I want to share an interesting case relating to a husband's ability to discharge a debt incurred as a result of his wife's theft from the wife's ex-employer. Enjoy.
In the case of In re Rodenbaugh, 431 B.R. 473 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2010), the bankruptcy court addressed whether a husband would be denied a bankruptcy discharge because of his ambivalence to the family finances while his wife was engaging in willful and malicious conduct. In Rodenbaugh, the wife and husband filed a joint bankruptcy case attempting to discharge debts relating to the wife’s felonious theft of $314,327 from her ex-employer. The husband did not participate in the wife’s theft.
The wife deposited the stolen funds into a joint bank account shared with her husband. The husband admitted that he benefited from the wife’s theft in that some of the stolen funds were used to pay family expenses. The husband also admits that he had spent some of the stolen funds; however, he did so without any knowledge of the preceding crimes. The husband maintained that he became aware of the wife’s crime only after her termination from the wife’s employer. Finally, the husband testified at the trial that he had never noticed any superfluous funds in the joint bank account because he allowed the wife to pay the bills and was ambivalent to the family finances.
The wife’s ex-employer objected to the husband’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6) claiming that the financial obligation to repay the stolen funds should be excepted from discharge. The employer argued that the debt should be excepted from discharge as to the husband too because the husband knew of, or was willfully blind to the wife’s theft and therefore the husband’s actions were willful an malicious towards the ex-employer. The ex-employer argued that at the very least, the husband’s actions were reckless and as such any debt excepted from the wife’s discharge should be imputed to him as well.
The husband opposed the exception to discharge. The husband argued that the standard of willful and malicious conduct cannot be attributed to the husband because at all relevant times, the husband was not aware of the wife’s criminal actions and did not conspire, condone, contribute or encourage said criminal actions.
The court ruled in favor of the husband. The court began its analysis by noting that debts arising from willful and malicious injury by a debtor are excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6). Wilfulness and maliciousness are two distinct elements of §523(a)(6). To prove willfulness, the creditor must show by a preponderance of the evidence that debtor intended the injury, not just a deliberate or intentional act leading to injury. Debts arising from recklessly or negligently inflicted injuries do not fall within the compass of §523(a)(6). But, the court did recognize that acts intrinsically meriting nondischargeability under §523(a) can be attributed to a debtor who did not perform them, if the debtor was a “knowing active participant” in a scheme or conspiracy through which a third-party malefactor performed the acts.
Apply the law to the facts, the Rodenbaugh court held that to prove willfulness under Section 523(a)(6), the wife’s ex-employer was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence either that the husband desired for the ex-employer to be harmed and thus conspired with the wife to this end OR that the husband knew of the wife’s crimes and schemed with her to this end despite substantial certainty that the ex-employer would suffer harm as a result of the wife’s actions.
Finally, the court rejected the ex-employer’s complaint objecting to the husband’s bankruptcy discharge. The court believed that the facts did not support a conclusion that the husband acted willfully. The court found that while the husband’s ambivalence to the family finances was likely reckless, there was insufficient facts to conclude that the husband’s actions rouse to the level of willful and maliciousness or that he conspired with his wife. Therefore, the husband was granted his bankruptcy discharge.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor
Blog By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities. You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at Bankruptcy Laws to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you. Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer. I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; adversary defense blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Attorney Fees Non-Dischargeable When Representing Child
Here's an interesting case where the USDC reversed the bankruptcy court regarding the dischargeability of debt owed not to debtor's "child," but owed to the attorney for the child in a divorce proceeding.
In Levin v. Greco (In re Greco), 415 B.R. 663 (N.D.IL 2009), the USDC held that debt owed to a “child representative” qualifies for the Section 523(a)(5) domestic support exception to discharge under the Bankruptcy Code since that debt resulted from a court-approved divorce action settlement for legal services rendered on behalf of debtor’s child.
Section 523(a)(5) provides that a debt “for a domestic support obligation” is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. The term “domestic support obligation” is defined in the Bankruptcy Code as debt that is owed to or recoverable by “a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor….” Section 101(14A).
The child representative admitted that he did not satisfy the technical requirements of subsection 14(A) since the debt was not owed to the “child,” but he argued that an exception should be recognized for child representatives to encourage future attorneys to serve as child representatives in divorce proceedings without fear of losing their fees.
The Levin court noted that the 7th Circuit has not yet addressed the issue, but the court recognized that the 7th Circuit has endorsed the notion that Section 523(a)(5) can except debts owed to third parties. Citing In re Rios, 901 F.2d 71, 72 (7th Cir. 1990)(“And awards of attorneys’ fees for services in obtaining support orders have been held nondischargeable even though the attorney is neither a spouse, a former spouse, nor a child of the debtor”).
The court acknowledged that the principal purpose of the Bankruptcy Code is to grant a fresh start in life and any exceptions to discharge are generally construed strictly against a creditor and liberally in favor of debtor. Notwithstanding, the court believed that the long standing policy of protecting spouses and children required a Section 523(a)(5) exception from discharge to be construed more liberally than other Section 523(a) exceptions.
