No attorney wants to see his name mentioned prominently in an opinion. However, if it has to happen, it's better if its something like this:  "Chance McGhee is an experienced and competent attorney that has practiced consumer bankruptcy law for many years." Adv. No. 21-5036; Wilson v. Silva (In re Silva) (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 5/19/2022).  The opinion can be found here. As the opinion lays out, Mr. McGhee demonstrated how an experienced and competent attorney should handle a potentially difficult case.What HappenedDanny Wilson, the Plaintiff, took out a loan to help the Defendant, Arthur Silva, acquire an insurance agency. Part of their deal was that commission checks would be deposited into an account controlled by Wilson. This was important because Wilson had pledged the commissions on a loan that he took out to fund Silva's acquisition of the agency.About eight months into the deal, Silva stopped depositing the commissions into the Wilson account. Wilson sued for breach of contract and eventually recovered a judgment for over $616,000. Silva filed a Chapter 13 petition in 2020 which was dismissed and then a Chapter 7 case in 2021. Wilson filed a complaint under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(6) and Sec. 727(a)(4). The parties did not submit a joint pre-trial order which meant that there were not any stipulated facts.  (Practice tip: Always submit a joint pre-trial order). The Plaintiff submitted 149 exhibits. Three witnesses testified: Wilson, Silva and attorney Chance McGhee. The Debtor waived attorney-client privilege to allow Mr. McGhee to testify.The Willful and Malicious Ruling On the willful and malicious injury claim, the Plaintiff was required to show that Silva's actions in diverting the commission checks created either "an objective substantial certainty of harm" or "a subjective motive to cause harm." Williams v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 520 (In re Williams), 337 F.3d 504, 509 (5th Cir. 2003). At trial, Wilson's counsel failed to ask Silva any questions about his intent. Mr. McGhee, recognizing that Wilson had the burden of proof, wisely refrained from asking any questions of his own. This is the first lesson from this case. If your opponent doesn't meet his burden of proof, don't provide the evidence for him.  The Court stated:The Court recognizes that Silva breached the agreement and was liable for damages caused to Wilson. What is unclear to the Court is whether Silva acted objectively or subjectively to cause harm to Wilson. The Court notes that the breach of a contract gives rise to damages, but there is insufficient evidence to find that Silva’s breach of the agreement demonstrates subjectively or objectively an intent to harm Wilson. Based on the evidence provided, the Court cannot find that Silva had a subjective motive by acting deliberately and intentionally in knowing disregard of Wilson. There is insufficient evidence on subjective intent to cause harm. Additionally, the Court cannot find that Silva’s actions were objectively substantially certain to cause injury. Wilson did discuss how the diversion of Allstate payments impacted him, but there is insufficient evidence that Silva’s actions were certain to cause harm. As such, the Court finds that Wilson has not met his burden by a preponderance of the evidence that Silva’s liability to Wilson is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6).Opinion, at 13-14.The Objection to DischargeThe Plaintiff seized upon a number of inconsistencies between the Debtor's two bankruptcy filings as well as amendments to the schedules to assert that the Debtor had made a false oath in his bankruptcy case. However, the Plaintiff failed to meet the five-part test for denial of discharge and some of his allegations left the Court scratching its head. The test for denial of discharge under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 727(a)(4) is:   "(1) [the debtor] made a statement under oath; (2) the statement was false; (3) [the debtor] knew the statement was false; (4) [the debtor] made the statement with fraudulent intent; and (5) the statement related materially to the bankruptcy case.’” Cadle Co. v. Pratt (In re Pratt), 411 F.3d 561, 566 (5th Cir. 2005). Thus, a false statement standing alone is not sufficient to deny discharge. Notably, “Bankruptcy Courts have not construed § 727(a)(4) generally to impose strict liability for the schedules and false statements.” (citations omitted). Innocent mistakes and inadvertence are generally not sufficient to result in denial of a discharge.Opinion, p. 14. The Court went on to note that “[i]t may be close to impossible to produce Schedules and SOF As that contain no mistaken information.” Opinion, p. 16.The creditor alleged ten supposedly false statements.   1.    Failure to list a non-profit corporation that was formed post-petition. The Court found that the omission was not intentionally false. Indeed, since the Schedules and SOFA are a snapshot as of the petition date, the entity need not have been listed at all. 2.    Failure to list a dba of his insurance agency. The Court found that this statement was not false because the Debtor had listed the actual insurance agency.3.    