The appeal in Wizenberg v Wizenberg, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 39276, Case No 20-10641 (11th Cir. 15 December 2020) came from a §523(a)(4) action in the debtor-attorney's chapter 7 arising from allegations that the debtor had failed to distribute estate funds in accordance with his mother's trust upon her death, and that he appropriate funds from the estate for his personal use.  The sanctions arose from multiple instances of misconduct both in the proceedings below and on appeal, including repeated 'shushing' of opposing counsel during s deposition, submission of lengthy and superfluous filings (including one with a nonsensical haiku), and an argument found to be frivolous that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the §523(a)(4) complaint.     In the appeal at issue, the Peter, the Defendant/Appellant asserted that the bankruptcy court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before sanctioning him, and challenged the time entries supporting the sanctions.  The Appellee, Howard argued that this argument was waived by not being raised in the bankruptcy court.  The bankruptcy court litigation commenced with a complaint under either §523(a)(4) or (a)(6).  The court denied Peter's initial motion to dismiss, as well as cross motions for summary judgment.  Peter then filed a 69 page motion to dismiss asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting the complaint sought nondischargeability of a nonexistent debt, that such debt never existed or even possibly could have existed.  Howard responded and moved for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. §1927, which permits sanctions for any attorney who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously in the amount of the excess costs, expenses, and attorney fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.    Peter then filed a 153 page motion for reconsideration of the bankruptcy court's order denying his motion for summary judgment including immaterial details about his family life, as well as the haiku which read "All know: talk is cheap; Liars can claim anything; No evidence?! Balk!" which the court described as pointless poetry.  During the deposition the next day Peter engaged in multiple hostile exchanges with Howard and opposing counsel, asked repetitive and unprofessional questions, told opposing counsel to Shush re, and bickered with opposing counsel on the record.  After the deposition Howard moved the court to compel Peter to produce a privilege log, indicating that Peter had testified to the existence of relevant and responsive documents that he did not produce based on the attorney-client privilege.  Howard asserted that such log was not produced and that Peter claimed not to know what one was.  During a subsequent deposition of Peter's wife, after five minutes of questioning by Howard, Peter asked irrelevant and leading questions of his wife on 're-direct' for approximately an hour.   The initial sanctions from the bankruptcy court arose from an order to show cause regarding Peter's failure to produce the privilege logs, at which the court complained that a lawyer who had practiced several years but claimed not to know what a privilege log was, awarded Howard $2,880 in fees.  The matter went to trial in the bankruptcy court, ahead of which Peter filed a 326-page opening statement (including exhibits) and failed to produce an exhibit register.  The court admonished Peter for objection to Howard's answers to his own questions, for asking Howard if he had any evidence to support his statements, and ignoring the court's rulings on this objections as well as coaching his own witnesses.  Howard renewed and supplemented his request for sanctions asserting he incurred thousands of dollars in needless fees due to Peter's bad faith litigation tactics, requesting $24,880 in fees under 28 U.S.C. §1927.  The Court then ruled in favor of Howard on the dischargeability issue under §523(a)(4) and (a)(6), finding that Peter had allowed his wife to remove items from his mother's house while she was still alive, and that he engaged in a scheme to allow designed to ensure that Howard got as little as possible from her estate.  While Peter responded to the motion for sanctions (alleging it was false, malicious, frivolous, and vexatious) he did not challenge any of the time entries in Howard's motion or request an evidentiary hearing.    Finding that Peter acted in bad faith throughout the course of litigation, and had 'suffocated' the docket with painfully long and frivolous pleadings, many of which were not based in law or fact, and citing his withholding of evidence and rude and repetitive questions during the depositions, and noting because of his litigiousness the adversary proceeding took 14 months and over 250 docket entries, allowed sanctions of $9,850 under §1927.    On appeal in the district court, while finding the bankruptcy court was not a court of the United States within the reach of 28 U.S.C. 1927, concluded that as it was treating the order as a report and recommendation, it could impose the sanctions itself under §1927, noting that may of Peter's arguments were first raised on appeal.  The 11th Circuit first addressed the ability of bankruptcy court's to impose sanctions under §1927.  While noting the argument was likely waived by not being addressed in the bankruptcy court, the 11th Circuit rejected the argument noting that all cases originate in the Article III district court per 28 U.S.C. §1334, and are referred to the bankruptcy court by local rule.     The 11th Circuit next addressed whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions under §1927.  