Therefore, the Levin court expanded the scope of the term “child” as defined by Section 101(14A) as incorporated into the Section 523(a)(5) discharge analysis. Consequently, the court held that the debt owed to the child representative is not discharged by debtor’s bankruptcy.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
In Levin v. Greco (In re Greco), 415 B.R. 663 (N.D.IL 2009), the USDC held that debt owed to a “child representative” qualifies for the Section 523(a)(5) domestic support exception to discharge under the Bankruptcy Code since that debt resulted from a court-approved divorce action settlement for legal services rendered on behalf of debtor’s child.
Section 523(a)(5) provides that a debt “for a domestic support obligation” is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. The term “domestic support obligation” is defined in the Bankruptcy Code as debt that is owed to or recoverable by “a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor….” Section 101(14A).
The child representative admitted that he did not satisfy the technical requirements of subsection 14(A) since the debt was not owed to the “child,” but he argued that an exception should be recognized for child representatives to encourage future attorneys to serve as child representatives in divorce proceedings without fear of losing their fees.
The Levin court noted that the 7th Circuit has not yet addressed the issue, but the court recognized that the 7th Circuit has endorsed the notion that Section 523(a)(5) can except debts owed to third parties. Citing In re Rios, 901 F.2d 71, 72 (7th Cir. 1990)(“And awards of attorneys’ fees for services in obtaining support orders have been held nondischargeable even though the attorney is neither a spouse, a former spouse, nor a child of the debtor”).
The court acknowledged that the principal purpose of the Bankruptcy Code is to grant a fresh start in life and any exceptions to discharge are generally construed strictly against a creditor and liberally in favor of debtor. Notwithstanding, the court believed that the long standing policy of protecting spouses and children required a Section 523(a)(5) exception from discharge to be construed more liberally than other Section 523(a) exceptions.
Therefore, the Levin court expanded the scope of the term “child” as defined by Section 101(14A) as incorporated into the Section 523(a)(5) discharge analysis. Consequently, the court held that the debt owed to the child representative is not discharged by debtor’s bankruptcy.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Automatic Stay
The "automatic stay" provisions of the US Bankruptcy Code comprise an integral part of the bankruptcy protection process.
The filing of a bankruptcy petition results in the immediate implementing of the automatic stay. No motion need be filed, and no order need be entered by any court. The automatic stay operates as a broad stay of most types of creditor activity, including “any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate” and “any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case.” Section 362(a)(3) and (5).
The automatic stay is one of the fundamental debtor protections provided by the Bankruptcy Code. It gives the debtor a breathing spell from his creditors; it stops all collection efforts, all harassment, and all foreclosure actions. It also permits the debtor to attempt a repayment or reorganization plan, or simply to be relieved of the financial pressures that drove the debtor into bankruptcy.
The automatic stay, moreover, is not solely for the benefit of the debtor. It also protects the debtor’s creditors and promotes the goal of equality of distribution by ensuring that individual creditors do not seize assets that would otherwise be available to pay allowed claims in the case or take other actions that would interfere with administration of the case.
A violation of the automatic stay may be redressed by the bankruptcy court under its civil contempt powers. Additionally, the Bankruptcy Code gives an individual debtor a right of action for damages, including punitive damages and attorney’s fees, resulting from a willful violation of the automatic stay.
Therefore, the “automatic stay” provisions of the Bankruptcy Code should not be treated lightly or dismissed out of hand. The stay violation sanction can be significant. The sanctions apply equally to creditors whose intentional acts violate the stay, even if said creditor had never heard of the concept of the “automatic stay.” The important facts are whether the creditor knew a bankruptcy case had been filed and whether the creditor’s acts were intentional.
Best advice…when in doubt, contact a bankruptcy attorney for guidance before taking action.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
The filing of a bankruptcy petition results in the immediate implementing of the automatic stay. No motion need be filed, and no order need be entered by any court. The automatic stay operates as a broad stay of most types of creditor activity, including “any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate” and “any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case.” Section 362(a)(3) and (5).
The automatic stay is one of the fundamental debtor protections provided by the Bankruptcy Code. It gives the debtor a breathing spell from his creditors; it stops all collection efforts, all harassment, and all foreclosure actions. It also permits the debtor to attempt a repayment or reorganization plan, or simply to be relieved of the financial pressures that drove the debtor into bankruptcy.
The automatic stay, moreover, is not solely for the benefit of the debtor. It also protects the debtor’s creditors and promotes the goal of equality of distribution by ensuring that individual creditors do not seize assets that would otherwise be available to pay allowed claims in the case or take other actions that would interfere with administration of the case.
A violation of the automatic stay may be redressed by the bankruptcy court under its civil contempt powers. Additionally, the Bankruptcy Code gives an individual debtor a right of action for damages, including punitive damages and attorney’s fees, resulting from a willful violation of the automatic stay.
Therefore, the “automatic stay” provisions of the Bankruptcy Code should not be treated lightly or dismissed out of hand. The stay violation sanction can be significant. The sanctions apply equally to creditors whose intentional acts violate the stay, even if said creditor had never heard of the concept of the “automatic stay.” The important facts are whether the creditor knew a bankruptcy case had been filed and whether the creditor’s acts were intentional.
