How Chapter 7 Really Works When Reaffirming a Vehicle

May 22, 2013 By Leave a Comment

Protecting Your Car When You File For Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Protection

If you face insurmountable debt, you can seek to permanently discharge that debt by filing for protection under Chapter 7. The bankruptcy laws limit the type of debt that can be discharged, and also allow you to reaffirm the debt on any property that you want to exempt from the bankruptcy sale. If you own a motor vehicle and don’t want to lose it in bankruptcy, there are specific steps you can take to protect your property.

Reaffirming Your Car Loan in a Chapter 7 Proceeding

A reaffirmation is essentially a new agreement to repay the amount owed on your vehicle. To reaffirm a car loan, you will be required to sign an agreement, stating that in exchange for keeping your car you agree to continue to make the payments on the car. The bankruptcy court will review the proposed reaffirmation to make certain that you need to have the car, that the payment is reasonable and that having the car payment will not impose an unreasonable hardship on you and your family. You can also rescind a reaffirmation agreement within 60 days and return the vehicle without any further obligation.

You want to be careful about entering into a reaffirmation agreement. By doing so, you are essentially agreeing that the protections of the bankruptcy laws do not apply to the car. If you include the car in a bankruptcy filing, you are protected by the automatic stay and the lender cannot call, write or take legal action to collect car payments from you, other than through the bankruptcy court. If, however, you reaffirm your car loan and you fall behind on your payments, the lender is not affected by the automatic stay and you will be liable for the entire unpaid amount of the loan.

Contact Neuner & Ventura, LLP

Let us help you take back control of your life! We understand the stress, anxiety and confusion that can be associated with a potential bankruptcy filing. We offer a free initial consultation to every new potential bankruptcy client. (We do, however, reserve the right to charge a fee to review any work done by another attorney). For an appointment, call Neuner & Ventura at 856-596-2828 or send us an e-mail. Evening and weekend appointments are available upon request

Representing Clients across South Jersey



Filed Under: Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Tagged With:

The Simplest Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Filing

May 15, 2013 By Leave a Comment

For many, simply the word “bankruptcy” conjures up visions of mountains of paperwork, complex filings, meetings with creditors and hearings in bankruptcy court. After the 2005 revisions to the bankruptcy laws that mandated that anyone seeking to permanently discharge debt under Chapter 7 submit to a “means test,” it may seem that the days of a “simple bankruptcy” are over. You may have to determine which debts qualify for discharge, as well as what assets are exempt from sale under state or federal laws.

Nonetheless, there are still situations in which you can quickly and effectively complete a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh financial start. Even if the process takes longer than expected, you will benefit from the automatic stay, which goes into effect immediately, preventing creditors from calling, writing or taking legal action to collect a debt.

Here are the conditions that will make it easiest for you to file and complete a bankruptcy with little or no difficulty:

  • Your household income is less than the state median — Typically, if your income is below the state median, you are free to file either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, and do not need to undergo the complex calculations set forth in the means test.
  • You own few or no assets — If you have significant assets, you will have to determine what assets you can keep and which may be sold to satisfy your creditors. If you have few assets, chances are good you will be able to keep everything.
  • You have no secured debt (mortgage, car note or any obligation secured by collateral) — If you have secured debt, the bankruptcy court must make a determination as to who has priority regarding the proceeds of a bankruptcy sale. With no secured debts, the proceeds are simply shared by your creditors.
  • Your creditors have no basis for an allegation of fraud against you — Allegations of fraud happen rarely, but when they do, they take a long time to resolve.
  • Your bankruptcy does not involve any business debt — Business debts are often larger and more complex than most personal debt.

Contact Neuner & Ventura, LLP

Let us help you take back control of your life! We understand the stress, anxiety and confusion that can be associated with a potential bankruptcy filing. We offer a free initial consultation to every new potential bankruptcy client. (We do, however, reserve the right to charge a fee to review any work done by another attorney). For an appointment, call Neuner & Ventura at 856-596-2828 or send us an e-mail. Evening and weekend appointments are available upon request.