The requirements for such sanctions areFirst, the attorney must engage in unreasonable and vexatious conduct. Second, that unreasonable and vexatious conduct must be conduct that multiplies the proceedings. Finally, the dollar amount of the sanction must bear a financial nexus to the excess proceedings, i.e., the sanction may not exceed the costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.  Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny's, Inc., 500 F.3d 1230, 1239 (11th Cir. 2007).  The question of bad faith turns turns on the attorney objective conduct rather than counsel's subjective intent.  The 11th Circuit found that the facts detailed in the proceedings below warranted sanctions under §1927 by dragging out the proceedings and causing Howard to incur excess costs, noting the rude and unprofessional conduct in the depositions and a trial, and his voluminous and irrelevant motions.  The court further noted that is conduct was not excused by his pro-se status, as he is a member of the Florida Bar who had previously appeared in bankruptcy court. The 11th Circuit also found the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to be frivolous.  Next the 11th Circuit determined that the bankruptcy court had not deprived Peter of due process, as the motion for sanctions included several specific examples of sanctionable behavior.  Nor was the bankruptcy court required to hold an evidentiary hearing, as Peter had abandoned that claim by failing to adequately brief the issue in his opening brief.  Finally, the 11th Circuit granted Howard's motion for attorneys fees under Fed. R. App. P 38 allowing damages and single or double costs to the appellee if the court determines that an appeal is frivolous.  The court found it has authority to award such sanctions when a party ignored the governing law and relied on clearly frivolous arguments.1  The court granted the request for Rule 38 sanctions noting that Peter, a self-proclaimed bankruptcy attorney, filed an 88 page opening brief littered with exclamation points and rants about what he views as a grave miscarriage of justice, failed to coherently cite case law, though citing Buggs Bunny.  The court awarded $3,390 in sanctions under Rule 38 and affirmed the district court sanctions. The 11th Circuit did not definitively rule on the power of bankruptcy court's to impose sanctions under 28 U.S.C. §1927.1  Jackson v. Bank of America, N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1359 (11th Cir. 2018).↩Michael BarnettMichael Barnett, PA506 N Armenia Ave.Tampa, FL 33609-1703813 870-3100https://hillsboroughbankruptcy.com

The Hardest Question You’ll Get Asked at Your Bankruptcy Hearing Like most people, you will be stressed when you get ready for your bankruptcy hearing. People are worried they’ll be asked “How did you get into this mess?” Actually, that almost never comes  up. The hardest question that always comes up is this one: “Have […] The post “Have You Sent Us a Bank Statement for Every Account?” by Robert Weed appeared first on Northern VA Bankruptcy Lawyer Robert Weed.

    Judge Moberly in Indiana was faced with a trustee's attempt to revoke his prior abandonment of a class action claim related to the drug Abilify.  In re Fuller, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 3503, Case No 18-00681-RLM-7A (Bankr. S.D. Ind., 14 December 2020).  The debtor filed chapter 7 on 9 February 2018, disclosing 'debtor has a pending class action lawsuit against Abilify' as well as a potential class action against another entity.  The asset was scheduled at $0 on schedule A/B.  He also disclosed that he had sold his interest in certain oil wells prepetition for $315,000 and that he gambled away most of these proceeds.   The trustee held a 341 meeting on March 9, 2018 and followed up with a 2004 examination and moved for employment of an accountant to perform a forensic audit on all of Debtor's financial information.  Subsequently the trustee filed a 'report of possible assets' indicating the only asset he sought to administer was the debtor's nonexempt interest in the oil wells.   A report of possible assets and abandonment of property was filed on 26 September 2018 which indicated all property other than the interest in the oil wells would be abandoned, and gave a deadline of 10 October 2018 to object to such abandonment.  No objections were filed.  The debtor continued the class action Abilify suit and a settlement was reached in March 2020 providing a share of over $229,000 to the Debtor.  The trustee then moved to reopen the case and to administer this asset, incorrectly designated in the motion as an 'undisclosed asset.'  The case was reopened, and the trustee moved to set aside the prior Rule 6007 abandonment notice.  Without objection, the court granted the trustee's motion on 9 April 2020, and the trustee issued a new notice of possible assets.  At this point the Debtor moved to set aside the Court's order setting aside the abandonment notice.  The court reviewed the audio file of the 341 confirming that the class action was disclosed and discussed.   The Debtor's motion to set aside the initial order which itself set aside the abandonment of the class action was filed under Rule 9024, which is equivalent to a Rule 60(b) motion under the Fed. R. Civ. P.  The Debtor has the burden under such motions to show good cause for his failure to timely object to the trustee's motion, 2) that the debtor quickly filed his 9024 motion, and 3) that he has a meritorious defense.  Given that the trustee's motion to set aside the abandonment included errors both referring to a product liability claim and an undisclosed asset, it was not clear from such motion that it referred to the abandonment of a disclosed asset.  