Law Review: Tavera, Daniel, The Benefits of Hindsight: Determining Whether a Receipt of Benefits Is a Necessary Element of the Fraud Exception to Discharge Ed Boltz Tue, 07/08/2025 - 15:10 Available at:   https://ssrn.com/abstract=5295095 Abstract: There is a circuit split on the meaning of the phrase “obtained by” under the Bankruptcy Code. Courts disagree on the proper interpretation of the portion of the statute relevant to this issue: whether a debtor needs to receive a benefit from the fraud to find the debt nondischargeable. Some courts have forgone a receipt of benefits test. Creditors now often argue that a debtor need not benefit from the asset obtained by fraud to except an underlying debt from discharge. But the fraud exception could include the requirement that a debtor receive a benefit from the assets “obtained” for certain frauds. This Article examines the history of the fraud exception and the split in the courts. This Article then analyzes the word “obtained” under the Code, and judicial interpretations of what it means to obtain assets. This Article summarizes the strengths and weaknesses on the different approaches of statutory construction applied to the word “obtained.” Based on the Supreme Court’s recent suggestion that a receipt of benefits is a necessary element of the fraud exception, this Article then concludes the exception for a willful and malicious injury appropriately addresses facts where nothing was “obtained.” Commentary: Tavera’s article will be of practical value to consumer bankruptcy attorneys litigating § 523(a)(2)(A) claims—especially in small business, guarantor, or insider-debtor scenarios where the money trail doesn’t end with the debtor. We’ve all seen cases where a debtor signs a loan for a struggling business, uses rosy projections, or co-signs a note to help a relative. When the creditor sues for nondischargeability, the debtor’s defense is often: “I didn’t benefit.” Under the logic that some courts have adopted, that could be enough to avoid a judgment under § 523(a)(2)(A). Tavera’s piece warns against that defense and provides an academic yet accessible explanation of why it should not be determinative. Fraud, not benefit, is the statutory touchstone. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document the_benefits_of_hindsight_determining_whether_a_receipt_of_benefits_is_a_necessary_element_of_the_fraud_exception_to_discharge.pdf (807.14 KB) Category Law Reviews & Studies

Law Review: Shachmurove, Amir, Last Rites and Licit Resurrections: The Problematic Pillars of Section 546(A)'S Oft-Presumed Preemption of Non-Bankruptcy Statutes of Repose (July 22, 2022). 30 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 141 (2022) Ed Boltz Thu, 07/03/2025 - 16:06 Available at:   https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5265203 Abstract: When it comes to statutory limitations periods, Section 546(a) of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) at first exudes a bewitching simplicity, ascertainable without any need for more than a basic understanding of such terms as “preemption,” “statute of limitations,” and “statute of repose.” Employing somewhat plain prose, this subsection prescribes the deadline for any action under five substantive sections—§§ 544, 545, 547, 548, and 553 (collectively, “Avoidance Provisions” or “Avoidance Powers”)—by a trustee or debtor-in-possession as the earlier of: (1) two years “after the entry of the order for relief” or “1 year after” the appointment or election of a trustee if such appointment or election takes place “before” this two-year period’s expiration, whichever is later”; or (2) “the time the case is closed or dismissed.” As the Code necessarily preempts subordinate state law restrictions that would otherwise “impermissibly interfere with the federal purpose underlying the avoiding powers of a trustee ...,” this single subsection clearly overrides any period of time imposed by any state statute of limitation (“limitations period” or “prescriptive period”) bearing on such actions with a new federal window. Per this logic, as long as the relevant state-law claim exists on the date of the petition or order for relief (when the two diverge), a state statutes of limitations lacks “any continued effect” on the timeliness of any action under §§ 544, 545, 547, 548, and 553. Invoking this same ratiocination, bankruptcy and district courts have read § 546(a) to preempt related yet distinct bars—statutes of repose to state substantive causes of action prosecuted by a trustee per § 544 or § 545 or available as a defense to certain creditors under § 553—without undue focus on this prohibition’s quiddity. According to these jurists, assuming neither a statute of repose nor a statute of limitations (collectively, “limitations statutes” or “limitations provisions”) expired prepetition, § 546(a) nullifies either temporal constraint so as to allow the trustee “sufficient time to investigate for