Best advice…when in doubt, contact a bankruptcy attorney for guidance before taking action.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Ex-Spouse Ordered to Turnover Unpaid Divorce Decree Obligations to Trustee Despite Inability to Pay
In Gallo v. Emery, 573 F.3d 433 (7th Cir. 2009), debtor initiated a chapter 13 bankruptcy case after the completion of state court divorce proceedings. The divorce court had required debtor’s ex-spouse to pay debtor $125,000 under the Illinois circuit court’s dissolution judgment. Debtor’s ex-spouse did not pay the judgment amount prior to debtor filing bankruptcy.
After filing bankruptcy, debtor filed a motion under §542(b) seeking an order requiring the ex-spouse to pay the chapter 13 bankruptcy trustee the amount that the ex-spouse owed debtor under the Illinois circuit court’s dissolution judgment. The ex-spouse opposed the motion on the ground that the ex-spouse did not have the ability to pay the $125,000. The bankruptcy court rejected the ex-spouse’s argument and entered an order directing the ex-spouse to pay to the trustee the $125,000. The district court affirmed.
The issue before the 7th Circuit was whether the bankruptcy court erred in ordering the ex-spouse to turnover the $125,000 to the chapter 13 trustee despite the ex-spouse’s alleged inability to pay the $125,000. The ex-spouse argued that the bankruptcy court erred in ordering the turnover because the court failed to establish that the ex-spouse had the ability to pay the payment.
The 7th Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order requiring the turnover of funds. The 7th Circuit held that the bankruptcy court had no obligation to ensure the ex-spouse’s ability to pay the judgment before granting the turnover motion. The 7th Circuit distinguished between turnover motions and contempt of court motions; the inability to pay is not defense to a turnover motion, but the inability to pay could be a defense to a later contempt of court motion.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
After filing bankruptcy, debtor filed a motion under §542(b) seeking an order requiring the ex-spouse to pay the chapter 13 bankruptcy trustee the amount that the ex-spouse owed debtor under the Illinois circuit court’s dissolution judgment. The ex-spouse opposed the motion on the ground that the ex-spouse did not have the ability to pay the $125,000. The bankruptcy court rejected the ex-spouse’s argument and entered an order directing the ex-spouse to pay to the trustee the $125,000. The district court affirmed.
The issue before the 7th Circuit was whether the bankruptcy court erred in ordering the ex-spouse to turnover the $125,000 to the chapter 13 trustee despite the ex-spouse’s alleged inability to pay the $125,000. The ex-spouse argued that the bankruptcy court erred in ordering the turnover because the court failed to establish that the ex-spouse had the ability to pay the payment.
The 7th Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order requiring the turnover of funds. The 7th Circuit held that the bankruptcy court had no obligation to ensure the ex-spouse’s ability to pay the judgment before granting the turnover motion. The 7th Circuit distinguished between turnover motions and contempt of court motions; the inability to pay is not defense to a turnover motion, but the inability to pay could be a defense to a later contempt of court motion.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Family Law Attorney Sanctioned for Willfully Violating Stay
In Sternberg v. Johnston, 582 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2009), the court sanctioned an ex-wife’s family law attorney for willfully violating the automatic stay. The stay was violated by the attorney continuing to prosecute postpetition a divorce motion for contempt of court that had been filed prior to the bankruptcy case being filed. Debtor was awarded $20,000 for emotional distress and $2,883.20 in actual damages.
Prior to the bankruptcy case being filed, the divorce court had entered an order requiring debtor/husband to pay spousal support. Debtor/husband failed to make the required payments. The ex-wife, by and through her attorney, filed a motion for contempt of court for the husband’s failure to pay spousal support. Prior to the hearing on the motion, debtor/husband filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief.
At the divorce contempt hearing, debtor/husband informed the court that he had filed bankruptcy. The ex-wife’s attorney stated to the divorce court that the attorney did not know whether continuation of the contempt hearing would violate the stay. Nevertheless, in violation of the automatic stay, the divorce court entered an order finding debtor/husband in contempt of court and granted judgment for the ex-wife in the amount of $87,525. In addition, the divorce court’s order required debtor/husband to be jailed if the payment was not made by a date specified in the order.
Debtor/husband appealed the order to the state appellate court seeking reversal of the divorce court order. At that appellate hearing the ex-wife’s attorney argued that the divorce court order should be affirmed.
Debtor/husband also filed an emergency motion before the bankruptcy court to vacate the divorce court order. The bankruptcy court granted the motion and vacated the divorce court order holding debtor/husband in contempt.
Debtor/husband then filed an adversary proceeding against the ex-wife and the ex-wife’s attorney claiming they had violated the automatic stay. The ex-wife settled the claim against her; but the suit continued against the ex-wife’s attorney. The ex-wife’s attorney argued that the automatic stay may have been violated by the divorce court judge, but the stay was not violated by the ex-wife’s attorney. Alternatively, the ex-wife’s attorney argued that the attorney’s actions did not violate the stay because the US Bankruptcy Code provides an exception to the automatic stay for actions relating to the “establishment or modification of an order for domestic support obligations” or “the collection of a domestic support obligation from property that is not property of the estate.” Section 362(b)(2)(A)(B).