The court found that this met the burden for relief under Rule 9024.  Abandonment of estate assets is governed by  11 U.S.C. 554.  The first two subparts: §554(a) and (b) involve a trustee's or a party in interest's request to abandon specific property.  Subsections (c) and (d) involve property that has not been abandoned from the estate and has not been administered by the estate, which, if properly scheduled, is automatically abandoned upon the closing of the case under  §554(c).  If property has not been scheduled, it remains property of the estate under §554(d), subject to the court's ability to order otherwise under §554(c) and (d), but not under §554(a) and (b).     While the trustee asserted that his motion fell under §554(c), the court disagreed.  The notice provided by the court with the initial abandonment complied with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 6007, which conforms with the abandonment procedure under §554(a), specifically requiring notice of the proposed abandonment, notice to all creditors, and allowing a party in interest to file and serve an objection within 14 days of the mailing of the notice.  The notice clearly indicated that the trustee intended to abandon all property that was not scheduled other than the Debtor's interest in oil wells.  Abandonment constitutes a divesture of all of the estate's interest in the property.  The property then reverts to the debtor as though no bankruptcy was filed.1 Abandonment under §554(a) or (b) is considered strictly irrevocable, whereas abandonment under §554(c) is subject to the rebuttable presumption standard, since a technical abandonment may occur inadvertently as a automatic consequence of a premature case closing.  Courts have found a narrow exception to this strictly irrevocable rule if the trustee is given incomplete or false information, causing the trustee to forego a proper investigation of the asset.2  Courts have found that an asset is adequately scheduled if it is described with reasonable particularization under the circumstances, sufficient to enable the trustee to determine wehther to investigate further.  A description is not misleading if the scheduled asset appreciates and it is discovered to be worth more than the scheduled value.  Here the trustee argued that the debtor failed to disclose important material facts surrounding the Abilify claim, such as the fact that he had retained attorneys to represent him as principal lead in the class action.  While it was disclosed at the 341 meeting that the lawsuit primarily dealt with Abilify's side effects that exacerbated compulsive behavior, the trustee asserts that the retention of the attorney included several other legal theories including bodily injury, pain and suffering, loss of earnings, and aggravation of previously existing conditions.  Further, Debtor had not disclosed counsel's retention on Scedule G.  The Court rejected these arguments, noting that the debtor is not required to disclose every aspect of the Abilify claim, solely sufficient information to put the trustee on notice to further investigate the claim.  The discussion at the 341 meeting shows the disclosure was sufficient to this purpose.  Debtor's counsel explained that the claim was valued at $0 as they did not have a number yet due to the fact that the claim was part of a class action.  The trustee had asked for the names of doctors that had treated the debtor, and had asked one of his employees who had participated in the 341 meeting to search the internet for side effects of Abilify.  He also asked for release of medical records as well as the name of the firm handling the class action.   Two important policies support the Court's determination that the abandonment cannot be revoked.  There is a strong policy of finality that should be respected in bankruptcy cases, as it was Congress' intent that debtors and creditors be subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court for a limited time; and that distribution to creditors is the core of bankruptcy policy.  As Debtor's discharge had been revoked, he will continue to owe his creditors whether the settlement proceeds are administered by the trustee or outside the estate without trustee administrative fees.  The case was not clear why the discharge had been revoked. Query how much impact did the revocation of discharge have in this case?  The strictly irrevocable standard would seem to be met, though the case is a warning to trustee's that some investigation may preclude subsection revocation of abandonment. Michael BarnettMichael Barnett, PA506 N Armenia Ave.Tampa, FL 33609-1703813 870-3100https://hillsboroughbankruptcy.com 1 In re Dewsnup 908 F.2d 588, 590 (10th Cir. 1990), aff'd sub nom. Dewsnup v. Timm 502 U.S. 410, 112 S.Ct. 773, 116 L.Ed.2d 903 (1992).↩2 Catalano v. Commissioner, 279 F.3d 682, 686 (9th Cir.2002); In re Lusher, Case No. 18-71772, 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 2916, 2019 WL 4553432 at * 3 (Bankr. C. D. Ill. September 19, 2019). ↩ 

