Keeping Your House as a Widow Filing Bankruptcy in Virginia One of the tragedies of being a widow is this: You lose the protection for your house that Virginia law gives a married couple filing bankruptcy. After losing her husband, a widow under Virginia law can easily lose her house to her creditors. Bankruptcy is set up by the Federal government, but each state sets its own rules on keeping your house if you file Chapter 7.  Virginia gives great protection for houses owned by a married couple for the debts of only one. That’s called tenants by the entirety. A widow, now single, after losing her spouse, is in danger of losing her house. Virginia law allows a single person to protect $50,000 in real estate equity.  That’s up from $5,000 a few years ago, But it’s still very low compared to most states. It doesn’t go ver far in Northern Virginia. Can Bankruptcy Law Help a Widow Cleasr Her Debts and Keep Her House? I’ve had two different widows contact me in January 2025.  Through creative use of the bankruptcy law, it looks like both will be ok.     The post Keeping Your House as a Widow in Bankruptcy appeared first on Robert Weed Bankruptcy Attorney.

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: In re Steinke- Death of Debtor and Tenancy by the Entireties Ed Boltz Tue, 01/28/2025 - 00:19 Summary: Married debtors filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on February 16, 2024,  with real property owned as Tenants by the Entirety and  valued at $371,000.  Shortly thereafter, Adriana Steinke died and  Peter Steinke became the sole owner of the property.  Harris Ventures, Inc. held a judgment against Peter Steinke but could not attach the lien to the property under tenancy by the entirety laws. The judgment was  to be classified as a general unsecured claim.  Following her death,  Harris objected to the Debtors' amended Chapter 13 plan, arguing it failed to account for the non-exempt equity in the property after the Tenancy by the Entirety ended. The court found that the proposed plan did not satisfy the "liquidation test" under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4), which ensures creditors receive at least as much under the plan as they would in a Chapter 7 liquidation, by  erroneously treating the property as fully exempt under the terminated tenancy by the entirety status, ignoring the equity available to creditors following Adriana Steinke’s death.    The court held that the effective date for applying the liquidation test is the plan confirmation date, not the petition date, requiring updated valuation and creditor recovery analysis. The request by Harris for relief from the automatic stay to allow its judgment to attach to the property after the Tenancy by the Entirety dissolved,  however, was denied  as the automatic stay under § 362 protects the property and prevented Harris from improving its claim status within the bankruptcy process. Commentary: A key,  but unmentioned, fact in this very sad case may be that Ms. Steinke died 205 days after filing,  which is outside the 180-day window  of 11 U.S.C. §  541(a)(5).  Accordingly,  if this case was converted to Chapter 7,  the bankruptcy estates of both Mr. and Mrs. Steinke would,  unlike  the Chapter 13  estate of Mr.  Steinke,  which pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1306,   now holds the entire property in fee simple,   pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 348 still  hold the property as Tenants by the Entireties. (Additionally,  any life insurance she might have had would also be excluded.)  In order to encourage debtors to first attempt Chapter 13,  the legislative history is clear that Congress included  § 348  as a "way-back machine"  so that debtors  were not harmed by that attempt. Mr.  Steinke could,  if still necessary,  then file a subsequent no-discharge Chapter 13 case to deal with the mortgage and taxes. It is also worth noting that in Hmok,  upon which this case relies,  Judge Byers found the Tenancy by the Entirety was severed by the voluntary transfer in contrasted with an involuntary transfer by a Chapter 7 trustee in Surles,  where Judge Stocks held that did not make the asset available for individual  creditors.   Ms.  Steinke's sudden death,  which does not garner even a note of sympathy in this opinion,  would not seem to be a voluntary act. With proper attribution,  please share this post. To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document in_re_steinke.pdf (190.56 KB) Category Eastern District

