It is a real accomplishment to complete your Chapter 13 case.  In an environment where jobs come and go, unexpected expenses can pop up and more than two-thirds of all Chapter 13 plans fail, anyone who fulfills the terms of his Chapter 13 plan should take pride in this milestone.

Be aware, however, that making trustee payments for five years may not be enough to get your Chapter 13 discharge.  As I previously wrote on this blog, every Chapter 13 debtor must obtain a Financial Management certificate and submit through counsel a certificate of completion for this post-filing educational course.  If you do not submit the certificate, your case will be closed without the issuance of a discharge thereby potentially leaving your exposed to post-bankruptcy collection actions.   If you choose to ask the court to reopen your case so that you can file the financial management certificate you will incur additional time and cost.

A second possible hurdle arises from Bankruptcy Code Section 1328.  This Code Section precludes the judge from issuing a discharge if you do not certify that all domestic support obligations that have come due during the pendency of your case have been paid.   In the Northern District of Georgia, where I practice, every Chapter 13 debtor receives a Section 1328 certificate to complete as their case winds down.

If you state on your certificate that a domestic support (i.e. child support or alimony) was not paid, then the judge will have to hold a hearing to determine whether your failure to pay is beyond your control or not.  If the judge finds that your failure to pay these domestic support obligations is not excusable, your case will close and you will not get your discharge.

Sometimes it can be tempting to ignore an issue if no one is saying anything and no pressure is being applied.   In the case of child support in Chapter 13 you cannot ignore the obligation even if the custodial parent or child support enforcement is saying and doing nothing.  Otherwise you could end up with a sterling five year payment history in your Chapter 13 but no order of discharge to show for your efforts.

Economists of every political stripe agree that our recent recession and lackluster recovery arose from a collapse of real estate markets in cities all over the country.  Homeowners are either stuck in properties worth less than what is owed on them, while other homeowners have just walked away.  The result is a landscape where real estate has lost its liquidity and banks are afraid to rely on real estate to extend needed loans, thereby freeing up the capital markets.

A few years ago, a several members of Congress floated the idea of empowering bankruptcy judges to “cram down” mortgages to equal the fair market value of the underlying real estate.  Currently bankruptcy judges can, with some restrictions, cram down auto loans and other secured debt to fair market value in Chapter 13.  From my perspective as a bankruptcy lawyer, this cram down power does a lot of good.  Debtors can now afford to keep their vehicles, and thus their means to and from work.  The used vehicle and used furniture market is not depressed with excessive inventory of returned property and more people are able to reorganize rather than liquidate.

The mortgage industry, however, has fought any effort to authorize a disinterested third party like a bankruptcy judge to help solve the nation’s credit problems.  Lobbyists descended upon politicians of both parties to fight the proposed mortgage cramdown powers and somber executives from large mortgage companies testified before Congress that they would voluntarily work with property owners to modify mortgages.

As my BLN colleagues have explained in detail both government and private efforts to modify mortgage loans has been an abject failure.  In my Atlanta area bankruptcy practice I regularly speak to homeowners who fall behind a month or two, apply for a modification program, are strung along for months only to learn days before a scheduled foreclosure that their application for modification was denied.

Banks are not cooperating with small businesses either.  Recently, I noted the following Facebook post from my favorite pizza restaurant who suddenly announced that was closing one of its three locations:

As of January 1st, we regret to inform you that we will be closing our Duluth Hwy. location (ONLY). We have finished our 5-year lease at that location, and we simply cannot afford to renew for an additional 5 years with the new lease terms quoted by the property owner. Currently, the shopping center is in foreclosure and is bank-owned; because of that, there is almost no room for negotiations between the landlords and the tenants.
Believe me when I say that we do not want to leave. Besides the hassle of moving equipment and furnishings, we also hesitate to go because we know we have a large and loyal group of customers who will be missed dearly….Thank you so much for understanding, and please help us spread the word (as we are not allowed to put a sign on the door at the Duluth Hwy. location).

I can tell you from first hand experience that this pizza restaurant is not a struggling business and no one benefits by the bank’s action.  Employees will lose their jobs, the shopping center will lose a viable tenant that no doubt brings other traffic to the neighboring stores and customers like me will have to drive further for our meals.

Here we have a bank that simply will not negotiate, and appears to be going out of its way (by refusing to allow a sign on the door) to harm a former tenant.