 In a very convoluted case, a plaintiff learned that removal to Bankruptcy Court can result in a do-over of adverse state court rulings.  Cohen v. Gilmore (Matter of Alabama & Dunlavy), Case No. 19-20152 (5th Cir. 12/15/20).  While the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits a federal court from re-examining findings in an unrelated state court case, it does not grant similar protections in a removed action for the reason that the removed action is a continuation of the original case, just with a different presiding court.What Happened (In Brief) The facts of the case are very complicated. Here is an overly simplified summary. Alabama & Dunlavy owned some real property in Houston.  A trust controlled by Cohen was the 80% limited partner of Alabama & Dunlavy (A & D). In 2008, the Great Recession hit and the debt matured. Dilick controlled the general partner of A & D and also controlled the remaining limited partnership interest. Abercrombie was a developer. Abercrombie and Dilick approached the trustee of Cohen's trust about selling the property for $16.7 million. The trustee said yes because the partnership would make a profit. However, Abercrombie and Dilick failed to disclose that HEB was interested in signing a ground lease which would greatly increase the value of the property.Abercrombie signed the ground lease with HEB under an entity named TAFI that had yet to be formed. Dilick then caused A & D to sell the property to TAFI for $13.5 million.  Shortly after acquiring the property     TAFI took out a loan for $19.9 million against the property. Various people got money, including  HEB's director of real estate. Cohen sued Abercrombie and TAFI among others. The state court granted Abercrombie and TAFI's motion for summary judgment after it excluded most of Cohen's summary judgment evidence.  The summary judgment apparently was never severed out of the case and remained interlocutory.   Several years later in 2015, A & D filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy and Regions Bank, which was another defendant, removed the case to Bankruptcy Court. The case was referred to the U.S. District Court. The District Court entered an agreed final judgment on February 7, 2019 among the remaining parties.  Abercrombie and TAFI never participated in the District Court litigation. Abercrombie and his lawyer both died. The property was sold to a third party. The Issue Arrives at the Fifth Circuit Cohen then appealed to the Fifth Circuit. So, what was the Fifth Circuit doing reviewing a summary judgment granted by a state court? Although the District Court never addressed the Abercrombie and TAFI claims, they were still part of the case. In this circuit, when a case is removed from state court to federal court, the federal court takes the case as it finds it and treats the state court rulings as its own. . . . Since the Fifth Circuit has eschewed legal formalities and treated cases like this one as reviewable even if the district court provided little discussion of the state court decision, this case is ready for appellate review.Opinion, p. 7. What A Difference A Court MakesWhere the change in forum really made a difference was in the Fifth Circuit's review of the State District Court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment. In Texas State Court, rulings on summary judgment evidence can be very informal. In this case, the State Court signed an order which granted or denied various evidentiary objections without explanation. This is not adequate in federal court. Cohen contends that the state trial court abused its discretion in granting several evidentiary objections in TAFI’s and Abercrombie’s favor. We agree. The grant of these objections improperly excluded important evidence from consideration. To start, the state trial court offered no explanation as to why it granted the objections. It simply checked boxes on a form saying that the objections were sustained. Since a trial court can abuse its discretion by failing to explain the reasons for excluding evidence, the lack of a reasoned explanation weighs in favor of overturning the objections.  Courts also typically consider evidence unless the objecting party can show that it could not be reduced to an admissible form at trial. Opinion, pp. 8-9.  This passage illustrates a remarkable difference between the state and federal courts. In my experience, state courts rarely explain their rulings. In the unusual cases where a motion for summary judgment is taken under advisement, the typical ruling from the court is a one sentence letter stating that the motion is granted or denied. Evidentiary objections are disposed of with a simple granted or denied.Because the Court considered it an abuse of discretion to exclude evidence without stating a reason, it considered the summary judgment evidence. Because the Court examined the summary judgment evidence, it found that there were fact issues. Because the Court found that there were fact issues, it reversed the summary judgment.  As a result, seven years and one month after the summary judgment was granted, and after both the defendant and his lawyer had passed away, the summary judgment was reversed.Practice TipsThe obvious practice tip for a party receiving an unexplained and possibly unconsidered ruling from a state court is to get the case to federal court before the judgment is final. This won't always be possible. If the claims on which summary judgment were granted were the only claims in the case, the judgment would have been final prior to bankruptcy. Similarly, filing bankruptcy after a state court has ruled but before it has entered its order is unlikely to provide any relief. However, in a complicated suit with lots of parties and claims, a terrible, horrible ruling might face a stricter review in federal court as opposed to being rubber stamped in state court.The practice point for the party better the terrible, horrible ruling (or the wonderful, well-thought out decision depending on where you sit) is to get the ruling severed into its own case so it can become final. While I don't know what happened (any counsel is no longer around to explain), what probably occurred was that the defendants got their take-nothing ruling and assumed the case was over. Unfortunately, it was not.   On a final note, this case just smelled bad and that may have affected the ruling.    