Undervaluing his homestead. Mr. McGhee testified that consumer lawyers often use the appraisal district valuation for valuing property. However, when the valuation was challenged, the Debtor obtained an appraisal and amended. Based on the amendment, the Debtor switched from federal to state exemptions, which the court described as  "good lawyering to protect assets from liquidation in a chapter 7 case." Neither relying on the appraisal district value initially, amending to disclose the value stated in an appraisal or switching from federal to state exemptions was a false oath. 4.    The Debtor initially valued his electronics at $0. Mr. McGhee testified that this was his error. He later amended the schedules to value the electronics at $2,000. The court found that the misstatement was not material since the trustee did not seek turnover of the electronics (presumably because they were exempt). 5.    Undervaluing his Allstate franchise agreement. Although the court did not say so, questions are valuation are difficult to use for a false oath. Valuation is a matter of opinion and while a debtor may have an opinion as to value, that opinion would only be false if the debtor had actual knowledge of a higher value from a source that could not be disputed. In this case, the Debtor initially gave his estimate of the going concern value of the franchise and then amended when he was able to obtain a definitive valuation from Allstate. Amending to provide a better value is not the type of amendment that could constitute a false oath in most cases. 6.    Claiming federal exemptions in Silva's cash and investment accounts. "The Court fails to understand how asserting federal exemptions somehow qualifies as an omission or false statement under § 727(a)(4)(A)." 7.     “Amending Silva’s Schedule C to claim both the monetary value of the majority of his exempt assets as well as claiming 100% of fair market value”  "(T)he Court is perplexed by this assertion. Maximizing exemptions is precisely what a debtor’s counsel should do to achieve the broadest discharge possible for a debtor. The Supreme Court’s holding in Schwab v. Reilly permits using 100% of the fair market value to exempt assets. 560 U.S. 770 (2010)." Opinion, p. 18.8.     Increasing the amount of the IRS's secured claim on the Debtor's homestead.  Mr. McGhee testified as to the reason for this amendment which the Court found was neither false nor material due to the unlimited Texas homestead exemption.9.    Decreasing the value of the secured claim on the Debtor's insurance agency. The secured value was dependent on the value of the asset. As explained above, when the Debtor obtained a better valuation, it necessarily affected the value. The Court found that this was "not attributable to any manipulation by Silva, but an independent valuation."   10.    Failure to list certain unsecured creditors who later filed claims. Mr. McGhee testified that sometimes debts are sold or transferred so that the original creditor listed on a credit report was not the creditor at the time for claims to be filed. The Court noted that there was no benefit to the debtor in omitting unsecured creditors since these claims might be excluded from discharge under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(3). The Court found that the creditor did not establish that the statements were made with fraudulent intent. As to the fourth element—whether the debtor made the statement with fraudulent intent—Silva did not make any statements suggesting the omissions or false statements were made with fraudulent intent. The Court finds Silva’s explanations credible as to why he originally listed his liabilities the way he did. Further, the Court cannot discern any attempt to prevent any creditor from learning about Silva’s assets and liabilities. Silva repeatedly testified he disclosed his assets and liabilities to McGhee to the best of his knowledge and relied on McGhee’s expertise to list the liabilities and assets appropriately. The Court also finds credible McGhee’s explanations and rationale for the how the schedules were originally prepared and subsequently amended. The Court cannot find any basis to conclude that Silva purposely omitted any of his assets or liabilities. Opinion, p. 19.  The Court also found that none of the statements were material.What this section shows is that Mr. McGhee helped his client by getting him to waive attorney-client privilege and by allowing Mr. McGhee to testify as to rationale for the changes. While many of the objections were spurious (or at a minimum not very well thought out), the expert testimony of an experienced consumer bankruptcy lawyer provided valuable context to the court. Amendments that the creditor perceived to be fraudulent were, in fact, just good lawyering. The fact that Mr. McGhee was willing to testify, and in one instance, admit to his error, showed that he was willing to place his client's interest ahead of his own (since after all, no lawyer wants to be cross-examined by his adversary. This opinion provides a wealth of good case law and good observations that will be useful in defending an objection to discharge. The opinion should also be required reading for a creditor wanting to pursue a false oath case. While the various amendments and omissions may have looked shady, someone should have asked whether they made a difference before filing the complaint.  It also shows the wisdom in consulting with an experienced bankruptcy lawyer before filing an adversary proceeding. 

