What is a short sale?

With today’s housing market many individuals find themselves in the unhappy position of owning a home where the balance owed to the mortgage company is far greater than the value of the home. Many of those finding themselves in this circumstance want desperately to get out from under the house.

One method used to accomplish this is selling the home to a buyer for less than the balance of the mortgage. This is referred to as a short sale.

Short sales can help an individual extricate themselves from a house, but there can be issues which arise from a short sale that are unexpected.

A short sale must be approved by the mortgage company. If there is a second mortgage, the second mortgage must also approve. It is often difficult to get a mortgage company to approve a short sale. One may invest a great deal of time in finding a buyer and setting up the sale only to have it fall through at the last minute. The process can be extraordinarily frustrating.

In addition, sometimes when a person sells a house on a short sale, the mortgage company will force the seller to sign a note agreeing to pay the difference between the short sale purchase price and the balance owed on the mortgage. This leaves the seller without the property and with a frequently large unsecured debt. More often than not, a person selling a home on a short sale will end up owing almost the entire amount of the second mortgage on the property as well.

Before agreeing to sign such a note, one should be aware that in Minnesota a mortgage company holding a first mortgage is only allowed to pursue an individual for the deficiency balance on the first mortgage in very limited circumstances if the property is foreclosed upon. Signing a note in a short sale would make the seller responsible for the difference between the sale price and balance when if the property had just been foreclosed on, the individual would have not been responsible for the difference.

A mortgage company does not have to have the seller sign a note for the difference. The mortgage company can elect not to pursue the difference and forgive the debt. If the mortgage company forgives the seller for the difference in sale price and the amount owed, there can be tax consequences. In certain circumstances the difference will be considered taxable income. Anyone planning on selling a house on a short sale would be wise to consult with a tax professional before agreeing to the deal.

Written by Hoglund Law

The attorneys of Hoglund law are licensed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC is based in Roseville, Minnesota. In addition to handling cases involving bankruptcy & social security, Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC handles faulty drugs and toxic exposure.

View all author posts →


Supreme Court Rules Against Estate of Anna Nicole Smith

The Supreme Court recently ruled against the estate of the late model Anna Nicole Smith. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that Smith was wrongly awarded $400 million from the estate of her late husband by a bankruptcy court. When she was 26, Smith married wealthy oil executive J. Howard Marshall, who was 89. Marshall died just one year later and left everything to his son Pierce. A probate court in Texas awarded the estate to Pierce after Smith sued. However, Smith filed for bankruptcy in California and made claims that Pierce withheld money that Marshall had promised her. The bankruptcy court agreed with Smith and awarded her $400 million.

The Supreme Court case addressed the conflicting rulings by the Texas and California courts. The Court held that the United States Constitution prevents bankruptcy courts from ruling on claims outside of bankruptcy law. This means the California bankruptcy court was prevented from granting damages on tort claims. Therefore, the ruling from the Texas court stands and Marshall’s whole estate was awarded to Pierce.

The parties involved in the case did not live to see the outcome. In 2007, Smith died from an accidental overdose. Marshall’s son, Pierce, also died while the case was pending.

 

Source:

Newscore, Estate of Anna Nicole Smith Loses at Supreme Court,

https://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/estate_of_anna_nicole_smith_loses_tdc2FYsQQPIXCPZkKnE3aI (accessed June 28, 2011).

Written by Hoglund Law

The attorneys of Hoglund law are licensed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC is based in Roseville, Minnesota. In addition to handling cases involving bankruptcy & social security, Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC handles faulty drugs and toxic exposure.

View all author posts →


Popular Restaurant Chains May Be At Risk For Bankruptcy

According to new research, popular food chains Denny’s, Wendy’s and Domino’s may be in danger of going bankrupt. TheStreet.com ranked restaurants’ chances of going bankrupt by their Altman Z-Score. The score is based on financial information from each company, and predicts the likelihood of bankruptcy within two years. TheStreet has been using their scoring system since 1968, and they claim to have a 72% rate of accuracy in predicting bankruptcies two years before the filing.

Denny’s is the restaurant most at risk for bankruptcy, according to the most recent ranking. Wendy’s/Arby’s came in second, and Domino’s Pizza was fifth. Additionally, DineEquity, which operates Applebee’s and IHOP, ranked fourth on the list. Other restaurant chains, including Sbarro, Perkins and Marie Callender’s, have already filed for bankruptcy this year.

