Archive for the ‘Analysis & Comment’ Category

Frequently Asked Question About the Bankruptcy Act of 2005 & Divorce, Support, Marital Property & Debt.

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

Frequently Asked Questions About the Bankruptcy Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) & Divorce, Support, Marital Property and Debt.
The General Information Provided Is NOT Legal Advice. A Petition Filed in the United States Bankruptcy May Substantially Affect Proceedings Before the Superior Court of New Jersey – Family Part. If You Have Specific Concerns and Questions About Your Rights and Duties You Should Seek the Advice of Experienced Bankruptcy Counsel.


Some Receipts Not Counted as Income in Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Cases

Friday, June 26th, 2009

A Main issue in any Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy case is the calculation of what is known as “current monthly income”in determining whether a debtor qualifies for a chapter 7 bankruptcy or is required to pay their creditors in a chapter 13 bankruptcy. In some cases, even though a debtor has received money, it is not counted as “income” for purposes of determining qualification for a chapter 7 bankruptcy case.


Where is a Bankruptcy Case filed in New Jersey?

Friday, June 19th, 2009

This blog addresses where a Chapter 7, 11, or 13 Bankruptcy Case in New Jersey will be filed and why and a basic review of concepts such as “jurisdiction”, “venue”, and assignment of cases in this state.


Checklist: Tax Planning for Individuals filing Chapter 7, Chapter 13, or Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

A short checklist of Tax Planning and Practice Strategies which may be followed by an attorney for an Individual considering the filing of a Chapter 7, Chapter 13, or Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.


Update and Comment: New Jersey Foreclosure Mediation and Bankruptcy

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009

Comment and Update regarding the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court regarding the New Jersey Foreclosure Mediation Program and Bankruptcy Debtors and the General Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court District of New Jersey regarding Negotiations between Debtor(s) and Mortgage Servicers to Consider Loan Modifications.


Chapter 7 and 13 Consumer Bankruptcy and Tax Returns

Friday, June 12th, 2009

When the Bankruptcy Code was changed in 2005, significant changes were made to the tax return filing requirements for Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 consumer bankruptcy debtors. The changes increased the need for a Debtor and their counsel to review tax filing information before filing a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 consumer bankruptcy case. A recent Chapter 13 case in which I represented a debtor in New Jersey provides a good example of the often complicated nature of the bankruptcy code as it relates to tax filings and how it affects a case.


Sheriff’s Sale Adjournments after filing Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in New Jersey

Tuesday, June 9th, 2009

When a Chapter 7 or a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy is filed and a Sheriff’s Sale of a property is scheduled, New Jersey Law does not necessarily require that the mortgage company cancel the Sheriff’s Sale. Instead, the Plaintiff may adjourn the sale to a later date.


Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Plan May Permit Modification of Mortgage on Under- Secured Rental Property

Tuesday, May 5th, 2009

Question: How can I deal with a rental property which is under-secured (value is less than the mortgage(s)) and for which I am not receiving sufficient rent and income to cover the mortgage and monthly expenses?

One potential option in a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy (if one qualifies) is to propose a modification of the mortgage obligation. Although there are significant limitations in the bankruptcy code, the law does currently allow a debtor(s) to propose to modify a secured claim of a mortgage company on property which is not the principal residence. An example would be…


Fair Debt Collection Practices Applies to Mortgagee’s Attorneys in Foreclosure Proceedings

Tuesday, May 5th, 2009

Attorneys Who Regularly Engage in Collecting Consumer Debts, Including Those Representing Mortgagees in Foreclosure Proceedings, Are Subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The United States Supreme Court in the Matter of Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 294-95, 115 S. Ct. 1489, 131 L. Ed. 2d 395 (1995) Rejected the Assertion that a Law Firm Representing the Original Creditor Is Not a Debt Collector Under the Provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Some law firms have argued that if they represent the original creditors they are not considered as debt collectors under the provisions of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This assertion which is in direct conflict with the provisions of the Act and the authority of the United States Supreme Court in the matter of Heintz supra.