Sylvia Mayer of https://smayerlaw.com/ joins Mac Pierre-Louis and Natalia Olowska-Czajka of https://olowskapierre.com/ to explore the differences and similarities between mediating family divorces (when a couple separate and need to divide up their property and, if children are involved, set a custody schedule) and business divorces (when owners of a small or privately held business part ways and need to divide up the assets and liabilities of the business or resolve disputes related to the management of the business). Are emotions high? Are children (literal children or figurative children in the form of a business grown from the ground up) involved? Is there property to divide up? Or liabilities? Do one or both parties feel betrayed or deceived? With all of this, how do mediators help the parties find a path to resolution? #mediation #adr #businessdivorce #divorce #smallbusinessmediation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKZB0bW BvFQ&list=PLVLC1NzkmY2f1P WvrcC Ou1DeV Gz94_8aL&index=8 The post Can You Spot the Differences? And Similarities? Comparing Family Divorces with Business Divorces in Mediation appeared first on Sylvia Mayer Law.

Sylvia Mayer of https://smayerlaw.com/ joins Mac Pierre-Louis and Natalia Olowska-Czajka of https://olowskapierre.com/ to discuss Robert Cialdini’s Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade. Sylvia is an avid reader and shares her takeaways from reading Pre-Suasion and how they apply to mediation and conflict resolution.   At its core, relying on real-life situations and scientific studies, Pre-Suasion explores a myriad of ways to enhance receptivity before making any meaningful “asks.”  Receptivity refers to being open to accepting new information, ideas, and suggestions.  In mediation, parties typically reach an agreement only after each has become receptive.  Focus, timing, word choice, reciprocity, framing, and connection are among the tools available to build receptivity. #conflict resolution #mediation #adr #bookreview #influence #receptivity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkqBs5HpL Sc&list=PLVLC1NzkmY2f1P WvrcC Ou1DeV Gz94_8aL&index=9 The post Book Review: Robert Cialdini’s Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade (Part 1) appeared first on Sylvia Mayer Law.

While we may think we are objective and open-minded, we all have internal cognitive biases that affect our understanding and decision-making.  One common bias is anchor bias, which occurs when we rely heavily on one piece of data to the exclusion of all other information. In Robert Cialdini’s Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade, he asserts that “what is focal is presumed causal,” meaning that what we focus on (focal) shapes (causal) our views on the subject matter.  The book explores several studies and examples confirming the connection between focal and causal. One such example is the 1982 Tylenol tampering incident.  In 1982, someone injected cyanide into Tylenol capsules and put the bottles of pills back on the store shelves to be sold.  People bought the poisoned Tylenol.  At least seven people died from it. Tylenol recalled over 31 million capsules, created a list of the lot numbers impacted, and published the list to raise public awareness and facilitate the recall.  The first two lot numbers identified received the most publicity. How does this demonstrate the connection between focal and causal?  Immediately, lottery ticket purchases using those two lot numbers skyrocketed all around the country.  The lottery purchases were so high using those two lot numbers that they stopped allowing those two numbers to be used at all in three states. While it sounds irrational, it was human nature at work.  Because of the publicity around these numbers, they had become a focal point.  Because they had become focal, they had become causal – meaning subconsciously people believed these numbers could cause events to occur – like winning the lottery.  But they were wrong.  Neither of the numbers proved to be winning numbers. How does this play out in mediation and negotiation?  Anchor bias is a common barrier to resolution.  It occurs when one party fixates on a particular piece of information (a fact, an event, a case, a statement made, a conclusion, a specific dollar amount, an act, or an omission) to the exclusion of all other information.  Anchor bias clouds our judgment by making us unable to process or accept new or conflicting information.  Until we drop our singular focus on the anchor, there is no available path to resolution. By way of example, I mediated a case in which the sole issue was to determine the amount of attorneys’ fees.  Liability for the fees had already been determined by final order, but the party found liable for the fees was fixated on the issue of liability.  It was all they wanted to talk about in a continuous loop.  We could not move forward on a path to a resolution until they dropped their anchor and became receptive to new information. What’s the lesson to be learned?  We need to keep our eyes, ears, and minds open to finding a path to resolution.  If you find yourself focusing on one thing to the exclusion of all else, then recognize it as anchor bias and drop the anchor.  Set aside that one thing and look openly at the other information before you.  It may open up unexplored possibilities and lead you to a resolution. Author’s Note: As a mediator, I am a “forever student” always seeking new ways to help people find a path to resolution in mediation.  Robert Cialdini’s “Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade” inspired this post.  In reading his book, I was struck by the relevance to my mediation work.  In the book, he explores a myriad of ways to enhance receptivity and focuses on laying the groundwork for receptivity before making any meaningful “asks.”  If you aren’t a reader, but still interested in what he has to say, then you may enjoy this podcast in which he was interviewed about his book:  Barry Ritholtz, Masters in Business (June 18, 2021), https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/robert-cialdini-on-the-psychology-of-persuasion-podcast/id730188152?i=1000423074089. Dropping Anchor Bias The post Mediator Insights: Dropping Anchor Bias in Mediation and Negotiation appeared first on Sylvia Mayer Law.