Chapter 7 Trustee Janet Meiberger Janet Meiberger is one of the four Chapter 7 trustees in the Alexandria Virginia Bankruptcy court. When you file a bankruptcy case in Alexandria, the computer assigns you to one of the four trustees. Lawyers are appointed Chapter 7 trustees as a part-time assignment.  Janet Meiberger has her own law […] The post Chapter 7 Trustee Janet Meiberger by Robert Weed appeared first on Northern VA Bankruptcy Lawyer Robert Weed.

Bankruptcy vs. Debt Settlement: Which One is Right for Me? Our AZ Bankruptcy Attorneys Explain What Would Be the Best Option Between Debt Settlement and Bankruptcy By the time you are mired in debt and are dealing with non-stop calls and letters from your creditors, you don’t have a lot of options for dealing with your debt – unless you get a sudden influx of cash via the lottery or inheritance. One option is to file for bankruptcy and get some of that debt discharged or reorganize it under a new payment plan. Another option is to attempt to negotiate a settlement with your creditors for how much you can pay them. You may be confused about the best option to take for your circumstances. It’s important that you talk to a bankruptcy lawyer in Tucson to get legal advice about your options for debt relief, but you should also consider these pros and cons of debt settlement and bankruptcy: Debt Settlement By the time creditors are sending you a lot of letters and making a lot of phone calls, they know that you are having a hard time paying. And they know that chances are good that you may not pay the full debt – or may not pay at all. They have an incentive to negotiate with you to pay a lower price to satisfy the debt. Under a debt settlement, you may pay a lower amount or may pay a lower interest rate. Either way, you save money. That is the biggest advantages. Other advantages include getting a solution for your debt without having to hire an Mesa bankruptcy attorney or other professional and without having to file for bankruptcy. The cons of a debt settlement is that it is so uncertain. Creditors are not always willing to negotiate with you, and they may not believe that you are unable to pay. They may make you jump through hoops proving your financial problems, including submitting W-2s, bank statements, and more. Your creditors may also require you to liquidate any assets you have before being willing to write off any of your debt. If the creditor does agree to accept less for your debt, it will likely write off the loss on its taxes. It will then issue a 1099-C to you, which will count as income for you. You will then have to pay more taxes, which can only exacerbate your financial problems. Overall, there are far more potential cons to attempting to negotiate a debt settlement with your creditors than there are advantages. Bankruptcy If you file for bankruptcy, you are seeking debt relief under the law. You aren’t asking your creditors for permission. If you file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you can get all of your unsecured credit discharged. If you file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in Mesa, you can get your debt reorganized under a new payment plan, which can include a smaller amount or a lower interest rate. That plan will be determined by the courts, not your creditors. The pros of bankruptcy are that you can have your debt completely eliminated or significantly reduced, and you don’t have to deal with your creditors at all. Bankruptcy also issues an automatic stay, which will put an immediate end to any contact by your creditors, as well as any legal action that they are bringing, such as wage garnishment. You can finally get control of your finances and breathe easy again. Many people fear that bankruptcy will be a blow to their credit. While it is a black mark on your credit, it can actually be helpful to your credit since it can put an immediate end to your debts and start the clock on your new financial life, rather than allowing high debts and delinquencies to follow you around on your credit history. There really is no disadvantage to bankruptcy if you are struggling with debt. You may have feelings of shame or embarrassment because of the stigma that comes from misinformation about bankruptcy. However, you should remember that bankruptcy is a legal program that is designed for people exactly like you who are struggling with debt, and taking advantage of that program is your right. There is nothing to be ashamed about getting the help you need. In fact, it’s just good financial sense. Call My AZ Lawyers today to learn more about bankruptcy and how it may benefit you. Our bankruptcy attorneys are experienced and knowledgeable, and they are committed to helping you through the process with compassion. They will analyze your finances and help you understand whether Chapter 7 bankruptcy or Chapter 13 bankruptcy would provide the most benefits, based on your goals. Then they will work to help you get the debt relief you need, as quickly as possible. Our bankruptcy law office serves clients in Mesa, Glendale, Tucson, and Phoenix. Call us today to schedule an appointment. Arizona Offices: Mesa Location: 1731 West Baseline Rd., Suite #100 Mesa, AZ 85202 Office: (480) 448-9800 Email: [email protected] Website: https://myazlawyers.com/ 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 Bankruptcy vs. Debt Settlement: Which One is Right for Me? appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.

