If you are in the Western District of Missouri, Kansas City Division, there are 10 Chapter 7 Trustees. You can never choose the trustee for your case, they are assigned by the Court at the time of filing. So far we have introduced you to Mr. David Stover, Ms. Erlene Krigel, Ms. Janice Stanton and Mr. Gary Barnes, and Mr. Enslein.

Now, let me introduce you to Mr. Bruce Strauss is a partner in the Kansas City law firm of Merrick, Baker & Strauss, P.C. He is currently the only trustee for the Platte County area Chapter 7 cases. In addtion to handling his duties as a Chapter 7 Trustee, Mr. Strauss represents both debtors and creditors in in Chapter 7, 13 and 11 cases.

US Trustee private trustee locater for the Western District of Missouri is here.

Click here for Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV. Part V., VI.

Written by Rachel Lynn Foley.

Popularity: 2% [?]

In re Szwyd, 2008 WL 1766591 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass. 2008), the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court rejected the position of the IRS that it could not be required to marshal assets to satisfy tax liens for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate. Marshaling is a rarely invoked doctrine that, as the Court noted, “rests
upon the principle that a creditor having two funds to satisfy his debt, may not by his application of them to his demand, defeat another creditor, who may resort to only one of the funds.”

The debtor in this Chapter 7 case had a homestead of sufficient value to satisfy his outstanding federal tax liens. The bankruptcy trustee had already sold another property of the debtor and had proceeds on hand, but they were insufficient to cover the tax liens.

The debtor’s homestead was effective against the bankruptcy estate, but not against the IRS. If the IRS did not sell the homestead and instead waited to take its distribution from the bankruptcy estate, unsecured creditors would have ended up with nothing.

Since a Massachusetts homestead was ineffective against the tax liability, the trustee contended that the IRS should be forced to marshal assets by looking first to the homestead. Again, the homestead was effective against the bankruptcy estate and therefore could not be reached by the trustee.

The Court agreed with the trustee that the IRS could be compelled to proceed first against the homestead so that the bankruptcy estate (and the return to unsecured creditors) could be maximized.

Popularity: 4% [?]

When you file for Bankruptcy, what do you do if you want to keep some credit cards?  Hide them from your attorney?  NO!  Such “Bankruptcy Fraud” is not worth 5 years in jail and/or 1/2 million dollar fine!  Instead, it depends.   Read the rest

Popularity: 12% [?]

There is no limit on the number of bankruptcy cases that one may file. In fact, there is no limit in between time frames to file bankruptcy. Nevertheless, if sufficient time between filings does not take place, you may be not be eligible for “discharge.” Read the rest

Popularity: 10% [?]

Massachusetts Bankruptcy Judge Rosenthal recently imposed $650,000 in sanctions under Bankruptcy Rule 9011 on various parties for misrepresenting the ownership of a mortgage loan in a bankruptcy case.

Ameriquest Mortgage Company, which was sanctioned $250,000, represented to the Court on various occasions that it was the holder of of the debtor’s mortgage/note. In reality, Ameriquest was only the servicer of the loan for a time.

Two law firms, Ablitt & Charlton, P.C. ($25,000) and Buchalter Nemer Fields & Younger ($100,000), and one lawyer, Attorney Robert Charlton ($25,000) were also sanctioned. Wells Fargo was sanctioned in the amount of $250,000. The order arose in the long-running Nosek case. An appeal will likely follow.

Popularity: 8% [?]

On May 2, 2008, the Federal Reserve released a series of proposed rules that would restrict current practices of the credit card industry. Specifically:

• Banks would be prohibited from increasing the rate on a pre-existing credit card balance (except under limited circumstances) and must allow the consumer to pay off that balance over a reasonable period of time.
• Banks would be prohibited from applying payments in excess of the minimum in a manner that maximizes interest charges.
• Banks would be required to give consumers the full benefit of discounted promotional rates on credit cards by applying payments in excess of the minimum to any higher-rate balances first, and by providing a grace period for purchases where the consumer is otherwise eligible.
• Banks would be prohibited from imposing interest charges using the “two-cycle” method, which computes interest on balances on days in billing cycles preceding the most recent billing cycle.
• Banks would be required to provide consumers a reasonable amount of time to make payments.

Consumers may review these proposed regulations and submit comments on the Federal Reserve web site. I encourage all readers of this blog to leave a comment supporting these new rules. Read the rest

Popularity: 7% [?]

One in 56 Tennessee households and one in 60 Georgia households filed for bankruptcy relief in the first quarter of 2008*, according to statistics recently released by the National Bankruptcy Research Center.

The national average was one personal bankruptcy per 119.1 households. Here is a list of the top 10 states for bankruptcy filings per household:

1. Tennessee: 55.8
2. Georgia: 60.1
3. Nevada: 61.2
4. Alabama: 72.1
5. Indiana: 75.9
6. Michigan: 76.6
7. Arkansas: 84.0
8. Kentucky: 84.2
9. Ohio: 90.8
10. Mississippi: 91.8

* Rates adjusted to annual terms.

Source: National Bankruptcy Research Center (nbkrc.com).

Popularity: 8% [?]

Bankruptcy courts stage some of the most complicated and exotic dramas imaginable. Have you heard the one about the Mexican mining company that is being sued by its own subsidiary while simultaneously trying to buy it back? It’s a tale that could only be told in bankruptcy court.

The story begins in 1999 when Grupo Mexico bought an American mining company, Asarco. There is apparently some irony in this because, the Wall Street Journal advises, Grupo Mexico’s core holdings in Sonora, Mexico, were once Asarco’s. At any rate, one of Asarco’s gems was a controlling stake in Southern Peru Copper. In 2004, Grupo Mexico moved the Peruvian interests to another subsidiary.

Unfortunately, within a year, Asarco ended up in bankruptcy. American bankruptcy courts have a funny way of second-guessing company owners sometimes. In 2005, the bankruptcy court appointed an independent board to manage Asarco for the benefit of creditors. Read the rest

Popularity: 9% [?]

The 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel recently held that a Chapter 13 debtor engaged in business can not deduct necessary business expenses from gross receipts in determining current monthly income.  In re Wiegand, decided April 3, 2008, all but guarantees that small business chapter 13 debtors will be required to spend five years in a Chapter 13 plan.

Despite the terms of the official form B22C created by the courts for use in evaluating Chapter 13 debtors, the clear language of §1325(b)(2)(B) does not permit the subtraction of ordinary and necessary business expenses from the gross receipts of a small business debtor when calculating Current Monthly Income pursuant to §101(10A).  Read the rest

Popularity: 13% [?]