 

Source:

Pete Kenworthy, Report: Denny’s, Wendy’s and Domino’s Among Restaurants in Danger of Bankruptcy, https://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/national/wews-report-dennys-wendysand-dominos-among-restaurants-in-danger-of-bankruptcy1309574048690 (accessed July 3, 2011).

Written by Hoglund Law

The attorneys of Hoglund law are licensed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC is based in Roseville, Minnesota. In addition to handling cases involving bankruptcy & social security, Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC handles faulty drugs and toxic exposure.

View all author posts →


Regional Bank President Wants Tax Reform To Lower Debt

Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis, recently suggested a change in the U.S. tax system to discourage debt growth. High consumer and bank debt lowers the stability of the economy. This makes economic trouble, like what occurred in 2007 through 2009, more likely.

Currently, the tax code encourages debt by allowing taxpayers to take advantage of interest deductions. Consumers are encouraged to incur mortgage debt and banks are encouraged to take on debt for financing. Kocherlakota urged Congress to reduce the deduction for mortgage interest and reduce the interest deduction for corporations. This would reduce the incentives for people to take on debt that destabilizes the economy.

Officials are attempting to avoid another economic downturn. President Obama signed a bill last year that gives the Federal Reserve the power to supervise financial institutions whose failure could cause an economic crisis.

 

Source:

Vivien Lou Chen, Fed’s Kocherlakota Calls for Tax-system Changes to Discourage Debt

Growth, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-27/fed-s-kocherlakota-calls-for-tax-systemchanges-to-discourage-debt-growth.html (accessed June 28, 2011).

Written by Hoglund Law

The attorneys of Hoglund law are licensed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC is based in Roseville, Minnesota. In addition to handling cases involving bankruptcy & social security, Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC handles faulty drugs and toxic exposure.

View all author posts →


L.A. Dodgers Baseball Team Files Bankruptcy

The Los Angeles Dodgers have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Delaware. Dodger’s owner Frank McCourt was relying on a TV deal worth billions to help ease financial troubles. However, Major League Baseball did not approve the deal. McCourt is asking for time to secure another media deal, and he is seeking $150 million to finance daily expenses. The Dodgers owe millions to former players, who have filed claims. The team has also experienced a substantial decrease in fan attendance at games.

The Dodgers likely would have been unable to make their next payroll. McCourt filed for bankruptcy before a takeover by MLB could become an option. Analysts believe MLB will fight the bankruptcy, because the league wants the issue to stay within baseball. Additionally, the MLB constitution gives commissioner Bud Selig the power to takeover a team in bankruptcy.

McCourt has been a controversial owner since he acquired the team in 2004. McCourt purchased the Dodgers for $430 million in a highly leveraged transaction. Selig hired Tom Schieffer to monitor the Dodgers in April, because he was worried about the financial situation. The bankruptcy filing has been an embarrassment for the team.

Source:

Associated Press, Los Angeles Dodgers File For Bankruptcy, https://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/los-angeles-dodgers-file-for-bankruptcy-frank-mccourt-blames-bud-selig-decision-062711 (accessed June 27, 2011).

Written by Hoglund Law

The attorneys of Hoglund law are licensed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC is based in Roseville, Minnesota. In addition to handling cases involving bankruptcy & social security, Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC handles faulty drugs and toxic exposure.

View all author posts →


Increasing Student Loan Debt May Burden Future Generations

Student loan debt is causing financial problems for many young Americans. The amount of student loan debt in the United States is over $900 billion. Student loan debt will continue to be a problem for graduates, because many states are reducing financial support for students and schools are increasing tuition. Borrowers cannot default on student loan debt when filing for bankruptcy.The student loan problem may affect future generations as well. Many borrowers are taking 20 or 30 years to repay their debt. Graduates in debt are not likely to save for retirement or donate to their colleges. Additionally, students could still being paying off their student loan debt when their children are attending college.

Experts do not recommend borrowing more than $25,000 for college, which represents the cap on loans from the federal government. Loans from the government generally have better terms than private loans. Experts also suggest that students should not borrow more than they expect to earn as a starting salary when they graduate.

Source:

Theo Keith, David Earl & Blake Hanson, Student Loan Crisis Threatens Financial Futures, https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43584744/ns/business-personal_finance/ (accessed July 5, 2011).

