I've Previously Filed Bankruptcy. When Can I File Again?

Here's a great article written by Michael Doan at The Bankruptcy Law Network that discusses when you can file bankruptcy again after a previous case.  Here in California, if you're married and you filed your previous case as an individual, without your spouse, then your spouse can file his/her bankruptcy anytime. Remember that these rules only apply to the Debtor who filed the bankruptcy case, not any non-filing spouse.

I agree with Attorney Doan's "Nutshell" synopsis,

"The time frames between discharge eligibility are as follows:

8 years between 7s. -727(a)(8)

2 years between 13s. -1328(f)(2)

4 years between a 7 and 13 -1328(f)(1)

6 years between a 13 and 7(if under 70% plan). -727(a)(9)

The time is counted from filing to filing — not from first discharge to second filing."

This information has become more important now than ever before in the history of our country because of the current economy.  Be sure to consult with your bankruptcy attorney about your situation. All is not lost. In most cases you can still get the relief you deserve.

Tags:

Motion To Continue Stay in Subsequent Filings

     A literal reading of 11 U.S.C. Section §362(c)(3) terminates the stay 30 days after the filing of the petition only with respect to the debtor, not property of the estate. However, coming into bankruptcy court in the Central District, recent rulings have discussed whether the Stay terminates entirely or only with respect to the Debtor in subsequent bankruptcy case filings.

      In re Reswick Jr., 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 873, (B.A.P. 9th Cir. February 4, 2011) held that the Automatic Stay terminated as to the debtor and property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate 30 days after the debtor’s second bankruptcy filing. The court agreed with the persuasive reasoning set forth in In re Daniel, 404 B.R. 318 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2009), and held that the automatic stay terminated in its entirety on the 30th day after the petition date." (Emphasis added.) This is a minority decision.

The Reswick court analyzed the majority viewpoint [*364],

“The majority interpretation finds the phrase "with respect to the debtor" to be both critical and unambi-guous, and concludes that on the 30th day after the peti-tion date, the automatic stay terminates only with respect to the debtor and the debtor's property, but not as to property of the estate. See, e.g., Holcomb v. Hardeman (In re Holcomb), 380 B.R. 813 (10th Cir. BAP 2008); [**7] Jumpp v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (In re Jumpp), 356 B.R. 789 (1st Cir. BAP 2006); In re Pope, 351 B.R. 14 (Bankr. D.R.I. 2006); In re Murray, 350 B.R. 408 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2006); In re Brandon, 349 B.R. 130 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2006); Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v. Gillcrese (In re Gillcrese), 346 B.R. 373 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2006); In re Williams, 346 B.R. 361 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2006); In re Harris, 342 B.R. 274 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2006); In re Jones, 339 B.R. 360 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2006); In re Moon, 339 B.R. 668 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2006); In re Johnson, 335 B.R. 805 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2006). Although these decisions state that the court need not read beyond the phrase "with respect to the debtor" to discern its meaning, see, e.g., Jones, 399 B.R. at 363 ("Section 362(c)(3)(A) provides that the stay terminates 'with respect to the debtor.' How could that be any clear-er?"), these decisions arguably do read beyond the phrase because they find that the stay terminates with respect to the debtor and to any property of the debtor that is not property of the estate. Id. at 362; see also Holcomb, 380 B.R. at 816 ("[W]e conclude that the language of § 362(c)(3)(A) terminates the stay only as to the debtor [**8] and the debtor's property."); Jumpp, 356 B.R. at 797 ("Section 362(c)(3)(A) provides for a partial termination of the stay.").”

On May 9, 2011, the Central District Riverside Division Court in In re Rinard, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 1731, Judge Clarkson held,

“Under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), a bankruptcy court "may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title." Section 105(a) gives the bankruptcy courts the power to stay actions that are not subject to the 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) automatic stay (footnote omitted) but "threaten the integrity of a bankrupt's estate." Canter v. Canter (In re Canter), 299 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and quotation marks omitted); Ingersoll-Rand Fin. Corp. v. Miller Mining Co., 817 F.2d 1424, 1427 (9th Cir. 1987)." Solidus Networks, Inc. v. Excel Innovations, Inc. (In re Excel Innovations, Inc.), 502 F.3d 1086, 1093 (9th Cir. 2007). The Ninth Circuit, in Solidus Network further found that the usual preliminary injunction standard applies to stays of proceedings against non-debtors under § 105(a). Solidus at 1094.”

One of our judges recently overruled a motion for turnover of property that was foreclosed upon after the Stay expired.  What this means is that you MUST file a Motion to Continue the Automatic Stay beyond the 30 days when your client has filed a subsequent filing within 12-months preceding the filing of their current case.  In our Central District these are fairly simple form motions that are routinely granted. These motions MUST be filed and heard within the first 30 days of the case. Don't risk losing your client's assets.

Real Estate Market Suffers From Shadow Inventory

The growing shadow inventory of homes held by lenders for various reasons, including the fact that they can't find the paperwork to clear titles is causing the depressing market values these days and continues to stifle the economic recovery according to DSNews. Craig Crabtree, senior vice president and general manager, Equifax Mortgage Services says,

"Shadow inventory and real estate owned properties are still playing a dominant role in today's mortgage market and slowing the pace of economic recovery. While we are seeing stabilization across multiple sectors of lending, there remains a significant volume of delinquent first mortgage loans, which has slowed the foreclosure process. Until these foreclosures are processed, the mortgage market will continue to impact economic growth."

The problem I'm seeing is that we might not have buyers for all these properties and when our ADD sets in and we forget how bad securitized mortgages really are, they'll crop back up like weeds in your garden and we'll all be back in our homes again soon with mortgages we can't afford and this vicious cycle will come full circle.

HOA Dues in Bankruptcy: Handle With Care

Just another reason why I hate association living, Homeowners Association Dues. I know that when you're faced with either feeding your family or paying HOA dues, you'll need to feed your family. Just know that these particular fees are called covenants running with the land and are part of your obligation even after you've filed bankruptcy.

11 U.S.C. 523(a)(16) makes post-petition HOA fees nondischargeable and leaves the Debtors liable for these fees as long as they held legal, equitable, or possessory interest in the condominium. The problem with this scenario is that it provides no incentive to the lender to foreclose on the property because then they would be liable for these dues accruing. It's the perfect storm of natural disaster of legislative inequity.

Never fear my precious condo owners in desperation, there is still HOPE. Quoting Aristotle, the nature of equity is the "correction of the law where, by reason of its universality, it is deficient." I hold this to mean that since the HOA and the bank choose to sit on their rights by trying to keep the homeowner liable for the accruing dues, then they consented to the remedy by their inaction. Remember that Bankruptcy Court is a court of equity, meaning they will do their best every time to balance those scales of justice.