Skip navigation.
Law Office of Jeffrey Solomon

Free Consultation
(954) 967-9800

3864 Sheridan St . Hollywood, FL 33021

Archive for April, 2011

Another One Bites the Dust

Saturday, April 30th, 2011

The foreclosure mill fallout has continued. As reported in the Sun-Sentinel from an article in the Palm Beach Post by Kimberly Miller, Ben-Ezra & Katz is closing its foreclosure practice and has provided layoff notices to its employees. This follows the closure of David Stern’s foreclosure practice in March. Each of these firms is headquartered in Broward County but handle foreclosures statewide. Meanwhile, perhaps 100,000 pending foreclosure cases still have Stern’s firm as attorney of record with no staff to file motions to withdraw.

On another front, an appellate court, the 4th District Court of appeals, has ruled that the Florida Attorney General’s office does not have the authority to investigate with subpoenas Shapiro and Fishman under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. (a criminal investigation would be permitted but is not at issue). The Florida Bar is known to have opened investigations of numerous attorneys on foreclosure practices.

Can Debtor Force Lender to Take Back Secured Property?

Tuesday, April 26th, 2011

Debtors often have property they can no longer maintain and that will be foreclosed. Typically, the debtor wants to keep the collateral such as a home or car as long as possible.

But sometimes the debtor really wants to surrender the property back to the lender to avoid potential further liability as an owner. This issue has been litigated, and sometimes the bankruptcy court has held that the lender must either take back the property or surrender its lien. The argument is that the lender is interfering with the debtor’s discharge by failing to accept the property or release the lien. However, this strategy apparently has only worked with motor vehicles with little value, not real estate. And the common underlying property law point is that a lender is not required to take back its collateral.

Why would a real estate owner want to give the property back? As long as the debtor owns the property, the debtor has liability issues. There could be code enforcement issues for failure to maintain the property. There could be ongoing association fees.

Two recent cases followed the common view that the lender does not have to take the property back or release the lien. In re Canning, 442 BR 165(Bankr D. Me Feb. 17, 2011); In re Heck 2011WL 133015(Bankr. N. D. Cal., Jan 13, 2011)

Florida Homestead Exemption Not Unlimited in Bankruptcy

Saturday, April 23rd, 2011

Recent case law addresses an issue that all bankruptcy attorneys in Florida should be fully familiar with. BAPCPA made substantial changes to restrict the unlimited homestead protection. (For a detailed article, see my discussion at www.solomonlawoffice.com , look for seminars for attorneys, homestead.)

One of the homestead changes in BAPCPA is that a debtor cannot take non-exempt assets and use them to increase the equity in the homestead with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors. This would be permitted under Florida law(unless perhaps the funds were tainted, such as acquired by theft or embezzlement).

In a recent Broward bankruptcy case, a debtor sold over $40,000 in securities and paid down the home mortgage. The funds were used to improve the homestead a few months before the bankruptcy. This Pembroke Pines resident did not initially disclose this information in the bankruptcy papers filed with the court, according to the court. One of the bankruptcy judges in Broward, Judge Olson, held that the home was not exempt to the extent of this transfer of funds. In re Osejo, 2011 Bankr Lexis 582, (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2011). The court also cited Judge Isicoff’s decision in In re Garcia, 2010 Bankr Lexis 2194(Bankr. S.D. FL 2010).

The statutory basis is Section 522(o)(4) which permits a 10 year look back period. But the trustee would still have to establish the transfer was made with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud a creditor.

Means Test Car Allowance for Old Cars

Thursday, April 21st, 2011

As discussed in a previous post, the United States Supreme Court in the Ransom case held that a debtor could not use the car ownership allowance when the debtor did not have a car payment.

However, based on the Internal Revenue Service Collection Financial Standards, a taxpayer can use an additional operating allowance for vehicles older than 6 years old or with more than 75,000 miles. This allowance is $200.00. Though Ransom hedged and said the standards are not incorporated into the bankruptcy code, the Supreme Court observed that the IRS guidelines are persuasive.

As a Broward County bankruptcy attorney representing debtors in the Fort Lauderdale area and surrounding counties, I can tell you that the United States Trustee does not object to claiming additional old car allowance in the means test, nor does the chapter 13 trustee.

A recent case reiterated the applicability of this additional exemption. In re Baker, 2011 Bankr. Lexis 490(Bankr. M. D. Montana Feb. 9, 2011), (citing prior consistent authority).

The additional operating allowance for cars that are older than 6 years or have more than 75,000 miles can mitigate the harm to debtors from the Ransom decision.