The bankruptcy court rejected the ex-wife’s attorney’s arguments and found that the attorney had willfully violated the automatic stay. The court found that the automatic stay imposed on the ex-wife’s attorney an affirmative duty of compliance with the bankruptcy laws. The court then found that the ex-wife’s attorney had violated the stay by affirmatively opposing debtor/husband’s appeal to the state appellate court seeking reversal of the divorce court’s order.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Prior to the bankruptcy case being filed, the divorce court had entered an order requiring debtor/husband to pay spousal support. Debtor/husband failed to make the required payments. The ex-wife, by and through her attorney, filed a motion for contempt of court for the husband’s failure to pay spousal support. Prior to the hearing on the motion, debtor/husband filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief.
At the divorce contempt hearing, debtor/husband informed the court that he had filed bankruptcy. The ex-wife’s attorney stated to the divorce court that the attorney did not know whether continuation of the contempt hearing would violate the stay. Nevertheless, in violation of the automatic stay, the divorce court entered an order finding debtor/husband in contempt of court and granted judgment for the ex-wife in the amount of $87,525. In addition, the divorce court’s order required debtor/husband to be jailed if the payment was not made by a date specified in the order.
Debtor/husband appealed the order to the state appellate court seeking reversal of the divorce court order. At that appellate hearing the ex-wife’s attorney argued that the divorce court order should be affirmed.
Debtor/husband also filed an emergency motion before the bankruptcy court to vacate the divorce court order. The bankruptcy court granted the motion and vacated the divorce court order holding debtor/husband in contempt.
Debtor/husband then filed an adversary proceeding against the ex-wife and the ex-wife’s attorney claiming they had violated the automatic stay. The ex-wife settled the claim against her; but the suit continued against the ex-wife’s attorney. The ex-wife’s attorney argued that the automatic stay may have been violated by the divorce court judge, but the stay was not violated by the ex-wife’s attorney. Alternatively, the ex-wife’s attorney argued that the attorney’s actions did not violate the stay because the US Bankruptcy Code provides an exception to the automatic stay for actions relating to the “establishment or modification of an order for domestic support obligations” or “the collection of a domestic support obligation from property that is not property of the estate.” Section 362(b)(2)(A)(B).
The bankruptcy court rejected the ex-wife’s attorney’s arguments and found that the attorney had willfully violated the automatic stay. The court found that the automatic stay imposed on the ex-wife’s attorney an affirmative duty of compliance with the bankruptcy laws. The court then found that the ex-wife’s attorney had violated the stay by affirmatively opposing debtor/husband’s appeal to the state appellate court seeking reversal of the divorce court’s order.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Attorney Fees Owed to Family Law Attorney Not Discharged in Bankruptcy
A law firm had represented a wife in a divorce proceeding. At the conclusion of the divorce case, the divorce court entered an order awarding the ex-wife $85,000 in attorney fees and directed the debtor/husband to pay the attorney fees directly to the ex-wife’s law firm.
Debtor/husband did not pay the attorney fees; instead, he filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy case and received a chapter 7 discharge. In response, the law firm filed an adversary proceeding against debtor/husband and sought an order excepting the $85,000 attorney fee debt from discharge. Clair, Griefer LLP v. Prensky, 416 B.R. 406 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2009).
The issue before the Prensky court was whether attorney fees awarded to debtor’s ex-wife, but payable directly to the ex-wife’s law firm, are dischargeable under §523(a)(15). Debtor/husband asserted that the attorney fee debt was dischargeable because the debt was not a debt owed to a “spouse, former spouse or child” as required for non-dischargeability under §523(a)(15). Debtor/husband urged the court to adopt a “plain language” interpretation of the §523(a)(15) clause “spouse, former spouse, or child” and find the attorney fee debt dischargeable because the debt was payable to the law firm and not to the spouse, former spouse, or child.
The Prensky court rejected debtor’s argument. The court found that the $85,000 attorney fees were divorce-related debt incurred by debtor in the course of the divorce proceedings between the debtor and ex-wife and were thus non-dischargeable pursuant to §523(a)(15). Key to the court’s decision was the fact that the divorce court awarded attorney fees to the ex-wife, not to the law firm. The court noted that, pursuant to the divorce order, the attorney fee debt was owed to the ex-wife but payment was ordered to be made directly to the ex-wife’s law firm. The court further commented that state law gave the ex-wife the legal right to enforce the award of attorney fees in the event the legal fees were n not paid. In short, the court believed that the attorney fee debt was owed to a “spouse, former spouse, or child” as required by §523(a)(15) and that the divorce order directing the payment to be made directly by debtor to the law firm had not changed the fact that the debt was still owed to a “spouse, former spouse, or child.”