Representing Clients across South Jersey



Filed Under: Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Tagged With:

US Supreme Court clarifies when trustees may lose their right to a discharge

May 14, 2013 By Leave a Comment

By far, the right to a discharge of debts is the most valuable benefit of a bankruptcy filing. Discharge of particular debts can be denied under limited circumstances when the creditor files a timely suit in the bankruptcy court. One of the grounds for such non-dischargeability applies to debts for “defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity” [ie acting as a trustee].   The term defalcation generally means causing a loss or acting in violation of required standards of conduct. Fiduciaries are held to higher standard of conduct and trustworthiness than others, but not everyone who is placed in that position fully understands or appreciates the obligations that come with it. What was unclear until recently was whether a trustee acting without ill intent whose actions did not cause actual loss could be held liable and such liability could be made non dischargeable.

In Bullock v BankChampaign NA, the United States Supreme Court answered this question. There, the debtor had served as trustee of his father’s trust created for him and his four siblings. The trust had one asset, a life insurance policy with cash value. The trust allowed borrowing against the value of that policy. Three times, Mr. Bullock authorized such borrowings. In all cases, the borrowed money was repaid with interest. In two instances, the borrowed money was used to buy assets that Mr. Bullock and his mother jointly owned. Thus, Mr. Bullock personally benefitted from some of the borrowing, although no money was lost.

His brothers sued him in Illinois state court. Finding that he had violated his fiduciary duties by engaging in “self-dealing” that court entered  a judgment against him requiring him to repay the benefit he received along with costs and attorneys fees. BankChampaign was appointed the new trustee. After Mr. Bullock filed for bankruptcy, BankChampaign sought to have the unpaid judgment declared non-dischargeable. The lower courts all held that Mr. Bullock’s conduct was a sufficient violation of his duties that the debt should not be discharged, even though there was no actual loss and no proof of ill intent.

The Supreme Court reversed and sent the case back to apply the new standards it announced. To be non-dischargeable “defalcation” in the absence of actual loss, bad faith, moral turpitude or other immoral conduct, it held, there must be more. The trustee must have knowingly engaged in wrongful conduct, or else  recklessly disregarded  a “substantial and unjustifiable risk” that his conduct will turn out to violate a fiduciary duty. The risk, it held, “must be of such a nature anddegree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation fromthe standard of conduct that a law-abiind person would observe in the actor’s situation”

As noted above, many people take on fiduciary obligations without a proper understanding or appreciation of the high standards imposed on them. A common example is the family member acting as trustee for a parent’s estate. For such persons, this decision not only clarifies the limits of non-dischargeability, but also provides  needed relief  where innocent mistakes are made.  In proper circumstances, this decision will prevent the innocent technical violation from becoming a life-long liability.

That said, anyone serving as a guardian, trustee or executor should seek legal advice to avoid these types of problems from arising in the first place. With years of experience as fiduciaries or representing them, we can provide the needed help.



Filed Under: Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

What is a “residence” that a debtor can claim as exempt? NJ Bankruptcy judge holds that it must be a place of permanent residence.

March 24, 2013 By Leave a Comment

Commonly, people in financial difficulty own multiple properties that they could claim as a residence. This is important, because bankruptcy code section 522(d)(1) affords a right to protect from sale an “interest” in real estate or other property that serves as a “residence” for the debtor or a “dependent”. Clever attorneys can try to use this to protect property other than the debtor’s principal residence. That right has been limited in a recent decision in New Jersey.

Very recently, bankruptcy Judge Michael Kaplan held in In re Stoner,  that the exemption only applies to property that the debtor actually intends to use as a “homestead”, and held that the debtor there could not claim as exempt the proceeds of property owned and occupied by his father until a few days before the bankruptcy filing, because he did not have an intention to live there.

Unbeknownst to the debtor, his father had died a few days before his bankruptcy filing. For two years, the debtor claimed another property where he actually lived as his residence. Since he was the executor of his father’s estate, he sold the father’s property, pocketed the proceeds, then changed his mind and claimed his share of his father’s property as exempt. The trustee successfully challenged this claim.

Judge Kaplan first held that because, as of the date of the bankruptcy filing, the debtor held the legal right to sell the property and a partial interest in it as a beneficiary, he held an “interest” in the property that he could exempt. The next question, which was determinative, was whether that interest was in a “residence” to which section 522(d)(1) applied. Bankruptcy courts have taken different approaches to this question. However, Judge Kaplan looked to the law of New Jersey and other states, seeking a definition of the term “residence”. He also looked at what Congress intended in creating the “homestead” exemption. With all this before him, Judge  Kaplan held that  the term “residence”  requires “some measure as the Debtor’s of permanence”  and that “[t]his approach is consistent with the New Jersey state law’s interpretation of the term “homestead,” equating it to a principal residence.”