Written by Hoglund Law

The attorneys of Hoglund law are licensed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC is based in Roseville, Minnesota. In addition to handling cases involving bankruptcy & social security, Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC handles faulty drugs and toxic exposure.

View all author posts →


Emergency Homeowners Loan Program Offers Aid To Those Struggling With Mortgage

The federal government is attempting to help turn around the struggling housing market and reduce the number of home foreclosures. The Emergency Homeowners Loan Program will help homeowners who are behind on their mortgage and struggling to make payments. Loans of up to $50,000 will be available to the unemployed. Additionally, the loans do not require repayment if certain conditions are met.

The purpose of this loan program is to provide assistance to people who will only need it short-term. The loans offered will last up to two years, borrowers will not be charged interest, and funds will go to the mortgage lender to cover monthly payments and late fees. The loans will be forgiven at a rate of 20% per year. Therefore, a homeowner who stays in their home for five years and stays current with their mortgage will not have to repay the loan. To qualify for the program, borrowers must be in danger of foreclosure and have experienced a loss of income. The program will cost $1 billion.

Critics of the program say that homeowners will be at risk for incurring additional debt. If borrowers do not stay current with their mortgage or sell the home before the loan is completely forgiven, they will be responsible for the loan. However, supporters of the program do not think the program will help enough people. Approximately 4 to 4.5 million homeowners are in foreclosure or at least 90 days behind on their payments. The Emergency Homeowners Loan Program will only provide assistance to about 30,000 people.

Source:

Annamaria Andriotis, More Money for Struggling Homeowners,

https://www.smartmoney.com/spend/real-estate/more-money-for-struggling-homeowners-1309312646029/ (accessed June 29, 2011).

Written by Hoglund Law

The attorneys of Hoglund law are licensed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC is based in Roseville, Minnesota. In addition to handling cases involving bankruptcy & social security, Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC handles faulty drugs and toxic exposure.

View all author posts →


Beware of credit repair scams.

Beware of credit repair scams.

There are many credit repair companies that are essentially scams. They take your money and they do not improve your credit or they only temporarily improve it. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) offers this advice for avoiding credit repair scams:

  • Do not work with a company that wants you to pay for credit repair services before they have provided services
  • Don’t work with a company that won’t tell you your legal rights or explain what you can do on your own
  • Don’t work with any credit repair company that tells you not to contact a credit reporting company directly
  • Avoid a company that suggests disputing all of the information on your credit report, whether or not it is accurate
  • You cannot legally create a new “credit identity”; if you follow illegal advice and commit fraud, you may be charged with a crime

 

Written by Hoglund Law

The attorneys of Hoglund law are licensed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC is based in Roseville, Minnesota. In addition to handling cases involving bankruptcy & social security, Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC handles faulty drugs and toxic exposure.

View all author posts →


Princess Diana’s Dresses Will Be Auctioned To Cover Bankruptcy Debt

Fourteen well-known dresses worn by the late Princess Diana will be auctioned off in Toronto. The proceeds from the sale will be used to settle bankruptcy debts. Maureen Rorech Dunkel, a Florida entrepreneur, bought the dresses in 1997 when Diana sold them to raise money for charity. Princess Diana died in a car accident just two months after the original sale.

Dunkel belived the dresses were a good investment when she purchased them. She put the dresses on display in many different countries and formed the People’s Princess Charitable Foundation. However, Dunkel went bankrupt in 2010 and decided to sell the dresses to cover her debts. The fourteen dresses are worth more than she owes.

One of the most famous dresses in the collection is a black dress Diana wore to a White House dinner in 1985, where she danced with John Travolta. That dress is expected to raise between $800,000 and $1 million. Bidders from the United States, Canada, China, Germany, and Britain have all shown interest in the dress.

Source:

Ellen Tumposky, 14 Dresses: Princess Diana’s Iconic Gowns Go Under the Hammer, https://abcnews.go.com/US/princess-dianas-dresses-hammer-toronto/story?id=13904367 (accessed June 23, 2011).

Written by Hoglund Law

The attorneys of Hoglund law are licensed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC is based in Roseville, Minnesota. In addition to handling cases involving bankruptcy & social security, Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC handles faulty drugs and toxic exposure.