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Debtor/husband did not pay the attorney fees; instead, he filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy case and received a chapter 7 discharge. In response, the law firm filed an adversary proceeding against debtor/husband and sought an order excepting the $85,000 attorney fee debt from discharge. Clair, Griefer LLP v. Prensky, 416 B.R. 406 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2009).
The issue before the Prensky court was whether attorney fees awarded to debtor’s ex-wife, but payable directly to the ex-wife’s law firm, are dischargeable under §523(a)(15). Debtor/husband asserted that the attorney fee debt was dischargeable because the debt was not a debt owed to a “spouse, former spouse or child” as required for non-dischargeability under §523(a)(15). Debtor/husband urged the court to adopt a “plain language” interpretation of the §523(a)(15) clause “spouse, former spouse, or child” and find the attorney fee debt dischargeable because the debt was payable to the law firm and not to the spouse, former spouse, or child.
The Prensky court rejected debtor’s argument. The court found that the $85,000 attorney fees were divorce-related debt incurred by debtor in the course of the divorce proceedings between the debtor and ex-wife and were thus non-dischargeable pursuant to §523(a)(15). Key to the court’s decision was the fact that the divorce court awarded attorney fees to the ex-wife, not to the law firm. The court noted that, pursuant to the divorce order, the attorney fee debt was owed to the ex-wife but payment was ordered to be made directly to the ex-wife’s law firm. The court further commented that state law gave the ex-wife the legal right to enforce the award of attorney fees in the event the legal fees were n not paid. In short, the court believed that the attorney fee debt was owed to a “spouse, former spouse, or child” as required by §523(a)(15) and that the divorce order directing the payment to be made directly by debtor to the law firm had not changed the fact that the debt was still owed to a “spouse, former spouse, or child.”
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Monday, December 28, 2009
When is Alimony as Defined by the Divorce Court Not Deemed Alimony by the Bankruptcy Court
Family law attorneys must continuously strive to keep abreast of the most current case law. Similarly, family law attorneys must hone their drafting skills so that divorce pleadings and settlement agreements reflect the ever-changing case law.
The intersection of bankruptcy law and family law is one substantive area that family law attorneys must stay abreast of the recently developments. Below is a bankruptcy case you should read. The family law attorney had drafted a settlement agreement that designated as "indirect alimony" the ex-husband's obligation to pay mortgage and car obligations on behalf of the ex-wife. This settlement agreement was approved by the divorce court prior to the bankruptcy case being filed. Nevertheless, the bankruptcy court later rejected the designation. By rejecting the designation, the bankruptcy court effectively changed a non-dischargeable "alimony" obligation into a dischargeable property division obligation.
In re McCollum, 415 B.R. 625 (Bankr. M.D.Ga 2009). Debtor was a party to a divorce proceeding in state court prior to filing a chapter 13 bankruptcy case. Debtor was not represented by counsel in the divorce case. Ultimately, the divorce court approved a settlement agreement that created various domestic and non-domestic support obligations, including debtor's obligation to pay the mortgage on the home surrendered to the debtor's ex-spouse and pay the car loan on the car surrendered to the debtor's ex-spouse. Importantly, the settlement agreement indicated that the debtor's duty to pay the mortgage and car loan were "indirect alimony" obligations. Nevertheless, debtor's ex-spouse contacted debtor and requested that debtor NOT list the mortgage and car loan payments as "alimony" expenses on debtor's tax return since debtor's ex-spouse did not intend to claim the mortgage and car payments as "alimony" income.
Debtor filed a chapter 13 case after the divorce court entered judgment. Thereafter, debtor filed an adversary complaint seeking a determination regarding the dischargeability of divorce related debt. Debtor-plaintiff conceded that the majority of the ongoing payments under the divorce settlement agreement are excepted from discharge as domestic support obligations pursuant to Section 523(a)(5). Nevertheless, debtor-plaintiff filed the adversary proceeding to determine the dischargeability of debtor's obligation to pay the mortgage debt and the car loan, contending that these obligations are non-domestic support obligations pursuant to Section 523(a)(15).
The McCollum court noted that Section 523(a)(15) applies to debts that do not fall within the definition of a domestic support obligation but were, nevertheless, incurred by the debtor in the course of divorce or separation or in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record. For expediency, debts under Section 523(a)(5) are generally referred to as being in the nature of alimony or support, while debts under Section 523(a)(15) are referred to as being in the nature of property division. Therefore, the court determined that the key issue to be determined was whether the mortgage and car payment obligations at issue were nondischargeable domestic support obligations within the scope of Section 523(a)(5) or property division obligations within the scope of Section 523(a)(15).
Whether or not the debts at issue are in the nature of support or property division is a question of federal law that is guided by reference to state law. In making a decision, the court must look beyond any labels used by the parties and instead determine whether at the time of its creation the parties intended the obligation to function as support or alimony. Factors relevant to this inquiry include: the language of the divorce agreement; the relative financial positions of the parties at the time of the agreement; the amount of property division; whether the obligation terminates on the death or remarriage of the beneficiary; the number and frequency of payments; whether the agreement includes a waiver of support rights; the obligation can be modified or enforced in state court; and whether the obligation is treated as support for tax purposes.