If you ever had any illusions that your bank will voluntarily help you in a moment of crisis, let that illusion disappear.

What does this reality mean to you and how should it affect your future financial dealings?  I’ll offer my opinion in a future post.

Recently I received a notice from the bankruptcy court that my client’s Chapter 7 case has been closed without the issuance of a discharge order because my client never completed his mandatory financial management course.   This means that in order to get his discharge, my client will have to pay a filing fee of $260 plus attorney’s fees (I usually charge $240) to get his case reopened so that we can file his financial management certificate and he can receive his discharge.

While reasonable people can debate the merits of requiring bankruptcy debtors to spend the time and money to take two financial counseling courses – one must be completed prior to filing and the second after filing – it is clearly a waste of money to spend $500 because you did not get around to taking a $35 course that may take an hour or two of your time.

My colleague, Dan Press, suggests that you and your attorney should wait to file your financial management course right at the due date, which is 45 days after the 341 hearing.  Dan points out that in the event that you unexpectedly incur significant post-filing debt, you may want to have your case closed without a discharge so that you can, in theory, file another Chapter 7 without having to wait the 8 years wait that the Bankruptcy Code mandates in cases where a discharge is entered.   Dan’s suggestion, by the way, may not necessarily work in the district where you file and the Code may be changed in the future to disallow this, so check with your attorney about this “immediate refiling strategy.”

Note that there is a big difference between waiting to file your certificate and waiting to take your course.  If you provide your lawyer with a Financial Management course certificate and your lawyer fails to file it on time, I think you should expect your attorney to bear the cost of paying the filing fee and filing to reopen your case.   However, if you do not obtain your financial management certificate, this cost burden will fall upon you.

I can tell you from what I see in my practice that my clients often forget about the financial management course requirement despite a notice of this requirement in the filing confirmation notice they receive from the Clerk of Court and reminders from me.   If you are represented by a high volume firm, or by a lawyer who only files a few cases a year, you may not get any reminders other than what you receive from the court.

I also advise my clients to send me a copy of their course completion certificates directly.  In theory, most financial management course vendors will email me the certificate, but that assumes that the vendor copies down my email correctly and sends the form.  One of the messages of the post-filing course is to take control of your financial future and taking control of important decisions like this is a good start.

Credit card debt remains a primary reason that folks call me to ask for a financial problem evaluation issues.   Generally bankruptcy constitutes one option but by no means is Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 the only option.

Recently I met with a very nice woman who owes around $6,000 in credit card debt, but not much else.  After talking to her, we both agreed that bankruptcy did not make sense for this small amount of debt.   There is, by the way, no “minimum” amount of debt that would disqualify you from filing bankruptcy but given that the attorney’s fee cost of Chapter 7 usually exceeds $1,000 and the attorney’s fee cost of Chapter 13 can exceed $3,000, it hardly makes sense to file a bankruptcy if you debt is not significant.

In my office, I use a rule of thumb that if a client has less than $25,000 of unsecured obligations (like credit card debt), I am going to discourage a bankruptcy filing unless circumstances really dictate otherwise.   I know other lawyers who will rarely file cases when the debt involved is less than $50,000, while others have no “soft” limits.

In any case, my potential client and I agreed that bankruptcy did not make sense for her, so the next step was to decide how to proceed.  In this case, she had already been sued by her credit card company – the plaintiff’s lawyer is a high volume collection firm that files hundreds of credit card debt collection cases every week.

When she came to meet with me, my client had already received a proposed “Consent Judgment” from the plaintiff’s lawyer.  The terms of this judgment included:

1. the plaintiff would take a judgment that would be recorded on the county record
2. the judgment included interest of $850, attorney’s fees of $620 and court costs
3. post judgment interest would continue to accrue “at the legal rate”
4. plaintiff agreed not to file any wage garnishment if defendant paid $500 by the end of the month and monthly payments of $150 thereafter due on the 31st of each month

She asked me what I thought about this proposal.   I advised her that had I been involved in negotiations from the time the debt went into default, here is what I would have liked to have seen:

• no lawsuit at all – ideally, I would have worked out a payment plan directly with the credit card company and avoided the lawsuit and its negative credit implications
• assuming that a lawsuit was filed, I would have explored whether there were any Fair Debt Collection Practice defenses and perhaps I would have filed an answer asserting all available defenses available under Georgia law.   I know that volume collection lawyers make their money on default judgments.  By filing an answer along with interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admissions, I know that this file would be pulled and sent to one of the senior partners at the collection firm.  If there were any irregularities, it is likely that the plaintiff would dismiss its lawsuit.  At the very least, I would force the plaintiff’s firm to provide documentation of the debt and thus increase my leverage for a more favorable settlement
• I would negotiate to avoid a judgment.  Most courts allow a Consent Order which provides that a judgment will be issued if certain events happen.  In other words, the Order would provide that my client needs to pay $500 by a date certain and monthly payments thereafter.  If she did not pay, then a judgment would issue along with other consequences.   I have negotiated Orders that provide for a dismissal of the action within a few months if the defendant performs certain actions.  Such an Order would likely have much less negative impact on my client’s credit report than a judgment.
• I would build into the terms a “second chance.”  In other words, the Order (or judgment) could provide that if the defendant missed a payment, it could open default by paying a small penalty fee within a certain number of days.  This would protect my client against an immediate default in the event of unforeseen circumstances.
• I would negotiate more favorable terms.  In a consent agreement, everything is negotiable.  Perhaps the plaintiff would discount the full amount of the credit card debt with an up front payment of a certain amount.  Interest and attorney’s fees are always negotiable.  Given that the plaintiff would receive nothing in a Chapter 7, I would use the threat of bankruptcy as a tool to reduce the amount owed and to ask for better terms.
• I would provide that upon payoff, the plaintiff would take affirmative steps to restore my client’s credit.

Obviously, many of the demands I would have made would have been more timely had I been retained early on in the process.  In this case, my client did not want to spend any money with me to negotiate so she essentially accepted the terms of the plaintiff’s Consent Judgment.

The lesson we can all learn from this case include:

• begin negotiations as early as possible – don’t wait to get sued
• everything in a collection negotiation is negotiable – don’t assume that the collector or its lawyer will say “no.”
• make the collection law firm earn its money.  You have the right to demand proof of the debt they claim you owe and the credit card company’s lack of paperwork can serve as your leverage for a better settlement
• if bankruptcy is an option, you can use it as a tool in your negotiations.  Don’t be surprised, however, if the creditor calls your bluff
• when negotiating, avoid making the discussions personal.  Keep the tone of your negotiations businesslike and avoid the psychological tricks used by bill collectors

Have you negotiated with credit card companies and/or their lawyers?  What has your experience been like?

Several of my Bankruptcy Law Network colleagues have written about the scourge of “zombie debt.”   This colorful name applies to very old debt that is purchased by a debt buyer at pennies on the dollar.   The moniker “zombie” refers to the fact that usually the statute of limitations for collecting this debt has expired. 

In other words, a debt buyer purchases old accounts – often credit card debt – that may be 10 years old or more and then initiates collection efforts including phone calls and even law suits.   Debtors, not knowledgeable about statutes of limitations, often do not realize that the collector has no rights whatsoever.   More aggressive debt buyers will file suit against a debtor on one of these old debts hoping to get a default judgment.   Did you know, however that a clever debt buyer can use the law to bring zombie debt back from the dead?

If you are sued on a very old debt and you do not respond, the debt buyer may get a default judgment, thereby turning an uncollectible debt into a valid and current judgment that can be used to garnish wages and bank accounts.  Once a judgment is entered, it may be too late to challenge the underlying debt.

Another tactic used by zombie debt buyer is to use telephone collection harassment to coerce a debtor to make even a small payment on the old debt.    The problem: in some states, if you make even a token payment on an old debt, that payment may revive the zombie debt and eliminate your option of raising the statute of limitations defense in a subsequent lawsuit.

It also appears that zombie debt is here to stay.  A recent article in the New York Times noted that

the debt collection industry has undergone a transformation in the last decade. Credit card issuers, health care providers and cellphone companies now routinely sell debt that they deem uncollectible to debt buyers, who then either try to collect it themselves, turn it over to a collections law firm or sell it again.

An alert lawyer should be able to spot stale debt that is beyond the statute of limitations for collection.   But a lawyer can only help you if you call on us.   So if you start getting phone calls, letters or a lawsuit about a debt that is many years old, do not assume that the bill collector will voluntarily back off or that the clerk of court or judge will help you.  Do not sign anything or make any payments without first calling a lawyer in your area.