4th Cir.: Smith v. Devine- Sanctions for Discovery Abuses and W.D.N.C.: Smith v. Payne: Temporary Withdrawal of Reference for Pre-Trial Ed Boltz Mon, 01/27/2025 - 01:20 Background: BK Racing, LLC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2018. Matthew W. Smith, appointed as trustee and later sole manager of the reorganized debtor, initiated adversary proceedings to recover allegedly fraudulent transfers and address related claims. The complaint included claims such as fraudulent transfers, civil conspiracy, conversion, stay violations, and turnover of property. In a pair of appellate decisions  issued in January and arising from the bankruptcy of BK Racing, L.L.C.,  first the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina first denied the Payne's  motion to withdraw reference of an adversary proceeding from the bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).  Shortly thereafter,  the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of default judgment against Ronald C. Devine, Brenda S. Devine, and several related trusts and corporate entities  for discovery abuses and misconduct during bankruptcy and adversary proceeding, including  $31,094,099.89 in damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. Summary of Smith v. Payne: Payne sought to withdraw the reference, citing the need for a jury trial, the non-core nature of the claims, and the bankruptcy court's limited jurisdiction over state law causes of action.  Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), in considering whether to withdraw reference to a bankruptcy court “for cause shown”, the district court looks to factors such as whether the proceeding is core or non-core, judicial economy, uniform bankruptcy administration, forum shopping, and the preservation of jury trial rights.  While the claims were primarily state law-based and considered non-core, this factor alone did not justify withdrawal, as  the bankruptcy court, familiar with the long-standing case, was deemed better suited to handle pre-trial proceedings efficiently and uniform administration of the case  Nor did the request for a jury trial  necessitate immediate withdrawal, as the bankruptcy court could oversee pre-trial matters, with the case returning to the district court for the jury trial if necessary.  Accordingly,  the court denied the motion to withdraw reference, allowing the bankruptcy court to manage discovery, pre-trial motions, and related proceedings, with the reference will only be withdrawn when the case is ready for trial. Summary of Smith v. Devine: The Court of Appeals upheld the finding that, despite multiple warnings and court orders,  the Devines  engaged in systematic obstruction, including failing to comply with court orders, providing false or incomplete responses, and withholding critical financial documents.  After applying the Wilson factors,  a default judgment was the only appropriate remedy due to the Devines' bad faith, the significant prejudice caused, the need for deterrence, and the ineffectiveness of lesser sanctions.  That judgment included damages for fraudulent transfers and debt assumption transactions, trebled under North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.   Further, the decision to pierce the corporate veil and impose joint and several liability was justified based on evidence of the entities’ lack of independence and improper use as extensions of the Devines. Commentary: See also:   Bankr. W.D.N.C.: Smith v. DeSeveria- Repayment of Short-Term Loans to Insiders was not a Fraudulent Conveyance Bankr. W.D.N.C.: In re BK Racing- With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document smith_v._payne.pdf (152.74 KB) Document smith_v._devine.pdf (213.9 KB) Category 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

Going through bankruptcy is not exactly a pleasant experience. Neither is getting a divorce. Unfortunately, some people end up going through both at the same time. While these are technically separate legal proceedings, your divorce could have implications for your Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, and you should talk to your attorney about it immediately. Chapter 13 bankruptcy is more common in cases where people have a steady income and assets they wish to protect. Generally, people do not lose assets or property if they keep up with a court-approved payment plan. However, the process is long, and some people end up filing for divorce while their bankruptcy case is pending. Divorce can have significant financial ramifications, and your bankruptcy case might be affected. An attorney can help you sever your bankruptcy case from your spouse’s if you filed it jointly. If you can no longer afford your payment plan, your lawyer can help you have it adjusted. In some cases, you might be able to completely change your bankruptcy case to a different chapter. Call (215) 701-6519 and speak to our bankruptcy attorneys with Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates about a free, confidential case evaluation. How Getting Divorced Might Affect Your Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case Bankruptcy and divorce have a lot in common. They are often unpleasant to go through when they are happening, but you are in a better position to rebuild your life once they are over. However, if your divorce and bankruptcy case overlap, your situation might be a bit more legally complex. Changes in Your Finances It is not uncommon for people to begin Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings and then