Applying this standard to the case before him, Judge Kaplan found “no support for any finding that the Debtor considered the decedent’s residence principal residence or that he intended his stay there to be permanent. The Debtor has not submitted any change of mailing address forms, change in driver’s license or indication as to where he was registered to vote at the time of his filing. Further, the fact that the Debtor did not seek to amend his schedules until nearly two years after he filed his Petition lends further support to the Court’s conclusion.”

This will be of significance to anyone with multiple properties. Clearly, anyone who wants to claim an exempt residence a vacation home or property in which parents reside will have a harder time, if other courts follow Judge Kaplan’s lead.  Careful planning and guidance by an experienced bankruptcy attorney is more important than ever.



Filed Under: Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Uncategorized

Mortgage lender sanctioned for violating discharge injunction by repeated calls to discuss alternatives to foreclosure after being told to stop and after debtors locked out of home

March 15, 2013 By Leave a Comment

An Oregon bankruptcy court slapped Wells Fargo Bank with counsel fees and $4000.00 in damages based on its repeated calls to the borrowers to discuss “alternatives to foreclosure”. (In re Culpepper, 451 B.R. 650 (2012)). The facts of this case are important to understand this result.

The homeowners filed a bankruptcy and initially stated they wanted to surrender their home. Despite this they made three applications for a loan modificatoin, none of which were put into effect. At some point in time they were locked out of the house. Shortly afterwards, they began getting a series of telephone calls. sometimes twice a day to discuss “alternatives to foreclosure”. The savvy homeowner, Ms. Culpepper, recorded these calls (Note: many states make this illegal unless the caller is informed the call is being recorded). The callers were knowledgeable and professional. However, Ms. Culpepper was clearly distressed and repeatedly told them to stop. Each time she was told the calls would stop only if she sent a “cease and desist” letter to a fax number. A total of about 100 such calls continued, even after Ms. Culpepper’s attorney sent a letter to Wells Fargo demanding the calls stop. Fed up, the Culpeppers reopened their case and filea a motion to hold Wells Fargo in contempt of the discharge order.

The court granted that relief, finding that the Culpeppers had met their burden of producing “clear and convincing” evidence that Wells Fargo knowingly persisted after knowledge of the bankruptcy discharge. In awarding damages, the Court had some cogent remarks:

“I find that Wells Fargo knew that the discharge injunction applied with respect to Ms. Culpepper, and I find that Wells Fargo intended to continue to route calls to Ms. Culpepper in an effort to reinstate all of some of a discharged debt, i.e., the Loan, through a loan modification, after Ms. Culpepper had clearly advised knowledgeable, thinking Wells Fargo employees that she was not interested in pursuing a modification of the Loan with Wells Fargo and wanted the calls to stop. Accordingly, I conclude that Ms. Culpepper has established by clear and convincing evidence that Wells Fargo violated the discharge injunction under § 524(a)(2).

 ”The question then moves to an appropriate measure of damages. As I indicated in my tentative conclusions communicated at the Hearing, I do not find this case appropriate for the imposition of punitive damages. Ms. Culpepper opened the door to communications with Wells Fargo postpetition and postdischarge through her pursuit of multiple applications to modify the Loan. The specific communications from Wells Fargo representatives consistently and overtly disclaimed any attempt to collect a discharged debt from Ms. Culpepper. If the communications had not persisted in the face of repeated, anguished communications from Ms. Culpepper requesting that the calls stop, the decision could have been different.
 However, the calls did not stop, and there is a fundamental problem with a program of calls where intelligent, knowledgeable Wells Fargo employees cannot take the responsibility to cause such calls to stop in the face of clear communications from a former customer that she has no interest in further pursuing a loan modification and wants such calls to cease. An award of actual damages is appropriate”
Some important lessons apply here. First, borrowers do not have to be subjected to harassment, but they have to develop evidence.  Second, recording the calls, after advising that a recording is taking place, is an excellent gambit. Indeed, such tactics alone may cause the calls to stop. Third, some effort to put into writing a demand to “cease and desist” is important. Fourth, proving damages will require showing how the calls and efforts caused emotional distress. In this case, the Culpepper’s psychologist testified.
At the end of the day, no one should be subjected to this kind of pressure, but if more people call the violators to account, the violations may stop. Assistance of experienced qualified counsel is essential to protect your rights.