the existence of facts that would support actions under … [the] enumerated Code sections.” The statutory text, aptly perused, and preemption doctrine, correctly applied, support no other exegesis, a “general consensus” now maintains, though only few have probed the matter. In these opinions, the fact that § 547 and § 548, on the one hand, and §§ 544, 545, and 553, on the other, draw their substance from different headwaters matters not a whit. In four substantive parts, this article challenges the ramshackle foundations of this seemingly broad accord, as epitomized by the highest federal court—the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit in Rund v. Bank of America Corp. (In re EPD Inv. Co., LLC) (“Rund”)—to confront this oddly underexplored issue in a published opinion. Part II recounts the facts behind two cases in which the bankruptcy courts’ ultimate decisions severely impacted one or more stakeholders. Reviewing the relevant legal regimes, Part III précises the history and nature of non-bankruptcy law’s limitations provisions and the Avoidance Provisions and canvasses the precedent regarding the interplay between § 546(a) and statutory limitations periods, a motley neither as unambiguous nor as unanimous as many intone. Part IV starts with a summation of the interpretive tenets applicable to the Code and proceeds to demonstrate how the modern consensus has failed to fully account for the remarkably unremarkable prose, but the divergent impact, of § 546(a) and the essential character, but imprecision, of the manifold limitations provisions inscribed into state and federal tomes.  Commentary: Most consumer attorneys reflexively treat statutes of repose the same as statutes of limitation when objecting to claims. But as Last Rites argues, repose is not merely a deadline—it’s a substantive limitation on the right itself, and it operates independent of accrual, discovery, or procedural events like bankruptcy. That means: A claim that is still enforceable on the petition date might expire mid-Chapter 13 due to a state statute of repose. Conversely, a claim that expired under a statute of repose before the bankruptcy was filed may not be resurrected—even if the creditor files a timely proof of claim under Rule 3002(c). And unlike statutes of limitation, repose periods are not generally subject to tolling under: § 108 (because it refers only to statutes of limitation), or § 502(b)(1), which evaluates the claim’s enforceability as of the petition date—not whether it remains enforceable years into the plan. While North Carolina has no explicit statute of repose for enforcing debts (contract claims, credit card debt, etc.),  N.C.G.S § 58-70-115(1),  which has faced slight judicial interpretation,  could arguably be a statute of repose  as to a debt buyer as it bars from all collection activities,  including   filing suit or seeking arbitration,  for stale debts.  The affirmative denial of the right to act contrasts with a statute of limitations, which  only provides an affirmative defense.  Accordingly,  this statute  could be considered a statute of repose,  meaning that during the course of a Chapter 13 case it could become uncollectible. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document ssrn-5265203.pdf (1.39 MB) Category Law Reviews & Studies

E.D.N.C.: In re Port City Contracting Services, Inc.- Discovery Appeal Dismissed as Interlocutory Ed Boltz Wed, 07/02/2025 - 15:44 Summary: Pro se litigant Robert Paul Sharpe appealed two discovery-related denials from Bankruptcy Judge David M. Warren in the Chapter 11 proceedings of Port City Contracting Services, Inc. Specifically, Sharpe sought (1) to compel witness attendance at a hearing and (2) a judgment on the pleadings regarding that same motion, both of which were denied as procedurally improper. Judge Warren correctly pointed out that Federal Rule 45, not a motion to compel, governs witness subpoenas, and that Rule 12(c)—which applies to pleadings, not discovery—was inapplicable. Sharpe then attempted to appeal, not only those denials but also "any subsequent opinions or orders forthcoming." District Judge Richard E. Myers II dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the denial was an interlocutory discovery ruling, it was not a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). Moreover, Sharpe failed to seek leave for an interlocutory appeal under § 158(a)(3), and even if he had, the court found no exceptional circumstances to justify such a departure from the final judgment rule. The court also denied Sharpe’s various procedural motions and declined to entertain his effort to preemptively appeal future orders. While stopping short of imposing sanctions due to Sharpe’s pro se status, the court warned that Rule 11 applies to all litigants and left future disciplinary matters to the discretion of the bankruptcy court. Commentary: This case serves as a textbook example of why pro se parties—especially those