file for divorce shortly after. Chapter 13 bankruptcy often takes a few years to complete, and people sometimes go through a divorce while their bankruptcy case is still pending. Since divorce often impacts finances, it might also impact your bankruptcy proceedings. Bankruptcy proceedings are often dependent on your income, assets, and properties. Our bankruptcy attorneys must provide an accurate accounting of your finances to the court when we file your bankruptcy petition. If you file for divorce after filing for bankruptcy, your assets and finances might change. Your former spouse might take certain assets or accounts with them, essentially removing them from your bankruptcy case. If that happens, we must make sure the court knows what is going on, and we must provide updated information about your assets after the divorce. Your Payment Plan Many people prefer Chapter 13 because it does not involve liquidating assets or properties. Instead, petitioners must develop aggressive yet feasible payment plans that the court must approve. They typically remain on the plan for about 3 to 5 years to bring their finances and debts back under control. If. After your divorce, you owe alimony and child support, you might be unable to keep up with your payment plan. If that happens, speak to your attorney immediately. Courts are often willing to work with Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitioners who experience unexpected changes in their finances. Your payment plan may be adjusted to account for your new expenses, as long as the court and creditors approve. Filing Jointly or Individually A major consideration in this situation is whether you filed for bankruptcy individually or jointly with your former spouse. If you filed individually, your bankruptcy case is yours only, and not much has to change, depending on how the divorce affects your finances. However, if you filed for bankruptcy jointly with your spouse, you might need to separate your finances and bankruptcy cases. This is not an unusual situation, and courts are prepared to deal with situations like this. One possibility is that you and your spouse can sever the case. Instead of just one bankruptcy case for a married couple, the case would be split into two cases, and your spouse’s assets, accounts, and finances would be removed from your bankruptcy case. Debts and income would need to be reallocated. You might end up responsible for a larger or smaller share of the debt. Alternatively, a couple getting divorced might agree to split everything right down the middle. After reallocation, you will almost certainly need to adjust your payment plan. Since the case is severed, the old payment plan will likely be thrown own, and each former spouse would need to develop their own payment plan. What to Do if You Get Divorced in the Middle of Chapter 13 Bankruptcy If you end up going through a divorce after you file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, speak to your attorney about what steps to take to protect the interests of your bankruptcy case. You might have to make very few changes, but there is also a chance that some big changes must be made. Continue Making Payments Divorce can take a long time, and it might not even be finalized until after your bankruptcy case is complete. If you do not anticipate any major changes to your financial situation while your divorce is pending, you should continue making payments on your Chapter 13 payment plan. However, if the divorce moves quickly and your finances are changed before your bankruptcy case is over, tell your attorney about everything immediately. Sever or Bifurcate Your Case As mentioned before, when a married couple files jointly for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, they can sever the case if they file for divorce. Did you file jointly? If you did not, there is nothing to sever. If you did file jointly, your lawyer can help you file a motion to sever. This would divide the case in two, allowing you and your former spouse to handle the bankruptcy process individually rather than together. However, this is not required. You and your spouse can choose to handle the bankruptcy process together and part ways after it is finished. Convert to Another Chapter People often file for Chapter 13 because they have enough income to keep up with their payment plan. This expendable income often makes people ineligible for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which is often completed much faster than Chapter 13. If your income changes after the divorce because of court-ordered child support or alimony, you might now qualify for Chapter 7. If you are not worried about protecting assets or property, converting your case to Chapter 7 might help you get through the bankruptcy process faster. Call Our Bankruptcy Lawyers for Assistance with Your Case Today Call (215) 701-6519 and speak to our chapter 13 bankruptcy attorneys with Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates about a free, confidential case evaluation.