Filed Under: Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Debt Collector Abuse, Uncategorized

After a bankruptcy discharge, what to do when mortgage holders and secured creditors go too far.

March 11, 2013 By Leave a Comment

A bankruptcy discharge makes most but not all debts legally noncollectable against the person who is discharged. When despite this a creditor tries to collect the discharged debt, the result can be a lawsuit to hold the creditor in contempt for violating the bankruptcy discharge. But not all creditors are prevented from collecting or enforcing their rights.

A bankruptcy discharge does not prevent collection of debts incurred or which arose after the bankruptcy filing. It does not prevent collection of domestic support obligations (eg alimony or child support), most student loans or most taxes. It does not prevent collection of debts which have been voluntarily “reaffirmed” in the bankruptcy (typically car loans and leases)

Those creditors who hold a mortgage or collateral (eg a car loan or lease) are still allowed to enforce their rights as a lien holder. Thus, pursuing foreclosure of a home or repossession of a motor vehicle is allowed. But in these situations, a mortgage lender or other lien-holder can sometimes step over the line if they take action that goes beyond merely enforcing their rights to property, and has the effort of coercing a payment by the individual on the personal debt that was discharged.

This concept that a debt is discharged against the individual, but not against property which is collateral for the debt is difficult from some to grasp. Think of it this way. When we get a mortgage loan or a car loan, we are really making two promises. One is the “IOU” promise to pay back the debt. The other is backing that promise up by giving the lender legal rights to property, eg the home or car. The IOU is what the discharge takes away, but the lender still has the right to get and sell its collateral if the loan is not paid. After a discharge, that is all a mortgage lender has left.

So how far can a mortgage lender go? A creditor violates the discharge injunction when it: (1) intentionally takes action after a discharge, with knowledge that a discharge has been ordered and where (2) the creditor’s action  operates to coerce or harass the debtor  into paying a discharged obligation.  The First Circuit Court of Appeals defined the “objectively coercive” standard in stating that “even legitimate state-law rights exercised in a coercive manner might impinge upon the important federal interest served by the discharge injunction, which is to ensure that debtors receive a ‘fresh start’ and are not unfairly coerced into repaying discharged prepetition debts.”

The line between what is allowed and what is not is not always clear. Here are some recent examples how this might play out:

1. After the debtors had abandoned a home and a foreclosure had proceeded to the point that they no longer had any rights of ownership, a mortgage servicer violated the discharge by sending a letter, entitled “Validation of Debt”, contained information notifying the debtors of the transfer of the loan, the amounts due under the note, and pertinent information for making future mortgage payments, and later letters with additional information about the assignment,
alternatives to foreclosure, and property insurance. . Included in all but one letter was a generic disclaimer stating that  the communications were not attempts to collect debts from customers in pending bankruptcy cases, or those who had already obtained a discharge under the Code. The Maine bankruptcy court found the lender in contempt because at the time these letters were sent, they served no valid purpose served relating to enforcement of the security interest because the lender already had its collateral.

2. In another case, the lender did not violate the discharge when they refused to pursue a foreclosure to completion or to release their mortgage lien, even though this forced the debtors to incure additional expense for insurance and property maintenance.

3. In that same case, the lender did face contempt penalties for demanding payment on the mortgage loan and telling the borrowers their personal obligation to pay on the mortgage loan was not discharged in bankruptcy.

4. In another case, the creditor filed suit against the debtor’s business, naming them individually as nominal parties against whom no judgment was sought individually. Even though the suit looked to be questionable and possibly meant for harassment, this did not rise to a discharge violation. That the debtors had to take time and effort to provide discovey of facts as witnesses in the litigation, that was not enough.

The point is that mortgage lenders and secured creditors do have certain rights, but sometimes they go too far. When that happens it is time to seek legal advice.

 

 



Filed Under: Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Debt Collector Abuse, Uncategorized

Not your usual dull bankruptcy case…!!