attempting aggressive litigation tactics—must carefully adhere to the procedural rules of both the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, Judge Warren's ruling was entirely routine: discovery matters are not resolved through Rule 12 motions, and if a party seeks attendance of witnesses, Rule 45 provides the proper tool. Attempting to shortcut that process with a motion to compel and then seeking judgment on those pleadings reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of procedure. Second, the appeal itself was doomed from the start. Bankruptcy discovery orders are well-settled as interlocutory, and without leave under § 158(a)(3)—which Sharpe failed even to request—the district court lacked jurisdiction. The court rightly invoked Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank and Bestwall, confirming that finality in bankruptcy turns on whether a discrete proceeding is concluded, not just whether a motion is denied. Finally, Sharpe’s attempt to prospectively appeal future, as-yet-unissued orders—and to do so while referencing irrelevant issues—was flagged as vexatious. The district court, while restrained in withholding sanctions, reminded Sharpe that Rule 11 binds even non-lawyers. Given the “contentious” litigation history noted by the court, this was a diplomatic but firm signal that further abuse could merit sanctions. Interlocutory appeals from bankruptcy court orders,  which are unfortunately often necessary following the denial of confirmation under Bullard v. Blue Hills,  are strictly limited and rarely granted. Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), a party may seek leave to appeal an interlocutory order, but success requires clearing a high bar: To even be considered, the movant must timely file a motion for leave to appeal under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8004(a)—failure to do so is jurisdictionally fatal, as seen in In re Port City Contracting Services, Inc. Even if procedurally proper, the court applies the strict three-part test akin to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b): Controlling Question of Law – The issue must involve a pure legal question that could substantially affect the outcome of the case. Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion – There must be legitimate, competing interpretations of the law—not just disagreement by the appellant. Material Advancement of Litigation – Immediate resolution of the issue must materially speed up the proceedings, not merely settle a tangential matter. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document in_re_port_city_contracting_services.pdf (116.83 KB) Category Eastern District

4th Cir.: Martin v. Parker- No Denial of Discharge for embezzlement where debtor acted on good-faith advice from financial institutions despite conflicting estate documents Ed Boltz Wed, 07/02/2025 - 04:53 Summary: After prevailing in a Virginia state court breach of contract case, Dan Martin sought to except his $151,501 judgment from Deborah Parker’s Chapter 7 discharge. Martin alleged embezzlement under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), claiming Parker wrongfully liquidated financial accounts that, under a “Post-Marital Agreement” and mutual wills between her father (Morton) and Martin’s mother (Peggy), were partially due to him. Although the bankruptcy court agreed with Martin and deemed the debt nondischargeable, the district court reversed, finding Parker lacked the requisite fraudulent intent. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The facts were largely undisputed. Morton and Peggy had agreed their combined estates would pass two-thirds to Dan and one-third to Morton’s children, including Deborah. However, after Peggy’s death, Morton retitled his financial accounts with Deborah as joint owner or beneficiary. When Morton died, Deborah liquidated the accounts. Upon learning of the agreement and will, Deborah sought guidance from banks, which told her the joint ownership and beneficiary designations overrode the agreement and the will. Relying on that advice, she kept the funds. The Fourth Circuit held that while the funds may have passed to Deborah under suspect circumstances, embezzlement under § 523(a)(4) requires proof of fraudulent intent. It is not enough that she took what may have legally belonged to someone else; she must have intended to defraud. The record showed she disclosed the will and agreement to the financial institutions and was told the accounts were hers. The bankruptcy court clearly erred in ignoring this undisputed evidence and inferring bad faith solely from her knowledge of the will. Without evidence of fraudulent intent, no embezzlement occurred, and the debt was dischargeable.  