E.D.N.C.: Lewis v. Equityexperts.org II- Class Ed Boltz Sun, 01/26/2025 - 01:00 Summary: The District Court addressed motions to certify a class action and to extend deadlines in a lawsuit alleging improper debt collection practices under federal and state law granting,  in part,  class certification for two classes under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), but denying certification for a third class. Notice of Lien Class: North Carolina homeowners who received a Notice of Lien from the defendant substantially identical to the one sent to the plaintiff and subsequently made a payment to the defendant. Notice of Intent to Foreclose Class: North Carolina homeowners who received a Notice of Intent to Foreclose from the defendant substantially identical to the one sent to the plaintiff and subsequently made a payment to the defendant. Unconscionable Collection Fee Class:  Certification for this class, which would have encompassed all homeowners charged over $1,200 in collection fees, was denied due to insufficient commonality and predominance of common issues across the proposed class. The court limited the certified classes to include only those who made payments following receipt of the notices, addressing standing concerns and ensuring class members suffered a concrete injury. Appointment of Class Representatives and Counsel: This ruling advances the case to the next stages of litigation, focusing on the certified classes and the legal issues central to their claims. Commentary: For summary and commentary on the previous opinion in this case:  E.D.N.C.: Lewis v. EquityExperts.org- Excessive Fees illegal under FDCPA   With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document lewis_v._equityexperts_ii.pdf (833.47 KB) Category Eastern District

For nearly a year, I’ve been hanging out on a Facebook “bankruptcy support” group. It’s a world full of misunderstanding, fear, and anguish. But it’s also clear to me that our profession can learn some things from that stew, both individually and collectively. Represented, sorta The thing that glares at me is the number of […] The post What I Learned About Bankruptcy on Facebook appeared first on Bankruptcy Mastery.

Getting married often means intertwining your finances with your spouses. If you get divorced, does that mean you are responsible for your ex’s debt? You might be responsible for your spouse’s debt after divorce and be named as a co-debtor in a bankruptcy case. Spouses often share credit card and mortgage debt, though any debts solely in their name should be theirs alone to repay. Bankruptcy cases involving ex-spouses can be complicated, depending on the number of creditors involved and the means of repayment. For example, if you still share assets with your ex, they could be at risk of liquidation if Chapter 7 is filed. Alternatively, Chapter 13 could protect shared assets and give both exes time to repay shared debts according to their incomes and expenses. For a free case assessment from Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates, call our bankruptcy lawyers at (215) 701-6519 or (609) 755-3115. Am I Responsible for My Spouse’s Debt After Divorce? Generally speaking, your spouse’s debts are theirs and yours and your own, during or after marriage. So, if you get divorced, you may not be responsible for any debt that is solely in your ex-spouse’s name. There are exceptions to this, such as living in community property states, co-signing loans, or being on joint credit cards with your spouse. If you are tied to the debt in any way, you will still be on the hook for it with your ex, even after divorcing them. Any debt your ex-spouse took on before marrying you may stay theirs to repay, like student loans or personal credit cards. How you manage your finances during marriage, such as keeping separate credit cards, could protect you from a spouse’s spending habits or poor financial decisions, as accruing joint debt could cause additional hardships, such as difficulty being approved for a mortgage or car loan. If you are responsible for a spouse’s debt after divorce, creditors might approach you for repayment. Creditors could send harassing calls or mail, attempt to garnish your wages, or repossess your assets to collect on an ex’s debt you share. Addressing this as soon as possible is crucial so that your credit score does not continue to be affected by an ex. Untangling your debts before separating from your spouse, closing joint accounts and shared credit cards, and itemizing all shared debts is important so that your credit score doesn’t drop without you knowing and you aren’t shocked to be named a co-debtor in a bankruptcy case. Will Your Ex-Spouse Be Part of Your Bankruptcy Case After Divorce? Depending on how debt is accumulated during a marriage, both spouses may be liable for repaying it, even after divorce. For example, if both parties are on the mortgage contract, that is both of their responsibilities to manage, no matter how successful their marriage is. Financial hardships during marriage could require one or both spouses to file bankruptcy. Even if you have since divorced your spouse, they may need to be part of your bankruptcy case