtor receives a discharge. This requirement was applied to attempts to strip off junior liens in Chapter 20 cases because if a secured claimant must retain its lien through discharge, and the debtor was ineligible, then the secured claimant cannot be stripped and must retain its lien and survive the completion of the Chapter 13 plan.

However, recent decisions in several other circuits outside of Florida cast doubt on this precedent. These decisions hold that there is no specific requirement in the Bankruptcy Code conditioning the right to lien strip on the debtor’s eligibility for discharge. Additionally, as argued in In re Vigo in the Southern District of Florida, where a debtor’s personal liability on an undersecured junior mortgage has been discharged in a Chapter 7, eligibility for discharge in the subsequent Chapter 13 would place a redundant and unnecessary requirement on the debtor’s ability to lien strip.

Although the Courts appear more willing to entertain these novel arguments for lien stripping in Chapter 20 cases, In re Vigo is the first case in the Southern District of Florida that we are aware of where the Court has allowed such a lien strip. It is not clear whether the granting of such a motion was due to the absence of opposition from the secured creditor, or because the Court agreed with the novel argument presented, but it remains as important as ever that junior lien holders continue to assert their rights and oppose such attempts. Recent prior cases in the Southern District of Florida have held the opposite of Vigo, that ineligibility for discharge is a threshold consideration that precludes avoidance of wholly unsecured junior liens. Under this and other similar decisions, the wholly unsecured junior lien holder retains its lien until the debtor pays off the underlying debt pursuant to nonbankruptcy law, a much better result for the secured creditor.

Secured creditors’ rights are being threatened by this expansion of a debtor’s rights. The economic realities of underwater properties and wholly unsecured junior mortgages and equity lines are being exacerbated by unopposed efforts of debtors’ attorneys making novel arguments to extinguish secured debt. The vigilant secured creditor can stem this debtors’ rights boom by relying on precedent and challenging the Chapter 20 debtor’s lien stripping efforts.

If you would like more information on Chapter 20 bankruptcies, the lien-stripping process and your rights as a secured creditor under the Bankruptcy Code, please contact Mr. Mark E. Steiner, Esq. Mark is an associate who practices in the Real Estate Default Group of Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA located in the Ft. Lauderdale, FL office. He can be reached at 954.740.5276 and .

[1] In re Vigo, Case No. 11-32092-EPK (Bankr. S.D.Fla. January 18, 2012)

Middle District of Florida Has a New Chief Bankruptcy Judge

By Damian A. Valladares, Esq.

The Middle District of Florida has a new Chief Bankruptcy Judge.  The Honorable Karen S. Jennemann replaced Judge Paul Glenn and commenced her four year term on October 1, 2011.  Chief Judge Jennemann sits in the Orlando Division of the Middle District.  To assist with Chief Judge Jennemann’s caseload, as she now takes on the administrative duties of Chief Judge, the Honorable  Benjamin Cohen of the Northern  District  of Alabama has been approved to sit with the Bankruptcy Court  for  the  Middle  District of Florida. Judge Cohen has already began assisting the Orlando Division.  We look forward to working with Judge Cohen and learning his preferences and particularities.

Chief Judge Jennemann has said one of her first priorities will be effectuating greater uniformity to Middle District bankruptcy practice.  Currently the Middle District of Florida, the second busiest bankruptcy court in the nation, consists of three divisions: Tampa, Jacksonville, and Orlando; and one sub-division: Ft. Myers.  There are eight permanent judges, and with the addition of Judge Cohen, three judges loaned from other states.  Each of the three major divisions in the Middle District have often acted as independent districts, with rules dictated by administrative orders, or just traditional practice.  This can be confusing to the participants in the bankruptcy process, and result in errors, delays, and confusion.

Chief Judge Jennemann’s first step in her effort to create a uniform practice in the Middle District affects Jacksonville.  Starting January 1, 2012, Jacksonville negative-notice Motions for Relief will have the same negative-notice time as Tampa and Orlando.  Now a Motion for Relief filed on negative notice in Jacksonville will be eligible for default 21 days from the date of filing.  Future steps will include a uniform model Chapter 13 plan, and uniform rules for mediations for mortgage modifications.

We believe uniformed rules and procedures in the Middle District Bankruptcy Courts will lead to more efficiency, certainty, and will ultimately benefit creditors.  We will continue to keep our clients informed of significant changes in practice and procedure, and as always look forward to fielding any questions or concerns.

If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Damian A. Valladares, Esq. Damian is an associate attorney practicing in the Real Estate Default Group of Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA, focused on bankruptcy services. Based in the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida office, Damian can be reached at 954.740.5234 and .

Another Jurisdiction Allows Lien Stripping After Chapter 7 Discharge

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California In Re Frazier has turned the tides on the split decisions in the Eastern District of California pertaining to the ability of a Debtor to strip second mortgages that have no value in a Chapter 13 proceeding after the Debtor has obtained a discharge in a Chapter 7 proceeding.  The District Court’s holding becomes another case in the Country where there is split authority whether the Debtor has the ability to strip a lien under these circumstances.  The Courts rational is that the ability to strip the lien is not based upon the Debtor’s lack of ability to obtain a discharge in the Chapter 13 due to the prior Chapter 7 discharge, but rather, is based upon the Debtor’s completion of all the requirements in a Chapter 13 case. 

As authority continues to be split around the Country, the chances of this case being brought to the Supreme Court seem very plausible.  In addition, we believe that we will see an increase in the Chapter 13 filings in the Eastern District of California after the Debtor has already obtained a discharge in a Chapter 7 case.  Chapter 20’s will once again be a proactive measure by Debtors in those Bankruptcy Courts. 

When faced with a situation where the Debtor is attempting to strip a lien in a Chapter 13 proceeding where the underlying obligation was previously discharged in a Chapter 7, it is crucial that the following steps be taken.  Confirm the value on the property by obtaining an appraisal.  Verify the outstanding balance on any mortgages ahead of the mortgage to be stripped to ensure that the amounts set forth by the Debtor are truly the amounts owed.  Finding $1.00 of equity will allow your mortgage to survive and be paid in full.  In addition, it may be time to determine whether the Chapter 13 proceeding was filed in good faith or solely for the purpose of stripping the second mortgage.  The status of the first mortgage on the property will play a large role. 

Weltman Weinberg and Reis Co., L.P.A. will continue to the monitor the case log throughout the Country as it pertains to the ability to strip a lien after the Debtor has obtained a Chapter 7 discharge.  Unfortunately, Chapter 20 proceedings may be alive and kicking once again. 

If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Alan C. Hochheiser, Managing Partner of the Bankruptcy Group at Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA. Al can be reached at 216.739.5649 and .

United States Bankruptcy Court Judge for the District of Rhode Island Announces Plans to Retire

by Keri Ebeck, Esq.

Rhode Island’s first and only bankruptcy judge, Arthur N. Votolato Jr. announced his plans to retire after 44 years on the bench.

The Providence Journal posted on February 9, 2012 that Judge Votolato’s retirement will most likely begin this summer. Judge Votolato’s current 14-year appointment runs until May 2013, but he has indicated that he will step down early to spend time with his family. Judge Arthur N. Votolato Jr. is 81 years old and is the longest continuously serving active bankruptcy judge in the United States. He also currently serves as the Chief Judge for the First Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

There has been no indication as to an interim or new appointment of a bankruptcy judge for Rhode Island at this time.