Commentary: This decision reinforces the high burden a creditor bears to except a debt from discharge, especially under § 523(a)(4)'s embezzlement provision. The Fourth Circuit emphasized that wrongful taking alone is insufficient—there must be actual fraudulent intent. Here, the debtor’s disclosure of the conflicting estate documents to banks and her reliance on their advice created a good-faith defense that could not be overcome by mere disagreement over the legal outcome. The court also indirectly reminded lower courts that they may not disregard undisputed record evidence in favor of inferences that support a preferred narrative—particularly when the discharge exception is construed narrowly and in favor of the debtor. Practice Pointer: For practitioners seeking to invoke § 523(a)(4), this case highlights the necessity of demonstrating fraudulent intent with concrete evidence. A mistaken belief—even if objectively unreasonable—can be a sufficient defense if it was held in good faith and informed by outside counsel or institutions. Consumer Bankruptcy Insight: For Chapter 7 and 13 debtor attorneys, Martin v. Parker provides a strong precedent supporting discharge where a debtor's actions were based on apparent authority or advice, even if a later court finds a breach or unjust enrichment. In Chapter 13, this case may also be instructive in objecting to claims based on alleged bad acts when there's no showing of fraudulent intent or where the debtor relied on professional advice.  See also Sugar/Sasser v. Burnett where the 4th Circuit also relied heavily on the defense of reliance on advice of counsel. Final Thought: Martin may have been wronged by a failure to uphold an estate plan, but bankruptcy courts cannot serve as probate courts. Without clear evidence of bad faith, the fresh start remains intact. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document martin_v._parker.pdf (152.38 KB) Category 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

It’s Three Months Since Your Discharge? How are you doing? Did it work out the way you expected? I claim that after bankruptcy you will sleep better, you’ll be happier, your credit score will go up. Had that turned out like I said? I’d like to hear from you. I also have some suggestons. Get New Credit Cards and Use Them Strategically Get and use new credit cards. Use them strategically, You want your credit score to be moving up, not down. Feel Free to Ask I’m not your lawyer any more, but i’m still your friend. I’m happy to answer any questions that pop up.  And I’ll step in and fight if there are problems. Please Let Me Know Reply to this email with your comments and suggestions. You give me your private feedback, here.   The post Eleven Weeks After Discharge appeared first on Robert Weed Virginia Bankruptcy Attorney.

It’s Three Months Since Your Discharge? How are you doing? Did it work out the way you expected? I claim that after bankruptcy you will sleep better, you’ll be happier, your credit score will go up. Had that turned out like I said? I’d like to hear from you. I also have some suggestons. Get New Credit Cards and Use Them Strategically Get and use new credit cards. Use them strategically, You want your credit score to be moving up, not down. Feel Free to Ask I’m not your lawyer any more, but i’m still your friend. I’m happy to answer any questions that pop up.  And I’ll step in and fight if there are problems. Please Let Me Know Reply to this email with your comments and suggestions. You give me your private feedback, here.   The post Eleven Weeks After Discharge appeared first on Robert Weed Virginia Bankruptcy Attorney.

Automatic stays are one of the major benefits of filing for bankruptcy in Pennsylvania. Let our lawyers explain the ins and outs of this feature of bankruptcy and help you keep the automatic stay in effect throughout your entire case. Automatic stays work by prohibiting creditors from continuing lots of debt collection activity. That includes garnishing your wages, filing lawsuits against you, and repossessing your vehicle. Automatic stays should last throughout bankruptcy unless this is your second filing within the year or a creditor successfully motions to lift the stay, which we can help avoid. Tell us about any contact from creditors, as violating the automatic stay comes with serious consequences. Get a free case review from our Philadelphia bankruptcy lawyers when you call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates today at (215) 701-6519. How Do Automatic Stays Work in Pennsylvania? Generally, an automatic stay takes effect when debtors file for bankruptcy in Pennsylvania. This stay pauses most debt collection efforts, giving you the immediate relief you need when entering bankruptcy. When the automatic stay takes effect in a case, creditors must stop the following action: Wage garnishment Foreclosures Repossession Lawsuits Collection calls and letters Automatic stays do not stop the collection of alimony or child support payments, so keep that in mind if these debts are part of the reason for filing your bankruptcy case. Before filing for bankruptcy, creditors might garnish wages, send intimidating