Bankruptcy vs. Debt Settlement: Which One is Right for Me? Our AZ Bankruptcy Attorneys Explain What Would Be the Best Option Between Debt Settlement and Bankruptcy By the time you are mired in debt and are dealing with non-stop calls and letters from your creditors, you don’t have a lot of options for dealing with your debt – unless you get a sudden influx of cash via the lottery or inheritance. One option is to file for bankruptcy and get some of that debt discharged or reorganize it under a new payment plan. Another option is to attempt to negotiate a settlement with your creditors for how much you can pay them. You may be confused about the best option to take for your circumstances. It’s important that you talk to a bankruptcy lawyer in Tucson to get legal advice about your options for debt relief, but you should also consider these pros and cons of debt settlement and bankruptcy: Debt Settlement By the time creditors are sending you a lot of letters and making a lot of phone calls, they know that you are having a hard time paying. And they know that chances are good that you may not pay the full debt – or may not pay at all. They have an incentive to negotiate with you to pay a lower price to satisfy the debt. Under a debt settlement, you may pay a lower amount or may pay a lower interest rate. Either way, you save money. That is the biggest advantages. Other advantages include getting a solution for your debt without having to hire an Mesa bankruptcy attorney or other professional and without having to file for bankruptcy. The cons of a debt settlement is that it is so uncertain. Creditors are not always willing to negotiate with you, and they may not believe that you are unable to pay. They may make you jump through hoops proving your financial problems, including submitting W-2s, bank statements, and more. Your creditors may also require you to liquidate any assets you have before being willing to write off any of your debt. If the creditor does agree to accept less for your debt, it will likely write off the loss on its taxes. It will then issue a 1099-C to you, which will count as income for you. You will then have to pay more taxes, which can only exacerbate your financial problems. Overall, there are far more potential cons to attempting to negotiate a debt settlement with your creditors than there are advantages. Bankruptcy If you file for bankruptcy, you are seeking debt relief under the law. You aren’t asking your creditors for permission. If you file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you can get all of your unsecured credit discharged. If you file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in Mesa, you can get your debt reorganized under a new payment plan, which can include a smaller amount or a lower interest rate. That plan will be determined by the courts, not your creditors. The pros of bankruptcy are that you can have your debt completely eliminated or significantly reduced, and you don’t have to deal with your creditors at all. Bankruptcy also issues an automatic stay, which will put an immediate end to any contact by your creditors, as well as any legal action that they are bringing, such as wage garnishment. You can finally get control of your finances and breathe easy again. Many people fear that bankruptcy will be a blow to their credit. While it is a black mark on your credit, it can actually be helpful to your credit since it can put an immediate end to your debts and start the clock on your new financial life, rather than allowing high debts and delinquencies to follow you around on your credit history. There really is no disadvantage to bankruptcy if you are struggling with debt. You may have feelings of shame or embarrassment because of the stigma that comes from misinformation about bankruptcy. However, you should remember that bankruptcy is a legal program that is designed for people exactly like you who are struggling with debt, and taking advantage of that program is your right. There is nothing to be ashamed about getting the help you need. In fact, it’s just good financial sense. Call My AZ Lawyers today to learn more about bankruptcy and how it may benefit you. Our bankruptcy attorneys are experienced and knowledgeable, and they are committed to helping you through the process with compassion. They will analyze your finances and help you understand whether Chapter 7 bankruptcy or Chapter 13 bankruptcy would provide the most benefits, based on your goals. Then they will work to help you get the debt relief you need, as quickly as possible. Our bankruptcy law office serves clients in Mesa, Glendale, Tucson, and Phoenix. Call us today to schedule an appointment. Arizona Offices: Mesa Location: 1731 West Baseline Rd., Suite #100 Mesa, AZ 85202 Office: (480) 448-9800 Email: [email protected] Website: https://myazlawyers.com/ 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 Bankruptcy vs. Debt Settlement: Which One is Right for Me? appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.