if you share debt, as many spouses do. You or your ex could be responsible for one another’s debt because you shared credit cards and bank accounts. Accruing joint debts is common during bankruptcy, and those debts do not just disappear when a marriage dissolves. Creditors may seek repayment until they get it, even filing lawsuits and foreclosure petitions against debtors. In bankruptcy cases involving ex-spouses, our lawyers can review each party’s finances, see how they are intertwined, and confirm their shared debts. We can then identify the appropriate bankruptcy chapter to file and proceed accordingly so that you can address the situation as quickly as possible. Your ex filing for bankruptcy, or your spouse for that matter, does not necessarily affect you if you are not a co-debtor in the case. Even if you are still married, your credit score will not drop if your current spouse files and completes bankruptcy. This is one of the reasons spouses intentionally keep separate credit card accounts after marriage. What to Do if You Are Responsible for a Spouse’s Debt After Divorce Whether you were listed as a co-debtor in your ex’s bankruptcy petition or you are filing a case yourself involving your ex-spouse, our lawyers can help you proceed. A co-debtor’s income doesn’t necessarily affect the bankruptcy chapter the primary debtor can file. So, if your ex’s income alone would place them into Chapter 7, but your income would put them over the threshold to file Chapter 13, the court wouldn’t necessarily consider that. However, avoiding Chapter 7 in these cases might be ideal, as exes could still share assets that neither of them wants to be liquated, which Chapter 7 may require after discharging eligible debts, like credit card debt. What matters is filing the appropriate chapter for the situation, as otherwise, both debtors could be negatively affected. While many exes share dischargeable credit card debt, leading to Chapter 7 filings, others share mortgage debt, which is non-dischargeable. If you are a co-debtor in a case involving your mortgage lender, our bankruptcy lawyers may suggest filing Chapter 13, as that will protect assets from liquidation and give you and your ex several years to repay. Repayment plans for shared debts will consider both debtors’ incomes, and our lawyers can draft these plans for court approval to ensure they are fair. Being responsible for a spouse’s debt without knowing it, like credit card debt, could substantially affect your credit. While being a co-debtor in a bankruptcy case will also make your credit score drop, it will let you address any shared debt head-on and eliminate any remaining financial ties to your ex after divorce. Call Our Lawyers About Your Bankruptcy Case Now For a free case review from Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates, call our Allentown, PA bankruptcy lawyers at (215) 701-6519 or (609) 755-3115.

Law Review: Schwarcz, Steven L., Bankruptcy's Redistributive Policies: Net Value or a "Zero-Sum Game"? (January 01, 2025). Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series Forthcoming Ed Boltz Thu, 01/09/2025 - 15:41 Available at:  https://ssrn.com/abstract=5079149 Abstract: Although federal bankruptcy law, epitomized by Chapter 11, has a pro-debtor-or at least, anti-liquidation-bias, no scholarship analyzes whether that bias creates net value or merely results in a zero-sum game that redistributes value from creditors to debtors. This Article shows that the bias is due more to accidents of history and self-interested lobbying than to any reasoned analysis of value creation. The bias also is inconsistent with many foreign insolvency laws. The Article analyzes whether bankruptcy law should have such a pro-debtor bias. An empirical analysis of that question is not generally feasible because debtor and creditor costs and benefits in bankruptcy cannot be accurately quantified and compared. The Article therefore engages in a second-best methodology: it builds on the pro-debtor shareholder-primacy model of corporate governance, which is widely viewed as maximizing value, by stressing that model under the circumstances of bankruptcy. This reveals two critical differences. First, creditors become the primary residual claimants of the firm, whereas shareholders are relegated to secondary residual claimant status. This changes the identity of the beneficiary of the "shareholder" primacy model, whose goal is to favor the firm's primary residual claimants. Second, the covenants that normally protect creditors become unenforceable in bankruptcy, suggesting the need for additional creditor protection. Utilizing these differences, the Article proposes and assesses a "creditor-primacy" governance model for debtors in bankruptcy. It also examines how such a model could be applied to maximize bankruptcy value. The Article recommends, for example, a threshold viability test that would require debtors that are unlikely to successfully reorganize, and therefore likely ultimately to liquidate, to be liquidated at the outset of a Chapter 11 case. That would save the considerable expenses of proceeding through bankruptcy, which can severely reduce creditor recovery. Such a test also should reduce agency costs and moral hazard. Furthermore, it should help to avoid the sunk-cost fallacy that leads to a disproportionately high number of supposedly reorganized debtors having to subsequently re-file Chapter 11 cases.  