In simple terms, litigation is a conflict arising from competing interests.  Party A sues Party B.  Party A wants money.  Party B does not want to pay.  Party A wants a contract modified or terminated.  Party B does not.  There are a myriad of dynamics in litigation that boil down to competing interests.  Through mediation, we seek to balance those competing interests to find a path to resolution. To illustrate the balancing of competing interests, consider Doreen Cronin’s Click Clack Moo: Cows That Type.  In this story, Farmer Brown has a farm with dairy cows, chickens, pigs, and ducks.  One day, he hears mooing and the sound of typing (the click, clack, moo) coming from the barn.  The cows had found his old typewriter and typed him a note. The note says:  “The barn is very cold at night.  We’d like some electric blankets.  Sincerely, The Cows.” Farmer Brown is upset.  He responds “No way.  No electric blankets.” More click, clack, moo is heard from the barn, then a second note appears: “Sorry. We’re closed.  No milk today.”  The cows are on strike. Farmer Brown is even more upset.  Then a third note appears: “The hens are cold too.  They’d like electric blankets.” Farmer Brown is apoplectic.  He writes back:  “There will be no electric blankets.  You are cows and hens.  I demand milk and eggs.” In mediator speak, the parties have reached an impasse. Duck steps in to act as a neutral.  With Duck’s assistance, an agreement is reached.  The cows and hens will exchange the typewriter for electric blankets and resume providing milk and eggs. How did Duck break the impasse?  Let’s examine what happened. Three things happened: Each had a need or interest. The cows and hens were cold.  Their interest was in being warm.  Farmer Brown needed milk and eggs.  His interest was running his farming business. Each side was upset and unable to understand the other’s views. Each side had leverage. The cows and hens needed a comfortable place to live, which only Farmer Brown could provide.  Farmer Brown needed the milk and eggs, which only the cows and hens could provide. Duck helped them find a compromise that balanced their competing interests and allowed them to move forward.  (Note:  There is a plot twist at the end, but that is for another day.) Particularly in situations where parties have an ongoing relationship, really listening and hearing the other side’s needs or interests may open the door to creative solutions that pave the path to resolution. Author’s Note: As a mediator, I am a “forever student” always seeking new ways to help people find a path to resolution in mediation.  As a parent, I have spent a gajillion hours reading books to my children.  Oftentimes, these books teach me new ways to approach conflict resolution.  In this case, Doreen Cronin’s “Click Clack Moo: Cows That Type” inspired this post. Click Clack Moo - Balancing Competing Interests The post Mediator Insights: Click Clack Moo: Balancing Competing Interests in Mediation appeared first on Sylvia Mayer Law.

 A very information article about Subchapter V Bankruptcy for small businesses can be found at https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/bankruptcy/can-you-benefit-from-small-business-bankruptcy-under-subchapter-v-76446/The article is titled Can You Benefit From Small Business Bankruptcy Under Subchapter V? by Adrienne WoodsAny attorneys or clients that have questions about Subchapter V can contact Jim Shenwick, Esq at 212 541 6224 [email protected]

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is an anxiety-inducing disorder that individuals may suffer after experiencing a terrifying event. PTSD is considered a disability by the Social Security Administration. However, the process of successfully qualifying for PTSD benefits can be complicated and difficult. Many claims for SSDI applications for PTSD benefits are denied. If your SSDI application […] The post What to Do if Your SSDI Application for PTSD Was Denied in Pennsylvania appeared first on .