The McCollum court determined that the mortgage and car payment obligations were dischargeable in chapter 13 bankruptcy because these obligations were deemed property division obligations and not alimony or support payment obligations. Citing many factors, the court focused mainly on the following: the parties' relative financial positions at the time of the divorce, the fact that debtor was not represented by counsel and the fact that debtor's ex-spouse contacted debtor and requested that the obligation payments not be classified as "alimony" on IRS tax returns.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
The intersection of bankruptcy law and family law is one substantive area that family law attorneys must stay abreast of the recently developments. Below is a bankruptcy case you should read. The family law attorney had drafted a settlement agreement that designated as "indirect alimony" the ex-husband's obligation to pay mortgage and car obligations on behalf of the ex-wife. This settlement agreement was approved by the divorce court prior to the bankruptcy case being filed. Nevertheless, the bankruptcy court later rejected the designation. By rejecting the designation, the bankruptcy court effectively changed a non-dischargeable "alimony" obligation into a dischargeable property division obligation.
In re McCollum, 415 B.R. 625 (Bankr. M.D.Ga 2009). Debtor was a party to a divorce proceeding in state court prior to filing a chapter 13 bankruptcy case. Debtor was not represented by counsel in the divorce case. Ultimately, the divorce court approved a settlement agreement that created various domestic and non-domestic support obligations, including debtor's obligation to pay the mortgage on the home surrendered to the debtor's ex-spouse and pay the car loan on the car surrendered to the debtor's ex-spouse. Importantly, the settlement agreement indicated that the debtor's duty to pay the mortgage and car loan were "indirect alimony" obligations. Nevertheless, debtor's ex-spouse contacted debtor and requested that debtor NOT list the mortgage and car loan payments as "alimony" expenses on debtor's tax return since debtor's ex-spouse did not intend to claim the mortgage and car payments as "alimony" income.
Debtor filed a chapter 13 case after the divorce court entered judgment. Thereafter, debtor filed an adversary complaint seeking a determination regarding the dischargeability of divorce related debt. Debtor-plaintiff conceded that the majority of the ongoing payments under the divorce settlement agreement are excepted from discharge as domestic support obligations pursuant to Section 523(a)(5). Nevertheless, debtor-plaintiff filed the adversary proceeding to determine the dischargeability of debtor's obligation to pay the mortgage debt and the car loan, contending that these obligations are non-domestic support obligations pursuant to Section 523(a)(15).
The McCollum court noted that Section 523(a)(15) applies to debts that do not fall within the definition of a domestic support obligation but were, nevertheless, incurred by the debtor in the course of divorce or separation or in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record. For expediency, debts under Section 523(a)(5) are generally referred to as being in the nature of alimony or support, while debts under Section 523(a)(15) are referred to as being in the nature of property division. Therefore, the court determined that the key issue to be determined was whether the mortgage and car payment obligations at issue were nondischargeable domestic support obligations within the scope of Section 523(a)(5) or property division obligations within the scope of Section 523(a)(15).
Whether or not the debts at issue are in the nature of support or property division is a question of federal law that is guided by reference to state law. In making a decision, the court must look beyond any labels used by the parties and instead determine whether at the time of its creation the parties intended the obligation to function as support or alimony. Factors relevant to this inquiry include: the language of the divorce agreement; the relative financial positions of the parties at the time of the agreement; the amount of property division; whether the obligation terminates on the death or remarriage of the beneficiary; the number and frequency of payments; whether the agreement includes a waiver of support rights; the obligation can be modified or enforced in state court; and whether the obligation is treated as support for tax purposes.
The McCollum court determined that the mortgage and car payment obligations were dischargeable in chapter 13 bankruptcy because these obligations were deemed property division obligations and not alimony or support payment obligations. Citing many factors, the court focused mainly on the following: the parties' relative financial positions at the time of the divorce, the fact that debtor was not represented by counsel and the fact that debtor's ex-spouse contacted debtor and requested that the obligation payments not be classified as "alimony" on IRS tax returns.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Automatic Stay Lifted to Allow Parties to Litigate in Divorce Court
Here is an interesting article about the scope of the automatic stay and the criteria for lifting the automatic stay in a pending bankruptcy court case when the debtor is simultaneously a party in a pending divorce action.
In re Taub, 413 B.R. 55 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2009). A debtor/wife filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy while she was a party to a pending divorce case in state court. The debtor's estranged husband filed a bankruptcy motion for relief from the automatic stay pursuant to Section 362(d)(1). The estranged husband sought the bankruptcy court order terminating the automatic stay to allow the husband and debtor/wife to procced to conclusion with the divorce action, including the entry of a judgment by the divorce court, with enforcement thereof in the bankruptcy court.
Not surprisingly, the debtor/wife opposed the motion to lift the automatic stay and argued that the bankruptcy court was the proper forum to resolve the comlex matrimonial issues.
The bankruptcy court noted that the filing of the bankruptcy petition triggered a stay of any action to commence or continue a judicial, administrative, or other court action to recover a prepetition claim against the debtor/wife and stayed any act to exercise control over property of the bankruptcy estate. The Taub court further noted that the automatic stay was effective immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition without any further action.