Commentary: It seems a little odd,  given that,  contrasted with  corporate bankruptcies,  not only is consumer bankruptcy the real and most common form of bankruptcy  but as the paper's call for a "threshold viability test"  looks,  with only a little squinting,  not terribly dissimilar to the  means testing and feasibility standards that are incorporated into Chapter 13,  that there is no mention of consumer bankruptcy here.  While  Chapter 13  bankruptcies often seem more foreign to academics focused on corporate bankruptcies  than the European systems actually considered in comparison here.   Empirical research about whether  consumer reorganizations,  which are more common by several orders of magnitude,  could provide greater statistical insight regarding when, whether and to what extent tighter viability standards  result in greater or lesser recoveries for creditors (of all ilks-  secured,  priority and general unsecured) following both successful Chapter 13 cases and also those that fail.  That could then enlighten the discussion and consideration of the costs and benefits similar tightening of access might have on  Chapter 11  cases. With proper attribution,  please share this post.  To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document bankruptcys_redistributive_policies_net_value_or_a_zero-sum_game.pdf (440.97 KB) Category Law Reviews & Studies

As a Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipient, should you be concerned about losing your benefits if you inherit a home? If you already own a home when you inherit another one, it could put you over the resource limit for SSI, making you lose your benefits. However, if you move into the inherited home as your primary residence, the Social Security Administration (SGA) won’t count it against you as a resource. Selling homes while getting SSI can temporarily complicate eligibility, and our lawyers can help recipients plan and prepare for these changes. Disclaiming an inheritance while on SSI might have adverse effects, so do not take such steps before confirming doing so is the right course of action. For a free and confidential case assessment, call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates’ disability lawyers at (215) 515-2954 or (609) 557-3081 today. Will Inheriting a House Make You Lose Your SSI? Inheriting a house could make you lose your SSI, as eligibility is based on need. The Social Security Administration considers a recipient’s income and resources when giving SSI, and inheriting a home could put your aggregate assets over the threshold. To qualify for Supplemental Security Income, your total resources, or the things you own, may not exceed $2,000 for individuals or $3,000 for couples. Thresholds differ when parents apply for SSI on behalf of their children. This applies to most assets, like vehicles and personal property. Generally speaking, the SSA won’t count your primary residence toward your resources for SSI eligibility. If you inherit a home and do not move into it as your primary residence, the SSA would count the home as an additional resource, potentially revoking your monthly SSI payments. Inheriting assets other than homes to make your primary residence could put you over the resource limit for SSI. There are ways to prevent this, such as by establishing Special Needs Trusts to place inheritances into or spending down small inheritances to purchase resources that won’t count against you, like one vehicle for you to drive. While SSI is a need-based program, other Social Security benefits are not, meaning an inheritance will not affect eligibility. For example, if you suffered a disabling injury and can no longer work after paying Social Security taxes for years, you may qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). While income is still limited for SSDI recipients, inheriting a home won’t affect their monthly benefits or continued eligibility. What to Do if You Inherit a Home and Get SSI Benefits Suppose you inherit a home from a family member, giving you a new place to live while receiving SSI. In that case, you must quickly alert the SSA and make a plan to keep your monthly payments. The Social Security Administration doesn’t count SSI recipients’ primary homes toward their resources, regardless of the property’s value. So, provided you properly inform the SSA of your inheritance and move into your new home relatively quickly, it may not affect your ability to get monthly checks from the SSA. Things can get complicated if you own the current home you live in and plan to move into the newly inherited home as your primary residence. Your previous home would become a countable resource, as would any proceeds from the sale that did not go toward buying a new residence. If you sell your home because you inherited a property you prefer, you may have to pay some benefits back to the SSA, or payments may temporarily pause. SSI recipients who sell their homes and use the proceeds