Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’

Florida Supreme Court Expands Debtor’s Eligibility For $4,000 Wildcard Personal Property Exemption

Financial Guide | Posted by Kiara Withers
Feb 06 2011

The Florida Supreme Court has substantially expanded the amount of personal property Florida bankruptcy debtors can exempt in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. At issue is the so-called “wildcard” exemption under Florida Statute 222.25 (4) which permits a $4,000 additional property exemption to debtors who do not receive the benefit of the Constitutional homestead exemption. I have not read the entire opinion (25 pages), but this is an initial summary.

Up to now, bankruptcy courts have narrowly construed this exemption. The courts have held that even debtor who do not claim their homestead as exempt on their bankruptcy schedules are ineligible for the $4,000 wildcard if they receive, or could receive, any legal benefit of a homestead exemption. Thus, for instance, a debtor with an upside down homestead with no equity to exempt still has been ineligible for the $4,000 wildcard exemption if that debtor had or could have had other legal benefits of homestead ownership. Another example of a narrow interpretation is a case where a man filed bankruptcy individually, and the man and his non-filing wife jointly owned a homestead. The man claimed the house exempt as a tenants by entireties asset but did not assert homestead exemption. A bankruptcy court held that because the debtor’s non-filing wife retained homestead rights the debtor could receive homestead benefits.

The Florida Supreme Court rejected bankruptcy judges strict and narrow reading of the wildcard exemption. The C

Read more…

U.S. Supreme Court Makes It More Difficult To Pass Means Test By Reducing Car Allowances

Financial Guide | Posted by Kiara Withers
Jan 31 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on January 11, 2011, making it more difficult for debtors to pass the Chapter 7 means test. The means test includes two car related deductions from income. Debtors may be eligible to deduct from income an allowance for car-operating costs and a separate allowance for car-ownership costs. The amount of the debtors allowances are based upon published table of National and Local Standard as well as their actual expenses.

The Supreme Court case involved the means test filed by a debtor who owned a car free and clear of any debt and liens. The issue in this case was whether such debtor can claim the car-ownership allowance when the debtor has no monthly car payment and his only car expenses are those related to car operations.

In the past, many attorneys, myself included, claimed both a car-operating and car-ownership allowance even through the debtor had paid off his car or leased a car. The car-ownership allowance (a bonus deduction for debtors without car payments) frequently was the deciding factor in the debtors eligibility for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

The U.S. Supreme court held that debtors who have no monthly car payment cannot use a car-ownership allowance in the means test. The Court decided that the means test allowed “applicable” expenses, and that debtors without a car payment did not have an “applicable” ownership costs. Read more…

Supreme Court hears case on lawyers’ liability as debt collectors

Financial Guide | Posted by admin
Jan 15 2010

 

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments addressing the question as to whether lawyers can be held liable as debt collectors if they serve a foreclosure notice that may have been incorrect in its statement of the law.

At issue in this case is a notice sent to a woman named Karen Jerman. Jerman, who owned her home outright and had paid off her mortgage in full, was served a foreclosure notice by lawyers for Countrywide Home Loans.

In the notice, Jerman was told that she had to dispute the debt in writing. Jerman hired a lawyer to draft the written response. Countrywide later realized its mistake and withdrew its complaint.

Jerman filed a class action lawsuit against the Ohio law firm that represents Countrywide,  Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, and against a particular associate attorney at the Carlisle firm.

In her lawsuit, Jerman claimed that the Carlisle firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by erroneously informing her that the FDCPA states that the debt would be presumed valid unless she disputed it in writing.

At issue is whether the lawyer’s mistake of law qualifies for the bona fife error defense under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act excuses debt collectors if they can prove that their wrongdoing was not intentional and was in good faith. If this can be proven, then the debt collector is shielded from civil liability.

Jerman v. Car

Read more…