View all author posts →


THINGS TO AVOID DOING BEFORE FILING A BANKRUPTCY

THINGS TO AVOID DOING BEFORE FILING A BANKRUPTCY:

  1. Do not pay back any friends or relatives money that you owe them.
  2. Do not give away any assets to a friend or a relative.
  3. Don not sign over any titles for vehicles to friends or relatives.
  4. Do not lend any friends or relatives money.
  5. Do not put your money in a friend’s or relative’s bank account.
  6. Do not sell any of your assets to a friend or a relative.
  7. Do not charge large items on a credit card.
  8. Do not use your credit cards in any significant manner.
  9. Do not take out any loans.
  10. Do not grant anyone a security interest in your property.
  11. Do not gamble.

All of these actions can cause complications in a bankruptcy. If you are considering filing a bankruptcy you should speak with an attorney before doing anything on the this list.

Written by Hoglund Law

The attorneys of Hoglund law are licensed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC is based in Roseville, Minnesota. In addition to handling cases involving bankruptcy & social security, Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC handles faulty drugs and toxic exposure.

View all author posts →


Bankruptcy Filings For First Quarter Down From 2010 Levels

Based on information provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the number of bankruptcy filings in the first quarter of 2011 was down 6% from the number of first quarter filings in 2010. Overall, 366,178 bankruptcy cases were filed during January, February, and March of 2011. Over the same period in 2010, 388,148 cases were filed. First quarter consumer bankruptcy filings were down 5% from first quarter 2010 levels. Also, business filings for the first quarter decreased 15% from the same period in 2010. The total first quarter filings for 2011 are also down 1% from the number of bankruptcies filed in the fourth quarter of 2010.

The Executive Director of the American Bankruptcy Institute believes total filings for 2011 will end up below the total from 2010, representing attempts by consumers and businesses to decrease debt. The top five states with the highest per capita bankruptcy filing rate were Nevada, Georgia, Tennessee, California, and Indiana. Those states were ranked using filing data for the one-year period ending on March 31, 2011.

Source:

First Quarter Bankruptcy Filings Fall 6 Percent from 2010; Business Filings Drop 15 Percent,

https://www.abiworld.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=63681 (accessed June 14, 2011).

Written by Hoglund Law

The attorneys of Hoglund law are licensed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC is based in Roseville, Minnesota. In addition to handling cases involving bankruptcy & social security, Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC handles faulty drugs and toxic exposure.

View all author posts →


Lessons The Average Person Contemplating Bankruptcy Can Take Away From The Denny Hecker Case

Much attention has recently been given to the disastrous bankruptcy filing of Denny Hecker. Clearly, the Hecker case is not a run of the mill case; however average individuals contemplating bankruptcy should take note of the things which got Mr. Hecker in hot water. These things can happen to average individuals as well.

The most important lesson an average person should take from this case is that one should never attempt to hide assets in a bankruptcy. When an individual files a bankruptcy they are required to list all of their assets. Most people are allowed to keep their assets as long as they are properly disclosed. Not disclosing an asset will result not only in the loss of that asset, but may result in the revocation of one’s bankruptcy discharge. A discharge is the order given by the judge at the end of a bankruptcy which alleviates the bankruptcy filer’s obligation on his/her debts. If a discharge is revoked, the debtor will have a bankruptcy on their record and will still owe all of their debt.
Many people may wonder how a non-disclosed asset is discovered in a bankruptcy. Simply put, it’s not hard to find undisclosed assets. When a person files a bankruptcy, a trustee is assigned to his/her case. It is the trustee’s job to try to verify that a person has been truthful in disclosing his/her assets in the bankruptcy. The trustee will typically run a public records search on a bankruptcy filer; this search shows all car titles, boat titles and real property listed in the debtor’s name. The trustee will also examine bank records. These records will show if a debtor has recently been making large purchases.

In addition, a trustee will often review a divorce decree to see if assets have recently been awarded to the bankruptcy filer. A trustee may also get tips from creditors regarding potentially non-disclosed assets.

If a trustee finds a significant asset that has not been disclosed, the trustee may move to have the case dismissed.

Another lesson learned from the Hecker case which the average person should walk away with is that transferring assets to another person before filing a bankruptcy will not help an individual keep the asset. In fact it will cause significant legal issues for the person to whom the individual has transferred the property. It may also cause the individual filing to loss their discharge.