collection letters, or even threaten to repossess your vehicle or foreclose on your home. Filing for bankruptcy alone triggers an automatic stay, signaling to creditors that they must stop contacting you about repaying debt outside of the bankruptcy case. Automatic stays are relatively straightforward, though many debtors don’t realize they are part of filing for bankruptcy. Let us use the automatic stay in your case to your advantage, as well as all the other beneficial aspects of bankruptcy. How Can Debtors Use the Automatic Stay in Pennsylvania? When an automatic stay goes into effect in a bankruptcy case, it gives debtors time to take a breath, evaluate their financial situation, and make a plan to address it. We utilize this period effectively by reviewing all debts, listing creditors, and determining the best course of action forward. If you file Chapter 7, we may use the automatic stay to identify which of your assets we will liquidate to repay creditors. If you file Chapter 13, we can use the period immediately following the automatic stay’s effective date to create your repayment plan, which we must submit to the court soon after filing for approval. Do Automatic Stays Always Last Throughout Bankruptcy? First-time bankruptcy filers always qualify for an automatic stay in Pennsylvania. The automatic stay typically remains in effect throughout the entire bankruptcy case, although there are circumstances under which it may end prematurely. Repeat Filings If you’ve filed for bankruptcy previously in the past year and the case was dismissed, an automatic stay may only last for 30 days. Our Stroudsburg, PA bankruptcy lawyers can motion the court to extend the automatic stay in this scenario, explaining why you deserve extended relief from debt-collection actions. You don’t get an automatic stay without successfully motioning for it if you have two or more cases within the past year that were dismissed and refiled. Motions from Creditors Mortgage and car lenders with liens on debtors’ property often motion to lift automatic stays. If their motions are successful, creditors may pursue vehicle repossession or mortgage foreclosure, even if the bankruptcy case is still happening. Creditors with ongoing litigation against debtors might also file motions to lift automatic stays; in such cases, we can help keep stays in effect. Judges may also grant motions to lift automatic stays if debtors fall behind on payments during bankruptcy or fail to fulfill other obligations. Let us handle your case, craft your repayment or liquidation plan, and fight against unfair motions to lift an automatic stay. Failure to Submit Statement of Intention In Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases, petitioners must submit a Statement of Intention explaining how they play to repay secured debts. You have the earlier of 30 days from filing your bankruptcy petition or by the first date of the meeting of creditors to submit the Statement of Intention or the automatic stay in your case gets lifted. However, our lawyers may motion to extend it. Whether you bring a Chapter 7 bankruptcy or a Chapter 13 case, we can create a plan to address your debt before we file. That way, we are prepared for additional filing deadlines throughout the case and avoid common roadblocks to resolving cases. Case Dismissals If your bankruptcy case gets dismissed before all debts are repaid or discharged, the automatic stay is lifted. If you still owe debts to creditors, they might resume collection tactics. This includes wage garnishment, mortgage foreclosure, vehicle repossession, and other similar actions. Call us if your case gets dismissed in Pennsylvania, and we can refile a successful bankruptcy petition on your behalf. How Do I Know if a Creditor Violated an Automatic Stay? Creditors can face serious consequences for willfully violating an automatic stay in Pennsylvania. Attempts to contact you for repayment outside the bankruptcy case may constitute automatic stay violations, so tell us immediately. Continuing wage garnishment, lawsuits, foreclosures, repossession, or initiating this activity once an automatic stay is in effect violates it. Tell us about any letters, phone calls, or other communication attempts from creditors, and give us any documentation you have of such contact. For automatic stay violations, creditors may be required to pay damages to the debtor and face court orders to cease their actions. They may even lose their right to seek repayment. Willful violations differ from technical violations, which our lawyers can differentiate. We can bring violations to the court’s attention. If you’re unsure whether or not a creditor has violated the automatic stay, tell us what happened, and we can determine if they have. Call Our Bankruptcy Attorneys in Pennsylvania Now Get a free case assessment from our West Chester, PA bankruptcy lawyers and call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 701-6519.