The bankruptcy court stated that the automatic stay does not prevent a debtor/spouse and estranged husband from seeking a dissolution of their marriage. See Section 362(b)(2)(A)(iv). But, the automatic stay in the Taub case did prohibit the estranged husband from proceeding in the divorce court against property of the debtor/wife's estate without first obtaining a bankruptcy court order lifting the automatic stay.
The bankruptcy court entertained 12 factors prior to ruling that the estranged husband had demonstrated sufficient "cause" supporting the motion to lift the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court granted the motion to lift the automatic stay and held as follows:
*permitting the divorce court to determine issues including rights of parties in separate or marital property would resolve significant open issues and assist in plan confirmation, so that factor favored finding cause for relief from stay;
*state court had significant expertise in domestic relations matters and was well qualified to determine property entitlements and obligations, so that factor weighed in favor of finding cause for relief from stay; and
*creditors' rights could be protected by granting limited relief from stay to permit divorce action to proceed only up to entry of judgment, and so that factor weighted in favor of finding cause for relief from stay.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
In re Taub, 413 B.R. 55 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2009). A debtor/wife filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy while she was a party to a pending divorce case in state court. The debtor's estranged husband filed a bankruptcy motion for relief from the automatic stay pursuant to Section 362(d)(1). The estranged husband sought the bankruptcy court order terminating the automatic stay to allow the husband and debtor/wife to procced to conclusion with the divorce action, including the entry of a judgment by the divorce court, with enforcement thereof in the bankruptcy court.
Not surprisingly, the debtor/wife opposed the motion to lift the automatic stay and argued that the bankruptcy court was the proper forum to resolve the comlex matrimonial issues.
The bankruptcy court noted that the filing of the bankruptcy petition triggered a stay of any action to commence or continue a judicial, administrative, or other court action to recover a prepetition claim against the debtor/wife and stayed any act to exercise control over property of the bankruptcy estate. The Taub court further noted that the automatic stay was effective immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition without any further action.
The bankruptcy court stated that the automatic stay does not prevent a debtor/spouse and estranged husband from seeking a dissolution of their marriage. See Section 362(b)(2)(A)(iv). But, the automatic stay in the Taub case did prohibit the estranged husband from proceeding in the divorce court against property of the debtor/wife's estate without first obtaining a bankruptcy court order lifting the automatic stay.
The bankruptcy court entertained 12 factors prior to ruling that the estranged husband had demonstrated sufficient "cause" supporting the motion to lift the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court granted the motion to lift the automatic stay and held as follows:
*permitting the divorce court to determine issues including rights of parties in separate or marital property would resolve significant open issues and assist in plan confirmation, so that factor favored finding cause for relief from stay;
*state court had significant expertise in domestic relations matters and was well qualified to determine property entitlements and obligations, so that factor weighed in favor of finding cause for relief from stay; and
*creditors' rights could be protected by granting limited relief from stay to permit divorce action to proceed only up to entry of judgment, and so that factor weighted in favor of finding cause for relief from stay.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Court Lacks Discretion to Balance Hardship of Property Division Debt
Here is an interesting case regarding the limit of the court's discretion to reduce the hardship imposed upon the paying spouse and thereby reduce the proceeds received by the receiving spouse.
In re Blackburn, 412 B.R. 710 (Bankr. W.D. Pa 2009). A chapter 7 debtor's ex-wife objected to the discharge of her claim pursuant to Section 523(a)(5) and (a)(15). Because it was clear that the obligation was incurred in connection with a divorce decree, the court ruled that the claim was nondischargeable. The debtor asked the court to reconsider, arguing that the court had discretion to find the debt to be dischargeable. The debtor said he was 50 years old and physically unable to work. He asserted that payment of the debt to his ex-wife would cause him to suffer a substantial hardship. Nevertheless, the court denied the debtor's request for reconsideration, noting that the bankruptcy courts no longer have discretion to allow the discharge of matrimonial obligations in chapter 7 cases.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
In re Blackburn, 412 B.R. 710 (Bankr. W.D. Pa 2009). A chapter 7 debtor's ex-wife objected to the discharge of her claim pursuant to Section 523(a)(5) and (a)(15). Because it was clear that the obligation was incurred in connection with a divorce decree, the court ruled that the claim was nondischargeable. The debtor asked the court to reconsider, arguing that the court had discretion to find the debt to be dischargeable. The debtor said he was 50 years old and physically unable to work. He asserted that payment of the debt to his ex-wife would cause him to suffer a substantial hardship. Nevertheless, the court denied the debtor's request for reconsideration, noting that the bankruptcy courts no longer have discretion to allow the discharge of matrimonial obligations in chapter 7 cases.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Friday, October 9, 2009
More Bad News for legal Profession
This year has been bad for many law firms. Revenues are down. Profits are down. Layoffs and unemployment are up. Bankruptcy lawyers are a bring spot in the legal profession.