Most consumer bankruptcy lawyers will speak to you on the phone for no charge and will review documents for a minimal fee.   Most larger cities have local bar associations and lawyer referral panels.  Take advantage of these free and low cost legal resources and avoid becoming a victim of the zombies.

The Associated Press reports that the Obama Administration wants to legalize the use of “robo calls” – auto dialers and recorded messages – to cell phones by debt collectors seeking to recover student loans and other debts owed to the federal government.

Under a proposal included at page 28 of the president’s September, 2011 Jobs bill, federal employees and private debt collectors working on behalf of the federal government would be empowered to call a debtor’s cell phone without first obtaining permission and without regard to any “do not call” list.

The National Consumer Law Center, a consumer advocacy group, has issued a press release condemning this proposal.  According to attorney Margot Saunders of the NCLC,

Giving one of the most abusive industries in the U.S. free rein to inundate people with robo-calls to their cell phones is a terrible idea.  Cell phone calls can distract people while driving, interrupt them at their jobs and needlessly impose a cost on struggling familiies by using up scarce minutes.  Debt collectors regularly call land lines to harass and threaten friends, family and even strangers with similar names ot the debtor.  No one will be safe from receiving abusive calls on their cell phones if this proposal goes through.

Collection industry advocates claim that robo-call access to cell phones is necessary because so many debtors have given up land lines in favor of cell phones.  Under current federal law, bill collectors cannot use auto dialers or recorded messages when calling cell phones absent prior authorization from the debtor.   Auto dialer technology allows bill collectors to generate substantially more calls per hour and because auto-dialed lines often do not release immediately, can tie up a debtor’s line or use up costly cell minutes.

There can be no more sickening feeling than to discover that your car or truck has been repossessed.   In Georgia, where I practice, self-help repossession by vehicle lenders can occur quickly and with no prior notice.   Specifically, in Georgia,  lenders do not need to file any paperwork in court, nor do they need any permission to repossess your car.  If your account is delinquent – even by one day – you are at risk.   Note that every state has its own rules about vehicle repossession.

Generally, “first tier” lenders like GMAC, Ford Motor Credit and Toyota Motor Credit do not look to repossess your vehicle if you are a few days or even a few weeks late.    These lenders do not want to scare off new business with aggressive collection techniques and, in my experience, they will make some effort to work with you to bring your account current.

Second tier lenders, such as “buy here, pay here” finance companies often take a much harder line on delinquencies.   Years ago, I was introduced to the owner of one of Atlanta’s largest “buy here, pay here” vehicle finance companies.   He told me in no uncertain terms that if a customer was one day late, his agents would be on the phone demanding payment and if the account was not brought current within a day or two, he would send out an agent to repossess the vehicle.

In this financier’s mind, every minute of delinquency represented a risk that the vehicle would be stolen, damaged or left uninsured.  He wanted a reputation as a lender who would not negotiate or re-work finance deals.  In his mind, customers with poor credit had very few options when it came to financing cars and trucks and he had the upper hand in setting the terms of the deal.

To compound this problem, a default in payments also resulted in an acceleration of the entire balance of the loan.  Thus, a vehicle owner in Georgia could fall behind by a day or two, lose his car to repossession, then find himself with around ten days to come up with the funds to pay off his vehicle, or face losing any right of redemption.  Not a pleasant scenario, to be sure.

Not surprisingly, I get a regular stream of calls from distressed owners who have lost their cars to repossession and want to know what they can do to get back their cars or trucks.  Unfortunately, in Georgia at least, there are not that many great options other than paying off the vehicle, reaching an agreement with the lender or filing Chapter 13.

For many of the folks who call me, Chapter 13 is the only viable option.  Because Chapter 13 does create an automatic stay the minute it is filed, a secured lender who has taken possession of a vehicle cannot sell it without first getting relief from the automatic stay.

Generally, when I file a Chapter 13 to get a car, truck or motorcycle back, I will immediately file an action in Bankruptcy Court called a “Compliant for Turnover.”  In this Complaint, I will allege that my client needs his vehicle to get back and forth to work and thus needs it to fulfill his obligations under the Chapter 13 plan.  I will also assert that the vehicle is properly insured per Georgia law and that the proposed plan offers the secured creditor “adequate protection.”