February 7, 2013 By

A bankruptcy trustee colleague of mine related the following story about a recent case where he was the trustee for an “interesting” debtor in bankruptcy:

After hearing the case about a year ago and doing his usual investigation, he filed a final “no asset” report that there was nothing for creditors. He said it “sure looked like” a “No Asset” case to him. Then he got a call from ”every Trustee’s best friend, the ex-wife.” It turns out our intrepid debtor had gotten the house in their divorce, had moved in, but had never transferred title into his name.  This gentleman ”must have thought listing his interest on his bankruptcy schedules wasn’t important.” He  then tries to sell the house,  but the title officer, seeing the bankruptcy, calls the trustee about it. The trustee sells the house, using the money to pay creditors including the IRS. He also refers the debtor to the United States Trustee for possible investigation of bankruptcy fraud.

But that’s not the end of the story. My trustee friend found out a few months ago that this debtor also had an undisclosed  malpractice claim against a chiropractor and the case is going to trial in the spring.  Even more recently, he learned that someone set off a massive amount of explosives on property owned by local  dentist. There was damage to surrounding homes: busted windows, one house reportedly knocked off its foundation, blackened trees and a 10 foot diameter blast crater. The rumor was that it was this same debtor who set off the explosion, using an old C4 explosive and that this gentleman  may have a license to handle explosives, “which is itself a frightening thought.” Sure enough, the individual in question has been arrested.

Just another day in the life of a trustee… those of us who have been there know how challenging the job of a trustee can be. But the other point for the rest of us is that those who commit fraud have to remember that there is always someone, usually an “ex” someone, who knows the truth and wants to tell it.



Filed Under: Business Issues, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Uncategorized

Lenny Dykstra pleads guilty to bankruptcy fraud and could get 30 months in prison for stripping his house of valuables

November 16, 2012 By

Too often, I hear clients who feel that if they/we do not tell about the things they want to hide, they will not get caught. Former Mets outfielder Lenny Dykstra plead guilty to bankruptcy fraud and if the prosecutor has his way, will be sentenced on December 3, to 30 months in prison. What did he do? He cleared valuables out of his California mansion, hid them in his bankruptcy filing, then  secretly sold them. We don’t know what he got for the purloined items but I doubt it was worth it.

Reputable attorneys will tell their clients that this behavior is not worth it, especially for high-visibility, or formerly-high-income debtors. Why doesn’t this work? First, there is always someone else who is involved or who knows what you did or what you had. Second, many people “tell lies to their lawyer, and tell the truth to the judge”. (As a trustee I saw this often, and the poor lawyer is sitting there, dumbfounded.) Third, trustees spend their professional lives as lie-detectors, and some are very good at it. Going in you have no idea who your trustee will be, or who else may be whispering in her ear about you.

Here is my take on this: There are worse things in life than having to pay your creditors something. Usually there is something that can be done, and some good deals that can be cut with a trustee to “redeem” (or buy back) things the trustee would otherwise sell. The key is to be honest, and to follow the lead of the knowledgeable and reputable lawyer you should be dealing with.

Or you can do what Mr. Dykstra did, and hope that you get lucky. ( and hope that no one notices all the stuff that is missing, or sees you selling it).  The prosecutor told his sentencing judge that he had an “arrogant world view”, feeling that he was untouchable because of his celebrity. The judge might very well throw  the book at him.

Any lawyer who suggests or recommends that you skirt the road of honesty is likely to be one who already has a reputation among the trustees. By being represented by such persons, you may unwittingly be putting a target on yourself. And the collateral damage could include the lawyer who counsels such behavior, or even the one who winks and looks the other way. I never want to put myself in a situation where what I did could be used as my client’s bargaining chip in plea negotiations.

Most people, when they understand the risks, take the high road, and make a better deal for themselves that Lenny Dykstra did.



Filed Under: Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Fraud, Uncategorized

Judgments have life after bankruptcy, a New Jersey Court rules

October 22, 2012 By

We recently posted a discussion of Gaskill v Citi Mortgage, a September 2012 decision by the New Jersey Appellate Division where it denied an application to cancel a judgment under a New Jersey statute allowing that relief any time more than 12 months after a bankruptcy discharge. There is another point the court made: even though the personal obligation underlying a judgment may be discharged and uncollectible against the debtor personally, the judgment creditor can continue to levy on the residence and try to have it sold at Sheriff sale,  for another year! At first this sounds surprising, (how can they collect against my house a debt I do not have to pay?) but on this point, the court got it right. As we will see, this is a problem that can be easily prevented.