6 Documents You Will Need To Give Your Bankruptcy Attorney Dealing With Paperwork Before Filing For Bankruptcy In Arizona If you are considering filing for bankruptcy, you have to demonstrate every single aspect of your finances to your Ahwatukee bankruptcy lawyer. As you can guess, these documents will also be available for the court. There’s no way to escape this fact. The only attorney who would not ask you for these documents would be incompetent. Filing for bankruptcy will be tedious because of the paperwork. It may be a short process, but it’s not sweet. So, now that you know that you will have to deal with paperwork, what documents are necessary for your attorney? Continue reading to find out. Your Taxes You will need to show your income taxes from the last two years. You will also have to include taxes related to business operations (if possible), like payroll tax. If you haven’t filed taxes, you should start immediately. Your taxes must be filed shortly after your bankruptcy case is filed. If you don’t want to get your case dismissed, file your taxes before filing for bankruptcy. It’s the safest way to avoid any issues with the timeline. It’s best if you offer your complete tax forms, but not everyone has these available. You can ask for a tax transcript from your federal taxing authorities. This will summarize your tax details on a few pieces of paper and help your Glendale bankruptcy lawyer. That should be proof enough of your tax record. You can also file your taxes at the actual IRS and state tax offices, but only if you are filing taxes from previous years before filing for bankruptcy. By doing this, the state tax office will give you stamped proof that you’ve filed your taxes. This way, legal authorities will know that your taxes have been officially filed. Your Bank Statements You cannot forget about bank statements. You have to offer copies from every bank account you have, whether it’s a checking or savings account. You can provide a six-months bank statement to make sure everything will go fine. The bankruptcy trustee will combine those statements in detail to ensure you are not trying to hide money or pay off debts that you shouldn’t pay before filing. If your bank statements include money going in and out in a typical pattern, you aren’t going to have issues. Your Pay Stubs Income is also crucial when you file for bankruptcy. You have to meet certain requirements to qualify for chapter 7, and most of them involve money restrictions. You can analyze whether you qualify for chapter 7 bankruptcy by reviewing your paystubs. You have to provide at least two months’ worth. However, the authorities may require six months’ worth. If you don’t have pay stubs or you are self-employed, you may still have to offer your taxes with more recent proof of your recent income. You may also need a profit and loss statement. All Your Debts The court will also ask you to provide all your current debts. Your credit report is usually invaluable for this process, but your attorney may need it, so ask them if you’ll have to supply it or not. You have to provide recent bills received in the mail too. If you do your best to provide recent bills and a credit report, you’ll be fine, that’s all the court asks for. Mortgage Statement Or Car Loan Statement Your lawyer will probably ask you to provide a mortgage statement. However, we emphasize that you have to bring this only IF applicable, if not, you don’t have to worry because it won’t stop you from filing. If you don’t know what applicable means or you are unsure about giving this document, look it up. Ask your Chandler bankruptcy lawyer to receive more information about it. Life Insurance & Others Last but not least, don’t forget about life insurance, IRA/401K, or other retirement accounts. Each life insurance document is treated differently, so whatever statements you have, you should give them to your attorney. These documents can have an impact on how your case is handled. Get Ready With a Reliable Mesa Bankruptcy Attorney This is only a brief list of the documents you may need to file for bankruptcy, but there may be more depending on your case. If you want to learn more about filing for bankruptcy, contact My AZ Lawyers now, we guarantee the best debt-free solution for your case. Plus, your first consultation is completely FREE. Contact us now by phone or email.   Arizona Offices: Mesa Location: 1731 West Baseline Rd., Suite #100 Mesa, AZ 85202 Office: (480) 448-9800 Email: [email protected] Website: https://myazlawyers.com/ Phoenix Location: 343 West Roosevelt, Suite #100 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Office: (602) 609-7000 Glendale Location: 20325 N 51st Avenue Suite #134, Building 5 Glendale, AZ 85308 Office: (602) 509-0955 Tucson Location: 2 East Congress St., Suite #900-6A Tucson, AZ 85701 Office: (520) 441-1450 Avondale Location: 12725 W. Indian School Rd., Ste E, #101 Avondale, AZ 85392 Office: (623) 469-6603 The post 6 Documents You Will Need To Give Your Bankruptcy Attorney  appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.