Written by Hoglund Law

The attorneys of Hoglund law are licensed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC is based in Roseville, Minnesota. In addition to handling cases involving bankruptcy & social security, Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC handles faulty drugs and toxic exposure.

View all author posts →


Mutual debt incurred in a divorce decree is non-dischargeable in a bankruptcy

Debts owed to ex-spouses through a provision in a hold-harmless provision in a divorce decree are automatically non-dischargeable in a bankruptcy filing, according to a court ruling.

A recent Court of Appeals decision (In re the Marriage of: Jason Paul East vs. Yvette Francis East, File No. 74-FX-05-000284) provides that the ex-spouse of an individual filing a bankruptcy does not need to make a formal objections to the discharge of obligations assigned to the filing former spouse through a marriage separation or dissolution proceeding. In others word, a hold-harmless obligation in the favor of a former spouse automatically can not be discharge through the bankruptcy.

The court stated that language used in the exception to discharge set forth in the Bankruptcy code, 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(15)(2006) is clear and should be interpreted as written.

The court also found the an aggrieved former spouse does not need to participate in the bankruptcy since the nondischargeablity of the debts outlined in a hold-harmless clause is automatic. The former spouse does not need to file an objection in the bankruptcy.

This case emphasizes the bankruptcy court’s limited ability power to undo the decisions made in a family court. A Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Proceeding can not provide relief for a debtor assigned debt through his divorce.

This decision should cause family law practitioners to pay special attention to the issue of debt assignment in a separation or dissolution proceeding.

Written by Hoglund Law

The attorneys of Hoglund law are licensed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC is based in Roseville, Minnesota. In addition to handling cases involving bankruptcy & social security, Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC handles faulty drugs and toxic exposure.

View all author posts →


Credit Card debt still can be discharged in a bankruptcy

Since the radical changes in the Bankruptcy Code in 2005, many people incorrectly believe that credit cards can no longer be discharged in a bankruptcy. However, there is nothing in the specific nature of credit card debt that makes them nondischargeable in a bankruptcy. Section 523 (a) of the Bankruptcy Code sets out a variety exceptions to discharge that are based on the type of debt itself. Credit card debt is not one of them.

When credit card debt is accepted from discharge it will usually be based on the provision in Section 523 (a)(2) which deals with fraudulently incurred obligations made by the debtor. This provision is used mostly by credit card companies to object to the dischargeability of their particular obligations in a bankruptcy case. The focus of Section 523 (a)(2) is on the conduct of the debtor in how the debt itself was incurred.

Section 523 (a)(2)(B) applies to the debtor that provides a creditor with a written false financial statement. Section 523 (a)(2)(A) applies if the creditor alleges “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement representing the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition.” This requires that the creditor prove both the debtor’s intent to deceive and the creditor’s reasonable reliance on the representation. For example if a debtor made false representation when applying for a credit card, this would be a basis for the creditor to object to the discharge of that debt.

Another typical example of conduct which could result in the nondischargeability of debt would be when a debtor charges large amounts on the credit card right before filing bankruptcy. Essentially the creditor would argue that the debtor was aware of their inability to repay the debt when incurring the debt and, therefore, the incursion of the debt was in itself fraud.

A debtor could also draw objections from a creditor if the credit card debt was incurred by using the card for gambling.

Section 523 (a)(2)(C) addresses luxury goods and services and cash advances. Specifically, with consumer debts owed to a single creditor in excess of $550 incurred within 90 days of the filing of the bankruptcy case are “presumed nondischargeable.” In the same provision, obligations to pay cash advances of $825 obtained within 70 days of the bankruptcy filing are also “presumed to be nondischargeable.” This presumption can be rebutted by the debtor.

Written by Hoglund Law

The attorneys of Hoglund law are licensed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC is based in Roseville, Minnesota. In addition to handling cases involving bankruptcy & social security, Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC handles faulty drugs and toxic exposure.

View all author posts →


What is “Undue Hardship” in the Context of Student Loan Discharge?