to purchase new ones within three months will not see the proceeds used against them or their eligibility. Swift reporting of inheritance to the SSA is crucial. You must report any potential changes to your eligibility, like an inheritance, within 10 days of the end of the month the change occurred. So, if you inherited a home in January, you would have just over a week into February to inform the SSA of the change. Our Allentown, PA disability lawyers can help you do this so the SSA is aware of your plans to treat the inherited home as your primary residence so that it will not be counted against you as a resource. Failure to report changes, large or small, could result in overpayments from the SSA that it will expect back. The SSA might even sanction payments in some situations, stopping them for six months or longer. Can You Disclaim an Inherited House to Keep Your SSI? If you already own a home and recently inherited another property, your concerns about potentially losing your SSI benefits might make you consider disclaiming the inheritance. This could have serious unintended consequences for recipients that our lawyers can help avoid. In most cases, the SSA views disclaimed inheritances as “constructively received.” This means that, even if you do not accept a home or amount of money left to you, the SSA will act as though you have. The SSA takes a similar approach to assets given away or sold for less than they are worth, what it calls “transferring a resource.” In response to these tactics by SSI recipients, the SSA could stop benefits for up to three years. This could leave you without your disclaimed inheritance or the monthly SSI payments you rely on for financial support. If you anticipate inheriting a home and you already have a primary residence, we can confirm if your SSI benefits will be affected and, if so, for how long. Assuming that disclaiming an inheritance will solve your problems could leave you in a worse situation than you were in previously, which we can help prevent. Call Our Disability Lawyers to Discuss Your Case Call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 515-2954 or (609) 557-3081 to get help with your case from our Levittown, PA disability lawyers.

In Chapter 13, in Virginia, your mortgage payment needs to be on-the-dot current. Paying your mortgage payment by the 14th of the month (or later) gets your Chapter 13 case thrown out at the goal line. That’s because of a local bankruptcy rule, Rule 3002.1-1 in the Eastern District of Virginia Why? Your mortgage is due on the first. They may give you a grace period until the 15th, but it’s due on the first. When you make your last Chapter 13 payment, the Chapter 13 trustee is required by Bankruptcy Rules 3002.1 to ask the mortgage company if you are current. That rule was considered a big victory for the consumer when it passed. The mortgage company had to say if they thought you were current or behind. If you are your mortgage on the 14th instead of the first, your Chapter 13 will be disqualified at the goal line. In this court, that victory turned into a nightmare, in a case called Evans. Now, if the mortgage company says you haven’t yet made this month’s payment, Thomas Gorman, the Chapter 13 Trustee, tells the Judge that your case should be thrown out. Unless you get caught up–and the mortgage company agrees in writing you are caught up–your case is tossed out. You are disqualified at the goal line. What Should You Do? When you are at the third to last payment on your Chapter 13, catch up the house! Make the mortgage payment on the first of the month. Eat oatmeal for a month, borrow from family, stop your 401k contribution, cut expenses everywhere. Get the mortgage payment in on the first of the month. Do what you have to do. There is a detour Suppose instead of being two weeks behind, you are three months behind on your mortgage payment. Sometimes that’s better. Why? The mortgage company will likley go to the judge and ask that your house be taken out of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy. That’s called relief from the automatic stay. If your house is taken out of the Chapter 13, then this problem doesn’t come up.  The Chapter 13 Trustee won’t ask the mortgage company at the end 0f the case if you are current, and the judge won’t throw your case out. Of course you do have to catch the house up outside of the bankruptcy. If you are close to the end of the case and sitting a few months behind, you may want the mortgage company to take your house out of the bankrutpcy by relief from the automatic stay.  If you can get close to caught up, they won’t forclose you. And the rest of your Chapter 13 debts can be cleared at discharge. But if you are only close to caught up and the house is still inside the bankruptcy, your Chapter 13 is thrown out at the goal line. Those other debts you were paying in Chapter 13? They can all come back. Do We Need to Talk? Are you close to the end of your case and still struggling with the mortgage?  Not sure what to do?  Call Vanessa at 703-335-7793 and set up a time for us to talk.     The post Your mortgage payment needs to be on-the-dot current appeared first on Robert Weed Bankruptcy Attorney.