   In a case that the US Trustee's office alleged expenses were overstated on schedule J, and that schedule I should have included a draw from his business for cancer treatment as a special circumstance rather than including in monthly income, the court sided with the Debtor in denying the motion to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. §707(b)(1) and (b)(3).  In re Miller, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 1382, Case No. 3:21-bk-02093-BAJ (Bankr. M.D. Fl., 13 May 2022).  J. Burgess.    The debtor is the owner of two businesses, one of which owned a commercial property in Nebraska which was foreclosed on, resulting in a deficiency judgment of $128,903 against both the debtor and that company.  Debtor's ongoing income is primarily from the other business (GMI) in the form of draws and payroll.  Debtor scheduled $232,124 in unsecured debt including $75,000 in non-dischargeable student loan debt.    Debtor scheduled $9,014.50 monthly income and $9,000.98 in monthly expenses on schedules I & J.  The trustee disputed these figures, asserting $9,698.13 income and $8,086.56 in expenses, thereby asserting $1,611.57 in net monthly income.   The $638.63 income discrepancy is based on a draw debtor took out to pay for cancer treatments.  The court noted that the monthly draws from GMI were funded from an EIDL loan which GMI will have to repay.   The expenses showed a $915 discrepancy, primarily based on an anticipated $500/month car payment and $200/mo for car insurance.  While debtor intends to surrender his current vehicle, he will still require a stable vehicle for work which includes out of state travel, and his spouse requires a separate vehicle for care of their adult disabled son.   The trustee also objected to a $50 increase in the transportation expenses since filing asserting it is not supported, as well as a $125/mo expense for palm tree trimming, which trimming is required by the homeowners association.  The conditions set in the code for dismissal of chapter 7 include §707(b)(1) for debtors whose debts are primarily consumer debts if granting of relief would be an abuse of the provisions of chapter 7; and §707(b)(3) requiring an determination whether the totality of the circumstances of the debtor's financial condition demonstrates abuse. The trustee bears the burden of proof to show such abuse where the presumption under §707(b)(2) does not arise.1   While a debtor's ability to pay is a primary factor in the analysis, it is not conclusive.2  Rather, other circumstances must be considered along with the ability to pay.  These circumstances include 1) whether unforeseen or catastrophic events such as sudden illness, disability, or unemployment propelled the debtor into bankruptcy; 2) whether the debtor's standard of living has substantially improved as a result of the bankruptcy filing; 3) the debtor's age, health, dependents, and other family responsibilities, 4) the debtor's eligibility for chapter 13 relief and whether creditors would receive a meaningful distribution in chapter 13, 5) the age of the debts for which discharge is sought, and the period of time over which they were incurred; 6) whether the debtor incurred cash advances and made consumer purchases far in excess of the ability to repay; 7) whether the debtor made any payments toward the debts or attempted to negotiate with creditors; and 8) the accuracy of the debtor's schedules and statement of current income and expenses.3  As to the ability to pay, the court agreed that the draw to pay for cancer treatments was properly categorized as a special circumstance, again noting the requirement that the debtor's company, GMI, is obligated to repay the loan that funded the draws.  As to the expenses, the court rejected the trustee's argument that car expenses should be excluded due to the planned surrender of the vehicle, agreeing with the debtor that he will need a vehicle for work as well as a separate vehicle for his spouse to care for the disabled son, and found that the estimated car expenses in the budget were reasonable.  The expense for palm tree trimming was also found to be reasonable given that it is a requirement of the homeowners association, and that the debtor had attempted to mitigate the cost.  The court also found that the $50/month increased transportation expense was allowed based on the well documented news of increased cost of gasoline and groceries.  Thus the court agreed with the debtor's computation of income and expenses rather than the trustees.  The court also found that the totality of circumstances test would have favored the debtor.  The instigating factor in filing was a deficiency judgment from a foreclosure.  There is no evidence of an improvement is debtor's standard of living given the surrender of a truck and motorcycle.  The debtor's health is an ongoing concern due to a diagnosis nd treatment of skin cancer post-petition.  While he testified that he is currently cancer-free he indicated he is not out of the woods, and is still being closely followed by his physician.  Debtor also is responsible for supporting his adult disabled son.  Finally, the court found there would not be a meaningful distribution to unsecured creditors in chapter 13 given the size of the unsecured creditor pool.1 In re Norwood-Hill, 403 B.R. 905, 912 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2009); In re Walker, 383 B.R. 830, 836 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2008).↩2 In re Hernandez, No. 3:21-bk-624-JAF, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 98, 2022 WL 150846 at *3 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Jan 14, 2022).; In re Degross, 272 B.R. 309, 313 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2001). ↩3 In re Norwood-Hill, 403 B.R. at 912.↩Michael BarnettMichael Barnett, PA506 N Armenia Ave.Tampa, Fl 33609-1703813 870-3100https://hillsboroughbankruptcy.com  

Bankruptcy and Depression: No, I’m Not a Doctor This post is about bankruptcy and depression. No, I’m not a doctor. (Actually my law school degree says I’m a JD– a juris doctor). But I see depressed people a lot. And because I see it a lot, I’ve read up on it. The VA says that […] The post Bankruptcy and Depression by Robert Weed appeared first on Northern VA Bankruptcy Lawyer Robert Weed.