Sued for a deficiency judgment after your bankruptcy discharges doesn’t always need a motion to reopen the bankruptcy.

Here’s one situation that came up recently.   The borrower had a first and second mortgage (both were refinance loans – non-purchase money loans).  The borrower was not making loan payments and they received a notice of default.  Prior to the trustee sale date, the borrower filed for bankruptcy protection (Chapter 7 no asset case).  The senior lien holder sought to lift the automatic stay in bankruptcy and the motion was granted.  The house was thereafter sold at private foreclosure sale.  After the sale, the bankruptcy discharged (eliminating any personal liability on the first and second mortgage).  However, the junior mortgagee, believing itself to be a “sold out junior” (one action rule – we have talked about this on other posts) sought to collect on the second mortgage debt.  The borrower sought to reopen the bankruptcy case arguing the action to collect the debt violated the bankruptcy discharge.  The junior lien holder argued they were not scheduled on the bankruptcy petition so their debt was not discharged.  So what happens in this situation?   A similar situation arises where an unscheduled (omitted creditor) seeks to file a lawsuit after the chapter 7 no asset bankruptcy case was discharged.  Here is one argument to look at and some case law that supports the proposition that the debt was discharged even if it was not listed on the bankruptcy petition.

Here is a general look at two cases that address this point (In re Hicks and Beezley).  The following is general legal information only and should not be relied on as legal advice and may not be accurate or up to date.  Please consult a bankruptcy attorney to discuss your case.  This article is limited to the situation where  a creditor seeks to collect on an alleged debt after the debtor receives a discharge in a chapter 7 “no-asset” case.

In re Hicks, 184 B.R. 954, 27 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 676 (Bkrtcy.C.D.Cal., 1995).

This is a case that involved a chapter 7 no-asset bankruptcy case.  The debtor filed for bankruptcy protection and the bankruptcy petition omitted an alleged creditor who claimed liability on two promissory notes.  Eight months after the bankruptcy was discharged on February 1993, the alleged creditor filed a civil lawsuit seeking to collect on the notes.  The Plaintiff’s attorney was sent a copy of the Notice of Discharge, but ignored it and continued to proceed with the case.

The Plaintiff thereafter sought to reopen the bankruptcy to schedule the alleged debt, and then to discharge it.  The Court held that although it is permissible to reopen a bankruptcy to afford further relief to the debtor, there was no need to do so in this case as the alleged debt was already discharged.  The Court discussed 11 U.S.C. 524(a) discharge injunction which the court stated: “operates as an injunction against any post-discharge enforcement of any discharged claim as a matter of federal law.”  The court went on to state that: “reopening this case to permit determination of whether this creditor should be liable for a violation of the discharge injunction is appropriate.”

A similar case in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion.  In the case of Beezley v. California Land Title Co. (In re Beezley), 994 F.2d 1433, 1434 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), the court was faced with another no-asset Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and a subsequent action to collect on a debt following the bankruptcy discharge.  In Beezley, the alleged creditor (who had obtained a default judgment prior to the filing of the chapter 7 bankruptcy, but who was omitted on the schedule of creditors), sought to recover from the debtor and enforce the debt following the Chapter 7 discharge order.  The debtor raised the defense of discharge.  Ultimately the legal issue was whether or not the bankruptcy debt was discharged in the no-asset chapter 7.  The Court discussed the difference between debts that are automatically discharged in a chapter 7 no-asset case –whether scheduled or not, (11 U.S.C. 523(a)(3)(A)), from those that are not automatically discharged if unscheduled, (11 U.S.C. 523(a)(3)(B)).  Debts covered under Section “A” are automatically discharged whether they are scheduled or not in the no-asset chapter 7 case.  Debts that fall under Section “B” (basically debts that result from intentional fraud, willful injury, false statement or embezzlement) may arguably survive the discharge, but it is Plaintiff’s burden to prove such exemption, the failure of which results in a discharge violation.

Section 524 of the bankruptcy code is clear and unambiguous as to what is required to prove a violation of the discharge injunction order under section 727 of the Bankruptcy Code:

“A discharge “operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action . . . to collect, recover or offset any [discharged] debt as a personal liability of the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2). A party who knowingly violates the discharge injunction can be held in contempt under Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. See Renwick v. Bennett, (In re Bennett), 298 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir. 2002). The party “seeking contempt sanctions has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the sanctions are justified . . . ‘[T]he movant must prove that the creditor (1) knew the discharge injunction was applicable and (2) intended the actions which violated the injunction.’” ZiLOG, Inc. v. Corning (In re ZiLOG, Inc.), 450 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).