Automatic stays are one of the major benefits of filing for bankruptcy in Pennsylvania. Let our lawyers explain the ins and outs of this feature of bankruptcy and help you keep the automatic stay in effect throughout your entire case. Automatic stays work by prohibiting creditors from continuing lots of debt collection activity. That includes garnishing your wages, filing lawsuits against you, and repossessing your vehicle. Automatic stays should last throughout bankruptcy unless this is your second filing within the year or a creditor successfully motions to lift the stay, which we can help avoid. Tell us about any contact from creditors, as violating the automatic stay comes with serious consequences. Get a free case review from our Philadelphia bankruptcy lawyers when you call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates today at (215) 701-6519. How Do Automatic Stays Work in Pennsylvania? Generally, an automatic stay takes effect when debtors file for bankruptcy in Pennsylvania. This stay pauses most debt collection efforts, giving you the immediate relief you need when entering bankruptcy. When the automatic stay takes effect in a case, creditors must stop the following action: Wage garnishment Foreclosures Repossession Lawsuits Collection calls and letters Automatic stays do not stop the collection of alimony or child support payments, so keep that in mind if these debts are part of the reason for filing your bankruptcy case. Before filing for bankruptcy, creditors might garnish wages, send intimidating collection letters, or even threaten to repossess your vehicle or foreclose on your home. Filing for bankruptcy alone triggers an automatic stay, signaling to creditors that they must stop contacting you about repaying debt outside of the bankruptcy case. Automatic stays are relatively straightforward, though many debtors don’t realize they are part of filing for bankruptcy. Let us use the automatic stay in your case to your advantage, as well as all the other beneficial aspects of bankruptcy. How Can Debtors Use the Automatic Stay in Pennsylvania? When an automatic stay goes into effect in a bankruptcy case, it gives debtors time to take a breath, evaluate their financial situation, and make a plan to address it. We utilize this period effectively by reviewing all debts, listing creditors, and determining the best course of action forward. If you file Chapter 7, we may use the automatic stay to identify which of your assets we will liquidate to repay creditors. If you file Chapter 13, we can use the period immediately following the automatic stay’s effective date to create your repayment plan, which we must submit to the court soon after filing for approval. Do Automatic Stays Always Last Throughout Bankruptcy? First-time bankruptcy filers always qualify for an automatic stay in Pennsylvania. The automatic stay typically remains in effect throughout the entire bankruptcy case, although there are circumstances under which it may end prematurely. Repeat Filings If you’ve filed for bankruptcy previously in the past year and the case was dismissed, an automatic stay may only last for 30 days. Our Stroudsburg, PA bankruptcy lawyers can motion the court to extend the automatic stay in this scenario, explaining why you deserve extended relief from debt-collection actions. You don’t get an automatic stay without successfully motioning for it if you have two or more cases within the past year that were dismissed and refiled. Motions from Creditors Mortgage and car lenders with liens on debtors’ property often motion to lift automatic stays. If their motions are successful, creditors may pursue vehicle repossession or mortgage foreclosure, even if the bankruptcy case is still happening. Creditors with ongoing litigation against debtors might also file motions to lift automatic stays; in such cases, we can help keep stays in effect. Judges may also grant motions to lift automatic stays if debtors fall behind on payments during bankruptcy or fail to fulfill other obligations. Let us handle your case, craft your repayment or liquidation plan, and fight against unfair motions to lift an automatic stay. Failure to Submit Statement of Intention In Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases, petitioners must submit a Statement of Intention explaining how they play to repay secured debts. You have the earlier of 30 days from filing your bankruptcy petition or by the first date of the meeting of creditors to submit the Statement of Intention or the automatic stay in your case gets lifted. However, our lawyers may motion to extend it. Whether you bring a Chapter 7 bankruptcy or a Chapter 13 case, we can create a plan to address your debt before we file. That way, we are prepared for additional filing deadlines throughout the case and avoid common roadblocks to resolving cases. Case Dismissals If your bankruptcy case gets dismissed before all debts are repaid or discharged, the automatic stay is lifted. If you still owe debts to creditors, they might resume collection tactics. This includes wage garnishment, mortgage foreclosure, vehicle repossession, and other similar actions. Call us if your case gets dismissed in Pennsylvania, and we can refile a successful bankruptcy petition on your behalf. How Do I Know if a Creditor Violated an Automatic Stay? Creditors can face serious consequences for willfully violating an automatic stay in Pennsylvania. Attempts to contact you for repayment outside the bankruptcy case may constitute automatic stay violations, so tell us immediately. Continuing wage garnishment, lawsuits, foreclosures, repossession, or initiating this activity once an automatic stay is in effect violates it. Tell us about any letters, phone calls, or other communication attempts from creditors, and give us any documentation you have of such contact. For automatic stay violations, creditors may be required to pay damages to the debtor and face court orders to cease their actions. They may even lose their right to seek repayment. Willful violations differ from technical violations, which our lawyers can differentiate. We can bring violations to the court’s attention. If you’re unsure whether or not a creditor has violated the automatic stay, tell us what happened, and we can determine if they have. Call Our Bankruptcy Attorneys in Pennsylvania Now Get a free case assessment from our West Chester, PA bankruptcy lawyers and call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 701-6519.