When I was in the fourth grade, our teacher Mrs.[1] Weiner, taught us to be “good citizens.” She did not teach us to be “patriots.” Good citizens: voted, didn’t litter, stay home when sick, didn’t violate the law, stayed informed, looked out for their neighbors and acted consistently with FDR’s “Four Freedoms.[2]” Unfortunately, some folks, who see themselves as patriots, are not good citizens. They decided that their individual privileges include not wearing a mask in public during our Covid-19 pandemic. They raise their individual “right[3]” above the needs of their community. However, patriots raise their communities’ or nations’ needs above their own. We treat the 412 first responders who died on 9/11 as patriots. The 2,501 Americans who died on D-Day are considered patriots. So are many of the 2,403 Americans who died at Pearl Harbor. Our nation made their memory almost immortal. There are 220,000 American dead from Covid-19 and counting. They have not been included among America’s patriots. Certainly, there are first responders, health professionals and care-givers among them. However, they are not even treated as victims of an American tragedy. They’re treated as “statistics.”[4] Horribly, there are citizens who refuse to prevent further tragedy by wearing face-masks in public. They are not being good citizens. And, being a good citizen is a lot easier than being a patriot. They are putting their own comfort and convenience ahead of the nation’s well being. They are endangering, themselves, their families and neighbors.[5] That’s unpatriotic. So, Citizens Unite! Wear face masks in public! Protect yourself and the rest of us. Be a good citizen. You don’t want to piss off Mrs. Weiner. References 1 Yes. She was a Mrs., adamantly. But, that was the early 60’s. 2 Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Freedom from want. Freedom from fear. 3 The Bill of Rights really contains “privileges and immunities” Territory of Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197, 217–18, 23 S. Ct. 787, 791, 47 L. Ed. 1016 (1903). 4 When Josef Stalin was Soviet Munitions Commissar attended a meeting concerning a famine in the Ukraine. An official rose to speak about the tragedy of millions dying of hunger. Stalin interrupted him to say: “If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that’s only statistics.” 5 Some states have laws that prosecute individuals for criminal exposure of another, potentially lethal virus, HIV. There is a parallel.   The post Good Citizens Unite! appeared first on Wayne Greenwald, P.C..

Hold on to the Nickel until the Buffalo Squeals They stopped making the Buffalo nickel in 1938, long before I was born. But I saw plenty of them when I was young.  I also heard plenty about them from older folks who had lived through the Depression. “Hold on to the nickel until the buffalo […] The post Until the Buffalo Squeals by Robert Weed appeared first on Northern VA Bankruptcy Lawyer Robert Weed.

If you are struggling with overwhelming debt, you may be wondering how much it can cost to file for bankruptcy. It is often far less than the debt  you will be eliminating. Paying for an attorney may be concerning when your debt already feels unmanageable; however, in virtually all cases, the cost of declaring bankruptcy is far less than the total expense of bills, late fees, and interest that you would pay without bankruptcy. The cost of filing for bankruptcy will depend on the details of your situation. There are three main categories of expenses to consider when evaluating bankruptcy: Bankruptcy Court Filing FeesBankruptcy Attorney FeesRequired Credit Counseling Courses In this article, Wynn at Law, LLC will explain the costs of filing for bankruptcy in Wisconsin. Breakdown of Wisconsin Bankruptcy Costs There are two common types (also known as chapters) of bankruptcy for individuals in Wisconsin: Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. The type of bankruptcy significantly impacts bankruptcy fees and costs.  Note: the cost of declaring bankruptcy is the same for married couples as it is for single individuals when you file with Wynn at Law, LLC. Bankruptcy Attorney’s Fees Attorney’s fees are the largest variable cost for declaring bankruptcy. While it is possible to file for bankruptcy without an attorney, it is typically an expensive mistake. Individuals representing themselves (called pro se) have a significantly lower bankruptcy success rate than individuals represented by an attorney. To protect consumers from excessive fees, bankruptcy judges can review the attorney’s fees and approve or deny the fees as appropriate for a particular case. Chapter 13 Bankruptcy attorney’s fees tend to be more expensive than attorney’s fees for a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case. Cost of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Attorney Chapter 7 Bankruptcy is the most popular type of bankruptcy for Wisconsin