Adequate protection in Chapter 13 can be a moving target but I have had success arguing that the creditor will be paid in the plan faster than the car will likely depreciate.

Most of the time, lenders will voluntarily return the repossessed vehicle after receiving my Complaint for Turnover, but occasionally I have to argue the issue before a Bankruptcy Judge.

Obviously, I can present a much more aggressive plan prior to repossession and filing early will avoid the two or three week delay in getting the vehicle back.   But if there is no other choice, Chapter 13 can solve an otherwise unsolveable problem.

Your bankruptcy filing can stir deep emotions.  More than a few times, I have received calls from individual (as opposed to corporate) creditors who, after receiving a bankruptcy notice, have called me to express their displeasure that my client is seeking to discharge a debt.  Sometimes these folks will appear at your 341 hearing to protest and sometimes they will write a “poison pen” letter.

Maybe you have borrowed money from friends or relatives, perhaps as a last ditch effort to avoid bankruptcy.  Now, when you file, that $5,000 or $10,000 you owe your friends is now a debt that will likely be discharged in bankruptcy.  Usually a few thousand dollars will not impact the bottom line of a credit card company, but your neighbor will surely feel the pain.  And an individual who is about to see $10,000 disappear forever will not be happy about that prospect.

What options are available to the holder of a $5000 or $10,000 personal loan?  Generally, not many.  Your now former friend can file an objection to discharge of a debt under Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, but hiring a lawyer to pursue this type of challenge will cost several thousand dollars without any guarantee of success.   Your friend can show up at your 341 hearing, but a non-attorney creditor will likely get little relief given the crowded dockets and his likely lack of experience in this setting.

What your individual creditor may do is to write a “poison pen” letter to your judge or trustee.  Such a letter may include allegations of alleged improper behavior by you, such as hiding assets or misstating income.

Believe it or not, many judges and trustees take these poison pen letters seriously.   Chief Judge Bihary’s opinion in the Henry case is typical – she construed the creditor’s letter as a motion to extend time to file a dischargeability complaint and directed the debtor to call the Chapter 7 trustee – and even included the trustee’s letter in her Order.   Sensing a judge’s concern, it is likely that a Chapter 7 trustee who receives such a call will initiate an investigation that will cost you legal fees and possibly lead to problems in your case.

How do you minimize the likelihood that a creditor will create problems for you?  Obviously, the best advice would be to avoid borrowing money from individuals in the first place – friends, relatives, co-workers – who are likely to see your bankruptcy filing as a personal insult.

Note that you should always consult with your lawyer before trying to pay these folks back prior to filing – a repayment right before your bankruptcy filing could be an improper preference.

If you have no choice but to include personal loans in your bankruptcy, make sure that everything contained in your bankruptcy filing is not only true, but can be supported by documentation.

Finally, when possible, I recommend to my clients that they contact the individual lender prior to give the lender the courtesy of a personal notice about the filing.  Often, individuals who lose money in a Chapter 7 debtor are looking for an outlet to express their frustration and disappointment.  Obviously you need to consider this on a case by case basis but do not discount the value of common courtesy.

The Social Security Administration is a mess.  Currently, SSA is in the midst of an overhaul in which they are attempting to go “paperless.”   Unfortunately, they are understaffed with many of the remaining employees overworked and poorly trained, resulting in an agency that routinely loses files, does not process information properly and does not have the resources to deal with fraud and waste.

As a bankruptcy lawyer who also represents disability claimants before the Social Security Administration I see these problems firsthand and on a regular basis.  I think that the current leadership at SSA is trying its best and has solved some problems, but like a dike that keeps springing leaks, SSA’s accounting problems are likely to get worse before they get better.

One of the most common problems that arises within the disability program has to do with overpayments.   Overpayments happen when a claimant continues to receive and deposit disability payments when he is no longer eligible.   This may happen because the claimant returns to work or improves medically to the point where he could return to work.

Social Security notifies claimants about overpayments by mail.  If you have received one of these letters it will contain a demand for payment and an explanation as to why SSA thinks you have been overpaid.  The letter will also set out your right to demand a review and, eventually a hearing if you contest the overpayment.   It will also advise  you that you have the right to request a full or partial waiver of the overpayment and associated procedures for such a waiver.