The situation doesn't bode well for 2010. I found an interesting article written by Sherri Qualters who maintains that outside counsel speding is projected to drop again. This drop could result in less work for outside counsel, and therefore reduced revenues, reduced profits, and more layoffs. Below is the article:
Outside Counsel Spending Projected to Drop by 4.3 Percent Next Year
Sheri Qualters
10-09-2009
A new study projects a 4.3 percent slide in corporate spending on outside counsel next year, on top of this year's 10.8 percent drop.
Outside counsel spending dropped from an average of $20.8 million in 2008 to $18.5 million this year and is projected to dip to $17.7 million in 2010, according to the "BTI Premium Practices Forecast 2010: Survey of Corporate Legal Spending" study by Wellesley, Mass.-based legal consulting shop BTI Consulting Group.
According to the study, the corporate counsel strategies likely to drive the legal services market next year include developing cost-effective compliance strategies; resolving litigation; focusing on early case assessment; and crafting new strategies to manage outside counsel.
The projected spending drop continues a focus on cost control that corporations started implementing in 2007, said BTI President Michael Rynowecer.
There's still an imbalance between supply and demand, but a slight boost in a few practice areas such as regulatory work and litigation indicates the imbalance may be leveling off, he said.
"The fact that we're seeing a couple of practices showing a pickup would suggest that we may be nearing equilibrium, at least for the moment," Rynowecer said.
Based on corporate spending plans, the study projects modest growth in several law firm practice areas, including 3.4 percent growth in regulatory work; 2.3 percent in litigation; and 1.4 percent in intellectual property litigation.
Regulatory work, in particular, is a tremendous source of business right now, Rynowecer said.
"Every company is trying to develop industry-specific and company-specific regulatory strategies," Rynowecer said. "They're looking towards their law firms. [It's critical] to get a strong understanding of your clients' companies at an operating level."
Several practice areas are expected to sharply contract, including real estate by 12.4 percent; corporate by 10.2 percent; intellectual property transactional work by 8.6 percent; tax by 7.8 percent; and environmental by 7.4 percent.
The continuing soft economy and corporate spending responses to it will drive declines in those five areas. An increasing percentage of corporate and intellectual property transactional work will be routine, for example. Companies are also striving to keep more legal work in house, including in the tax arena.
BTI's results were based on 200 interviews with corporate counsel between June 13 and Sept. 4 at companies with an average revenue of $21.9 billion and a median revenue of $4.3 billion. The sample includes 20 percent of the companies listed on the Fortune 500.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
The situation doesn't bode well for 2010. I found an interesting article written by Sherri Qualters who maintains that outside counsel speding is projected to drop again. This drop could result in less work for outside counsel, and therefore reduced revenues, reduced profits, and more layoffs. Below is the article:
Outside Counsel Spending Projected to Drop by 4.3 Percent Next Year
Sheri Qualters
10-09-2009
A new study projects a 4.3 percent slide in corporate spending on outside counsel next year, on top of this year's 10.8 percent drop.
Outside counsel spending dropped from an average of $20.8 million in 2008 to $18.5 million this year and is projected to dip to $17.7 million in 2010, according to the "BTI Premium Practices Forecast 2010: Survey of Corporate Legal Spending" study by Wellesley, Mass.-based legal consulting shop BTI Consulting Group.
According to the study, the corporate counsel strategies likely to drive the legal services market next year include developing cost-effective compliance strategies; resolving litigation; focusing on early case assessment; and crafting new strategies to manage outside counsel.
The projected spending drop continues a focus on cost control that corporations started implementing in 2007, said BTI President Michael Rynowecer.
There's still an imbalance between supply and demand, but a slight boost in a few practice areas such as regulatory work and litigation indicates the imbalance may be leveling off, he said.
"The fact that we're seeing a couple of practices showing a pickup would suggest that we may be nearing equilibrium, at least for the moment," Rynowecer said.
Based on corporate spending plans, the study projects modest growth in several law firm practice areas, including 3.4 percent growth in regulatory work; 2.3 percent in litigation; and 1.4 percent in intellectual property litigation.
Regulatory work, in particular, is a tremendous source of business right now, Rynowecer said.
"Every company is trying to develop industry-specific and company-specific regulatory strategies," Rynowecer said. "They're looking towards their law firms. [It's critical] to get a strong understanding of your clients' companies at an operating level."
Several practice areas are expected to sharply contract, including real estate by 12.4 percent; corporate by 10.2 percent; intellectual property transactional work by 8.6 percent; tax by 7.8 percent; and environmental by 7.4 percent.
The continuing soft economy and corporate spending responses to it will drive declines in those five areas. An increasing percentage of corporate and intellectual property transactional work will be routine, for example. Companies are also striving to keep more legal work in house, including in the tax arena.
BTI's results were based on 200 interviews with corporate counsel between June 13 and Sept. 4 at companies with an average revenue of $21.9 billion and a median revenue of $4.3 billion. The sample includes 20 percent of the companies listed on the Fortune 500.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Schaller
Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.
For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here
For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here
You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at http://www.schallerlawfirm.com/to learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.
NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.
I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