Over the past several years, more and more people are taking out ever-increasing amounts of student debt. With rising tuition rates and a greater push for advanced degrees beyond bachelors and technical degrees, it is not uncommon for graduates (as well as those who never even complete their programs) to come out of school with six-figure student loan debt.
The conventional wisdom regarding student loans in the realm of bankruptcy is that they are effectively non-dischargeable. This information is nothing new. However, an argument could be made for “undue hardship” as the basis for discharging this debt. Practically speaking, the “undue hardship” is a very high standard that is seldom accepted by the court.
The first difficulty rests in the fact that challenging the dischargeability of student debt requires an adversary proceeding, which is very expensive litigation that many debtors simply cannot afford. Assuming the debtor is willing and able to go forward, he then faces the hurdle meeting the “undue hardship” standard. The majority of jurisdiction use the test laid out in the Second Circuit case In re Brunner (831 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. N. Y. 1987)). It should be noted that this jurisdiction does not follow the Brunner test. The Brunner test requires a three-part showing:
First, that the debtor could not maintain a minimal standard of living for himself and his depends if forced to repay the loan; second, that additional circumstances existed indicating that this state of affairs would persist for a significant portion of the repayment period; and third, that the debtor had made a good faith effort to repay the loans.
In Brunner, the appeals court concluded that the debtor was not entitled to a discharge of her student debt because no “additional circumstances” existed showing she would be unable to find a job for a significant portion of the repayment period. Additionally, the court considered the fact that the debtor was not disabled or elderly, and had no dependents.
The case In re Vermaas (302 B.R. 650 (Bankr. D. Neb. 2003)) utilized a “totality of the circumstances” test for determining “undue hardship.” The court considered (1) the debtor’s total incapacity now or in the future to pay his debts, (2) whether the debtor has made a good faith effort to negotiate a deferment or forbearance, (3) whether debtor’s hardship will be long-term, (4) whether debtor has made any payments on the student loan, (5) whether the debtor suffers from permanent or long-term disability, (6) the debtor’s ability to obtain gainful employment in his area of study, (7) whether debtor has made a good-faith attempt to maximize income and minimize expenses, (8) whether debtor’s dominant purpose in filing bankruptcy was to discharge student loans, and (9) the ratio of student loans to debtor’s total indebtedness.
The court went on to say that “the hardship must be more than mere unpleasantness. It must present a certainty of hopelessness and not a mere present inability to meet financial commitments due to a current, temporary state of unemployment.” In this particular case, the court denied discharge of the student debt because the debtor voluntarily took a lower-paying job than she was qualified for.
The 8th Circuit has rejected the Brunner test as too restrictive, and instead looks to the “totality of the circumstances” test when determining “undue hardship.” In In re Long (322 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 2003)), the 8th Circuit held: “In evaluating the totality-of-the-circumstances, our bankruptcy reviewing courts should consider: (1) the debtor’s past, present, and reasonably reliable future financial resources; (2) a calculation of the debtor’s and her dependents’ reasonable necessary living expenses; and (3) any other relevant facts and circumstances surrounding each particular bankruptcy.”
The Long court allowed a discharge where the debtor was older, had serious heart problems, depended on expensive medications, and was making an effort to work.
In light of these tests and considerations, the dischargeability of student loans ultimately comes down to the facts in each case. A law school graduate in her late 50s with a spotty work history and who had failed the bar exam in multiple states on multiples occasions was granted a discharge because she unlikely to ever work in her field of study (In re Wallace).
Discharge was also allowed for a debtor who was disabled and living off of VA benefits (In re Cumberworth), for a debtor over the age of 60 suffering from physical and mental conditions (In re Halverson), and for a debtor who had a mental condition, was unemployable, and homeless (In re Korhonen). Conversely, debtors who are in their 20s and 30s and working typically are not granted a discharge, even if they are under-employed, have multiple dependents, and six-figure debt loads (In re Desmond, In re May, In re Jesperson, In re Franklin).
In light of this case law, a debtor has to essentially prove to the court that he is never going to be able to pay back his student loans due to extreme circumstances beyond his control. This will seldom be the case with the overwhelming majority of bankruptcy clients, and thus dischargeability of student loan debt on the basis of “undue hardship” should not be considered as a realistic option.

Written by Hoglund Law

The attorneys of Hoglund law are licensed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC is based in Roseville, Minnesota. In addition to handling cases involving bankruptcy & social security, Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC handles faulty drugs and toxic exposure.