Inherited IRA, New Case Allows Exemption

Tuesday, April 19th, 2011

In a prior post I discussed cases where a who inherited IRA was found not to be exempt from creditors when the IRA was not inherited by a spouse. A recent decision found the inherited IRA to be exempt in a Florida bankruptcy. In re Mathusa, 2011 Bankr Lexis 965(Bankr. M.D. FL. March 28, 2011). The court adopted and expanded upon the reasoning of an appellate court decision in In re Nessa, 426 BR 312(8th Cir. BAP 2010).

This court distinguished prior Florida bankruptcy decisions that found that an inherited IRA was not exempt under Florida law pursuant to Florida Statute 222.21(2). However, though Florida is an opt-out state as to exemptions, a Florida resident can still utilize a section added by BAPCPA. Section 522(b)(3)(C) applies to opt-out states and can be used to protect inherited IRAs.

Mathusa will hopefully resolve this issue which will allow estate planning attorneys, bankruptcy attorneys and their clients to sleep easier.

Deficiency Judgments: Waiting for the Deluge

Sunday, April 17th, 2011

A completed foreclosure may well not be the end of the legal process for the homeowner. In Florida the lender has 5 years to seek a deficiency judgment. For example, if the home at the time of foreclosure is worth $100,000, but the mortgage balance is $180,000, the homeowner can be sued for $80,000.

There have been very few deficiency cases so far, but it is expected that lenders will eventually pursue these claims. These claims might be sold to debt buyers, similar to the sale of delinquent credit card accounts.

As a Fort Lauderdale bankruptcy attorney, I have seen the greater prevalence of suits by second mortgage holders including equity lines on the promissory note. The lenders are not bothering trying to foreclose since they would have to take over the first mortgage. Many clients have been forced into bankruptcy by these claims.

Foreclosures Decline 62% (for now)

Saturday, April 16th, 2011

As I previously reported, the decline in foreclosure files has led to a decrease in court filing fees which provide a dedicated source of funds for the courts.

The large decrease in foreclosure filings was reported in the April 14 Sun-Sentinel. Relying upon figures from RealtyTrac, Florida foreclosures fell by 62% from the prior year.

The large reduction in foreclosure filings does not imply that the corner has turned on the foreclosure crisis. Lenders have been forced to finally deal with the robo-signers and fraud issues that have become so widespread. Foreclosure mills have been fired, replaced, or as for David Stern, closed. Hundreds of thousands of files have to be transferred, and new attorneys have to be hired. Also, there has been litigation with state attorney generals across the country. A new consent decree between loan servicers and bank regulators also will have an impact on the processing of foreclosures.

There is still no end in sight to the foreclosure mess.

Means Test Seminar a Success

Saturday, April 9th, 2011

Yesterday, April 8, 2011, as Chair of the Bankruptcy Section of the Broward County Bar Association, I moderated a panel discussion on the means test. We had 50 registrants(more than capacity) and 10-15 more called at the last minute and could not attend due to the number of registrants. Due to the interest in this program, it is likely we will attempt to repeat the means test seminar.

Some of the attendees were “veterans” in bankrutpcy practice who attended means test seminars back when the law changed in 2005. Most attending were new to bankruptcy and had never attended a means test seminar. Even for the experienced practitioners, we are aware that there are still many open issues, and that there are several techniques that can be used for the means test. Strategies and planning are important to obtain the best results for consumer debtors.

As a Fort Lauderdale bankruptcy attorney, I continually strive to be up to date on all means test issues to properly represent our consumer debtor clients. We can also better represent our business clients by understanding when the means test is not required.

Foreclosure Nightmares Continue

Saturday, April 2nd, 2011

More and more articles have been published documenting the continuing problems with the foreclosure crisis. A few observations here about the relationships between the subject of these articles and how they are impacting the court system and homeowners.

The Florida court system is short of money. This is largely due to the reduction in the expected filing fees from foreclosure cases. The lenders are holding off on filing these cases. Banks have delayed filing foreclosures, largely due to the conduct of their foreclosure mills. Robo-signers have become a new term in our vocabulary as a symbol of massive foreclosure fraud. Statewide foreclosure firms are being investigated by the state, and the banks and servicers have been firing their attorneys. In some instances, the banks are suing the law firms for return of their court files, and the law firms are claiming they are owed millions of dollars in legal fees. There is a scramble to hire new law firms to take over hundreds of thousands of case.

No wonder pending cases are just sitting with the court and there are fewer foreclosures being filed than expected. Simple motions filed on behalf of the homeowner can delay a foreclosure for a year.

By the way, homeowners should seriously question hiring a foreclosure defense attorney who charges by the month to delay a foreclosure. A case can be delayed indefinitely with only minimal services by the homeowner’s attorney as a result of the problems facing the banks and servicers.