This gives you a general idea of the way a California bankruptcy court might review these types of cases where a lawsuit is filed, or collection efforts are taken after the discharge in the no-asset Chapter 7 bankruptcy case.  If you are facing an aggressive creditor seeking to collect on a debt following your bankruptcy discharge, consider contacting our firm to discuss.  You may have legal rights to assert against the creditor.  We can be reached at (877) 276-5084.  Ask for “ATTORNEY STEVE” – More bankruptcy information can be found at Ultimate BK.

 

 

California Attorney General Agrees to Mortgage Meltdown National Mortgage Settlement of $18 Billion

Okay, here comes the latest window dressing of the day and a settlement that may force what the banks should have done voluntarily and that is give principle reductions to California homeowners.  Here is a link to the mortgage settlement with the California Attorney General.  Here are a few snippets from the Attorney General on the settlement:

-    ”California families will finally see substantial relief after experiencing so much pain from the mortgage crisis,” said Attorney General Harris. “Hundreds of thousands of homeowners will directly benefit from this California commitment.”

-     “This outcome is the result of an insistence that California receive a fair deal commensurate with the harm done here. We insisted on homeowner relief for Californians and demanded enforceability so homeowners actually see a benefit that will allow them to stay in their homes, and preserved our ability to investigate banker crime and predatory lending,” continued Harris.

Here is the part of the press release that concerns me:

As part of the separate California guarantee, banks must enact a minimum of $12 billion in principal reductions for California homeowners. Failure to achieve this minimum level of reductions will result in substantial cash payments of up to $800 million that the banks will have to pay to the state.

So apparently 12 billion is earmarked for homeowner principal reduction, but if, just if, the banks don’t give that amount then they pay 800 million (a much small amount) TO THE STATE?  Is this a back door way to give California a BAILOUT??  Somebody please talk to me here?  Am I missing something?  Now I have not seen any draft of the settlement agreement as this settlement just came out, but something seems amiss with a clause like this.

The next issue is WHO GETS THE PRINCIPAL REDUCTION?  WHAT IS THE CRITERIA?  WILL THE IMPLEMENTATION BE FAIR?  HOW WILL THIS WORK?

Well, according to the press release not all counties will be included in the principal reduction program (okay, then who gets it)?  Here is what the press release says:

County-specific payments are based on the number of homeowners and the depth of the foreclosure crisis. It is estimated that homeowners in the following counties will accrue the following level of benefits over the three-year life of the commitment.
- Los Angeles: $3.92 billion
- Riverside: $1.59 billion
- San Bernardino: $1.13 billion
- Sacramento: $820 million
- Stanislaus County: $368 million

Here are other details made public (and my comments in bold):

The financial benefits of this historic agreement extend to homeowners whose loans are owned or serviced by one of the five largest mortgage lenders.

HARRIS SAID: ”I will continue to fight for principal reductions for the approximately 60 percent of California homeowners whose loans are owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Attorney General Harris added.

Benefits include:
- More than $12 billion is guaranteed to reduce the principal on loans or offer short sales to approximately 250,000 California homeowners who are underwater on their loans and behind or almost behind in their payments.

Supposedly there will be major relief in the first year of the program.  
- $849 million is estimated to be dedicated to refinancing the loans of 28,000 homeowners who are current on their payments but underwater on their loans.

So how will they decide who gets to reap the benefit of an underwater refi?  This money would go fast.
- $279 million will be dedicated to offering restitution to approximately 140,000 California homeowners who were foreclosed upon between 2008 and December 31, 2011.

Who qualifies for restitution?  What is the criteria?  How much will each person get?  What type of violations must you have?
- $1.1 billion is estimated to be distributed to homeowners for unemployed payment forbearance and transition assistance as well as to communities to repair the blight and devastation left by waves of foreclosures, targeted at 16,000 recent foreclosures.
- $3.5 billion will be dedicated to relieving 32,000 homeowners of unpaid balances remaining when their homes are foreclosed.

What?  32,000 homeowners will have their mortgages cancelled?  Is that what I am hearing?  Is this a lottery?
- $430 million in costs, fees and penalty payments.

I suppose this goes to the state and is badly needed.

OH, AND THE SETTLEMENT CREATES 42 MORE JOBS:

California will expand its Mortgage Fraud Strike Force, adding to the more than 42 members already working on the team.

The press release (video) is scheduled for 11:00 a/m this morning and hopefully you can see it here.

We will keep an eye on this and see how it plays out.  Hopefully this is not just more window dressing.