View all author posts →


Bankruptcy interplay with a personal injury claim can be complicated

When a debtor files for bankruptcy and is involved in a personal injury claim, either as the plaintiff or as the defendant, there are several factors to address and consider.
In a bankruptcy, federal and state laws allow for certain types and amounts of property to be exempt from claims by the trustee and creditors. In the case of a personal injury claim, a debtor does not have to already have received a judgment in the lawsuit for the award to be considered property of the bankruptcy estate. At the time of filing, there must only be a cause of action on which the statute of limitations has not yet run. That claim must be listed on the bankruptcy petition as personal property, regardless of whether or not the debtor has any intention of pursuing it. Once the debtor has filed for bankruptcy, the debtor no longer owns that cause of action: the claim has become property of the bankruptcy estate [11 U.S.C. §541(a)].
The trustee in effect steps into the shoes of the debtor and will hire an attorney to handle claim. The relationship that the trustee has with the personal injury attorney is a standard attorney-client relationship, including the customary contingency fee arrangement in a personal injury case.
Once damages have been awarded, they get apportioned in the following order: the personal injury attorney subtracts his fees, the exempted amount goes to the debtor, the trustee takes his percentage of the award, and the creditors who have submitted proofs of claims get their portion. Any remaining money goes back to the debtor. A trustee may choose to abandon the claim if there is not likely to be enough left over to pay himself or the creditors. In such an instance, the trustee will allow the debtor to keep ownership of the claim and the debtor can therefore pursue the claim as he would have done had there not been a bankruptcy.
There are different types of damages that may be awarded in a personal injury settlement and they are not treated the same. Damages in a personal injury cases can fall into one of two categories: General or Special. General damages are non-pecuniary and include pain and suffering, disability, mental anguish. Special damages are pecuniary in nature and include financial losses suffered by the defendant as a result of the injury, such as medical expenses, property damage, and lost wages.
The amount of money from the settlement of a claim that a debtor is able to keep is related to which exemption scheme the debtor uses: federal or state. The debtor’s attorney will have to evaluate which scheme is most beneficial to use for his client, taking into consideration not only the potential personal injury settlement, but also the rest of the debtor’s property.
Using the federal exemption guidelines, there are a few different ways to exempt damages. Under 11 U.S.C. §522(d)(11), permanent bodily injury and future special damages are exempt. Permanent bodily injury is exempt up to the amount of $20,200 [11 U.S.C. §522(d)(11)(D] ¸ while future special damages are exempt up “to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor” [11 U.S.C. §522(d)(11)(E)]. Similarly, where there is a “wrongful death of an individual of whom the debtor was a dependent” damages are exempt “to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependant of the debtor” [11 U.S.C. §522(d)(11)(B)].
Any damages that are not encompassed in the preceding exemptions, such as pain and suffering or past special damages, may fall into the catchall 11 U.S.C. §522(d)(5) exemption which provides for $1,075 plus the unused portion of the homestead exemption up to $10,125. This (d)(5) exemption is used for all of the debtor’s property which exceeds or is not included in a specific exemption.
Under the State of Minnesota’s exemption guidelines, “rights of action for injuries to the person of the debtor or of a relative whether or not resulting in death” are exempt [Minn. Stat. 550.37(22)]. In other words, all general damages, including pain and suffering, are exempt. There is no monetary cap. There is no comparable catchall exemption in Minnesota’s exemption scheme to exempt the residual damages.
Also important to keep in mind is that if there are effects on a debtor whose personal property includes a personal injury claim, there must also be consequences for a debtor whose debts include a personal injury judgment against him. When a debtor is a defendant in a personal injury case, he has a creditor in the person who has obtained the judgment. Not every such creditor’s claim may be discharged. For example, where the debts arose because of “willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity” it will not be discharged [11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)]. The plaintiff in the case is the creditor and must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the injury was a result of willful or malicious action on the part of the defendant debtor [In re Gargac, 93 B.R. 594, 18 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 924; Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Rebhan, 842 F.2d 1257, 1262 (11th Cir.1988); ].
A debtor should also be aware that a judgment against the debtor is not dischargeable where the debtor caused death or personal injury by “the debtor’s operation of a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, if such operation was unlawful because the debtor was intoxicated from using alcohol, a drug, or another substance” [11 U.S.C. §523(a)(9)].

Written by Hoglund Law

The attorneys of Hoglund law are licensed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC is based in Roseville, Minnesota. In addition to handling cases involving bankruptcy & social security, Hoglund, Chwialkowski & Mrozik, PLLC handles faulty drugs and toxic exposure.

View all author posts →