How Quickly Does the Postal Service Deliver Your Chapter 13 payment? When you are in Chapter 13, you need to make your monthly trustee payments on time–especially in the first four months of the case. So it doesn’t help that our Chapter 13 Trustee in Alexandria, Thomas Gorman, gets his payments at a bank in Memphis. Memphis Tennesee is scheduled for three day delivery from Northern Virginia. The Postal Service tries to deliver mail from Virginia to Memphis in three days. Last year, they only hit that three-day-goal 68% of the time. (Down from 75% the year before.) So in the first four months of your case, you can expect to have at least one payment arrive late.  I’ve often seen them take over a week. And, if the Chapter 13 Trustee doesn’t like your case for some reason, late payments can push him over the edge, He will ask the judge to throw your case out. Tracking Slows it Down When you mail your Chapter 13 payment regular mail, it goes straight from the PO box to the bank. If you send it tracking, someone has to scan it in. That can often add another day or even two. (I recomend mailing your checks using the bill pay feature on your banking app.  That way you at least have proof the check was mailed, because your bank is mailing it. How do you know if a bill pay check arrives? When it clears your bank.) No, You Can’t us FedEx or UPS The bank in Memphis gets their mail at a post office box. FedEx and UPS don’t deliver to PO Boxes. Mail Your Chapter 13 Payments Early Mail them early. Really, mail the payments early. At least eight days before the deadline. Make sure you have the money in your account--sometimes the mail does get there quickly. For many people, late mail delivery can be the biggest stress in getting your Chapter 13 plan approved. The post When Does the Postal Service Deliver Your Chapter 13 payment?   appeared first on Robert Weed Virginia Bankruptcy Attorney.

How Quickly Does the Postal Service Deliver Your Chapter 13 payment? When you are in Chapter 13, you need to make your monthly trustee payments on time–especially in the first four months of the case. So it doesn’t help that our Chapter 13 Trustee in Alexandria, Thomas Gorman, gets his payments at a bank in Memphis. Memphis Tennesee is scheduled for three day delivery from Northern Virginia. The Postal Service tries to deliver mail from Virginia to Memphis in three days. Last year, they only hit that three-day-goal 68% of the time. (Down from 75% the year before.) So in the first four months of your case, you can expect to have at least one payment arrive late.  I’ve often seen them take over a week. And, if the Chapter 13 Trustee doesn’t like your case for some reason, late payments can push him over the edge, He will ask the judge to throw your case out. Tracking Slows it Down When you mail your Chapter 13 payment regular mail, it goes straight from the PO box to the bank. If you send it tracking, someone has to scan it in. That can often add another day or even two. (I recomend mailing your checks using the bill pay feature on your banking app.  That way you at least have proof the check was mailed, because your bank is mailing it. How do you know if a bill pay check arrives? When it clears your bank.) No, You Can’t us FedEx or UPS The bank in Memphis gets their mail at a post office box. FedEx and UPS don’t deliver to PO Boxes. Mail Your Chapter 13 Payments Early Mail them early. Really, mail the payments early. At least eight days before the deadline. Make sure you have the money in your account--sometimes the mail does get there quickly. For many people, late mail delivery can be the biggest stress in getting your Chapter 13 plan approved. The post When Does the Postal Service Deliver Your Chapter 13 payment?   appeared first on Robert Weed Virginia Bankruptcy Attorney.