residents. This type of bankruptcy provides the opportunity to eliminate credit card debt, personal loans, medical bills, and other unsecured debts. Factors that can impact attorney’s fees include: Business OwnershipNumber of CreditorsAsset Ownership and the Need for Asset Protection PlanningForeclosure, Repossession, Eviction, and Other Legal ActionsNon-Dischargeable Debts (Student Loans, Child Support, Alimony, or Past-Due Taxes) Learn more about Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Cost of Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Attorney Chapter 13 Bankruptcy consolidates, reorganizes, and restructures unsecured debt using a repayment plan. Typically, Chapter 13 repayment plans require the restructured debt to be repaid over 3-5 years. This type of bankruptcy is available to individuals and couples that intend to use future disposable income to pay some or all debt.  Chapter 13 Bankruptcy attorney’s fees can often be included in the bankruptcy repayment plan or be scheduled on a payment plan with the attorney. Learn more about Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Schedule a No-Cost Bankruptcy Consultation Don’t let the cost of an attorney keep you from pursuing bankruptcy. Wynn at Law, LLC understands that bankruptcy clients are in financial distress. Schedule a FREE consultation with Wynn at Law, LLC to discuss your financial situation. Our attorneys will help you determine if bankruptcy is the right option for you and Wynn at Law, LLC offers flexible payment plans. The sooner that you contact a bankruptcy attorney, the more money you can save. Bankruptcy Filing Fee Filing a petition for bankruptcy typically requires a court filing fee. The bankruptcy filing fee is standardized across the United States. The Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing fee is $335. The Chapter 13 Bankruptcy filing fee is $310. If an individual’s income is below 150% of the Wisconsin poverty line, it is possible to get a waiver that eliminates the filing fee for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Fee waivers are rare for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy cases. The bankruptcy court may allow you to pay the filing fee using installment payments over a series of weeks or months depending on your income as well. Required Courses To successfully file for bankruptcy, individuals must complete two educational courses. The first required course is a credit counseling session, which must be completed before filing. The second mandatory course is a debtor education course, which must be completed before the debts are discharged. Both of these courses can be completed online and are not excessively time-consuming. Generally, these courses cost less than $50 each. These courses must be taken through an approved provider, and the course provider determines the price. Other Bankruptcy Fees There are a few additional costs and fees that may arise when filing for bankruptcy. Additional costs are typically minimal and can occur due to document printing and commuting/travel. Miscellaneous fees can occur if additional motions need to be submitted or files need to be retrieved from the courts.   An experienced bankruptcy attorney can minimize the risk of additional fees by carefully reviewing the bankruptcy case before filing. How to Reduce Bankruptcy Costs There are a few options to reduce out-of-pocket expenses for individuals concerned about the fees associated with filing for bankruptcy. Some individuals may also qualify for free legal advice through Legal Action of Wisconsin (Racine). This legal aid office helps qualifying Walworth County and Kenosha County residents to reduce the overall cost of bankruptcy, and their lawyers can represent cases pro-bono (for free). Unemployed, low-wage earners, disabled, and elderly individuals may be eligible for fee reductions or waivers. It is possible to file for bankruptcy without an attorney. However, it is essential to remember bankruptcy attorneys have a significantly higher success rate for discharging debts. Is Bankruptcy Worth It? Bankruptcy is an option to consider for excessive debt from medical bills, utility bills, payday loans, vehicle repossession debt, personal loans and credit cards. Depending on the type of bankruptcy, individuals can eliminate all or most debt. If you are facing financial difficulty, meeting with a bankruptcy lawyer can help you evaluate all of your debt relief options. Wynn at Law, LLC offers a FREE bankruptcy consultation. During this consultation, our attorneys will be able to estimate the debt that can be eliminated and will provide a personalized quote for the cost to file for bankruptcy. Contact Wynn at Law, LLC at 262-725-0175 to schedule your consultation at one of our three Southeastern Wisconsin locations. Lake Geneva Law OfficeDelavan Law OfficeSalem Lakes Law Office The post How Much Does Bankruptcy Cost? appeared first on Wynn at Law, LLC.