The reason is that a judgment in New Jersey becomes a lien on real estate until it is satisfied or removed. A bankruptcy discharge does neither. In most cases, the judgment creditor does not bother trying to have the Sheriff levy and sell post bankruptcy. The reason is simple: most houses have no equity or substantial mortgages. Any money from a Sheriff sale on a judgment must first satisfy the existing taxes and mortgages, and few houses have enough equity to risk the sale price being too low to leave anything for the judgment holder.

Happily, if the homeowner is in a position to keep their home after bankruptcy, there is an easy solution. The Bankruptcy Code has a provision for homeowners to “avoid” a judgment lien to the extent it “impairs an exemption”. In most cases this is the case. [There is a seemingly complicated formula, found at 11 USC 522(f)]. For our clients who want to keep their home and have judgments this is an option. The additional cost of these motions (which are rarely challenged) is worth the peace of mind. The result is a federal court order removing the judgment as a valid lien right away.

This little wrinkle is just one of the many “gotchas” that can lie in wait for the unsuspecting and poorly advised debtor. As in so much more in life, when it comes to hiring the right bankruptcy lawyer, “penny-wise is pound-foolish”. The small extra cost to have it done right is worth it.



Filed Under: Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Credit Issues, Debt Collector Abuse, Foreclosure & Repossession, Uncategorized

NJ Court rules that failure to properly list a judgment holder in bankruptcy prevents later removal of lien from real estate

October 4, 2012 By

We have always told our bankruptcy clients how important it is to  accurately listing every possible creditor. The New Jersey Courts have reminded us again why that is so.

First, a common misconception. People think that if they have gotten a bankruptcy discharge, all judgments or liens against their home are removed. This is not so. Mortgages and judgments, and certain other liens cannot be collected post-discharge against the debtor personally, but they stay attached to real estate. This usually comes up when the debtor in bankruptcy wants to sell or refinance a home. The judgments are still there, clouding title to the home. They can be removed, but extra steps are involved, either a motion during the bankruptcy case, or a motion in the New Jersey courts under its “cancellation of judgments” statute,  filed a year or more after the bankruptcy discharge. This is usually pretty straightforward, assuming the attorney filing the motion knows what they are doing and the proper steps were taken in the bankruptcy case.

In Gaskill v Citi Mortgage Inc., (Appellate Division Sept. 28, 2012) however, the Gaskills could not get that relief to remove a judgment Citi had  against them. The reason? In their bankruptcy they had never listed Citi as a creditor but instead had listed as the “creditor” only the collection law firm that had represented Citi in obtaining the judgment. Because of this, the Appellate Division held tht Citi itself never got information sufficient in time to protect its rights in the bankruptcy;  its first notice of the bankruptcy, according to the opinion, came after the discharge was entered.  As a result, the New Jersey Appellate Division held that the Gaskills were not entitled to the benefit of cancellation of the judgment as a lien on their home. (BUT See Note Below)

The take-away here is that those who need bankruptcy relief need to pay attention to the details. We routinely pull a judgment search as well as a full credit report for our clients. As the Gaskill case reminds us, not everyone does this. And those who intend to keep their home, or possibly buy another, need to be careful as well. As always, having the right attorney and sweating the details pays off.

NOTE: The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that in the typical “no asset” bankruptcy were the trustee has no money to pay claims of creditors, a bankruptcy discharge applies to everyone who was owed money,whether or not listed. Here, however, that was not the case, since the trustee arranged for creditors to get notice to file claims. Oddly, Citi actually filed a claim in the bankruptcy and even filed and lost a motion in the bankruptcy court seeking a declaration that its lien was not to be discharged. One has to question the logic or validity of the Appellate Division’s ruling, since Citi clearly knew about the bankruptcy in time to protects its rights. Further, Citi lost on nearly the same issue that the Appellate Division ruled the other way. For now, this ruling signals that those who rely on New Jersey statutes to clear their home of judgments has better turn square corners.

For help with debt or related problems, please feel free to contact us.

 



Filed Under: Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Lawsuits, Uncategorized
«Older Posts

GoogleLinkedInTwitterFacebook Super Lawyers Avvo YouTube