My experience has been that overpayment waivers are rarely granted.   Perhaps because of the current economic climate, SSA is less likely to approve benefits and less likely to approve waivers.

What, then,  should you do if SSA writes you to say that you have been overpaid by $30,000 and please send us a check by next Monday?  Can you file bankruptcy and discharge this overpayment debt?

The quick answer to this question is “yes,” you can discharge Social Security overpayment debt.  There is nothing in the Bankruptcy Code or in Social Security law that offers any special protection for the Social Security Administration.

Like any other creditor, however, SSA can object to the dischargeability of a debt pursuant to Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code – this Code section allows creditors to argue that their debt ought not be discharged because of some type of dishonest or repugnant conduct on the part of the debtor.

Objections under Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code must be filed by an affected creditor – and I, personally, have never seen a dischargeability complaint filed by Social Security in an overpayment case.  That does not mean that Social Security would not or could not object to a bankruptcy but, in my experience, at least, I have not seen it.

I did run across an interesting case involving Social Security that we decided by the Chief Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern District of Georgia.  In the case of Diego M. Rodriquez (No. 09-93431-JB), Judge Bihary implied in dicta that Social Security’s failure or inability to follow its own procedures for processing a bankruptcy debtor’s request for an overpayment waiver could be relevant in considering the merits of a dischargeability complaint.   If bankruptcy judges would follow this reasoning, debtors would stand an even better chance at seeing overpayment debt discharged in bankruptcy.

Earlier this month, I posted a rebuttal to a Forbes online article written by a tax lawyer named Stephen Dunn.  Mr. Dunn opines that usually Chapter 7 is not the best option for debtors facing severe financial hardship.

Noted consumer advocate Gerri Detweiler saw my Bankruptcy Law Network post and invited me to guest post a rebuttal for publication on Forbes online.  My colleagues in the Bankruptcy Law Network contributed to this guest post and together we demonstrated the flaws in Mr. Dunn’s arguments - point by point.

Now, to quote Ronald Reagan – “there you go again!”

In his June 17 opinion piece, Mr. Dunn restates his conclusion that “bankruptcies often do more harm than good.”  Once, again, however, Dunn puts for absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support his contentions.  In his first opinion piece, Dunn relied on anecdotal evidence – one case where involving tax debt where he was the debtor’s counsel and a second case involving his son, an attorney for a bank suing a failed business owner on a guarantee.

This time, Dunn doesn’t even bother to cite a real case – he simply makes up an example to support his conclusion.  More troubling, his understanding about how a consumer bankruptcy works in the real world is simply wrong.  He seems to be reading talking points provided to him by credit card and banking industry lobbyists.

I certainly hope that Mr. Dunn does a better job conjuring arguments when he is representing real clients.  Where is the evidence?  Are there any statistics or studies showing that a bankruptcy filing has a deleterious or a neutral effect on a bankruptcy filers future financial prospects?  Should we draw conclusions about the need for Chapter 7 based on Mr. Dunn’s imagination?

Obviously, everyone is entitled to his opinion.  I could take the position that antibiotics do more harm than good in every case, or that there is a vast government conspiracy to suppress information about alien invaders in Roswell, New Mexico.   However, putting flawed opinions in print simply does not make them true.

In my experience – and this involves 23+ years actually representing real people in Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 filings in Atlanta – I can only think of a handful of cases where the decision to file was even a close call, and even fewer where a client came back for a second Chapter 7 years later.  To the contrary, when I hear from old clients it is usually when they tell me that recovering from bankruptcy was far easier and less painful than they had expected.

I also find it strange that Mr. Dunn does not talk about Chapter 13 bankruptcy at all.   It makes no sense at all to talk about “consumer bankruptcy” without mentioning Chapter 13 since  reorganizations make up a significant percentage of total consumer filings.

If there is any academic or investigative proof that “usually” Chapter 7 is not a debtor’s best option, let’s see it.  If such proof exists, I would be first in line to encourage Congress to consider changes in the law to better effectuate the stated goal of bankruptcy – to allow the honest but unfortunate debtor an opportunity for a fresh start.

In the meantime, I hope that the thoughtful and intelligent readers of Forbes online see the embarassingly weak reasoning used by this columnist who has decided to write about a topic far beyond even the penumbra of his area of expertise.