Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Now Say that Mortgage Principal Reductions are Good for BOTH Homeowners AND Taxpayers

Will Fannie and Freddie finally be making mortgage principal reductions now that their own analysis shows that doing so would benefit their own financial health—and make them better able to repay billions owed to U.S. taxpayers?

My last blog described Fannie and Freddie’s conflicting purposes: to make home ownership more accessible, but to do so profitably for themselves. And I showed how this inherent conflict has led to a political dispute between the Obama Administration on one side pushing for greater flexibility in helping distressed homeowners keep their homes—and specifically to allow principal reductions, while on the other side Edward DeMarco, the acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and Fannie and Freddie’s overseer, disallowing principal reductions in order “to preserve and conserve [Fannie and Freddie’s] assets.”

Helping Homeowners Also Helps Taxpayers

But what if there is no conflict between these purposes? What if reducing mortgage balances would help hundreds of thousands of homeowners stay in their homes and at the same time would save money for Fannie and Freddie?  

That is the conclusion of a very recent not-yet public analysis by Fannie and Freddie presented to the FHFA, according to the ProPublica article: “Fannie and Freddie: Slashing Mortgages Is Good Business.”

The new analyses by Freddie and Fannie were done to assess the new financial incentives that the Obama administration announced in late January.  ... . The companies now find that reducing principal on troubled mortgages has a “positive net present value” — in other words, that doing it would bring in more money for the companies over the life of the loans than not doing it.

The two companies’ analyses showed that upwards of a quarter million borrowers who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth could benefit from principal reductions. The companies would take a loss upfront, but over the long run these mortgage modifications would save the companies money because they would lead to lower default rates.

FHFA’s Response

DeMarco is thinking about it. In a statement he said:

“As I have stated previously, FHFA is considering HAMP incentives for principal reduction and we have been having discussions with [Freddie and Fannie] and Treasury regarding our analysis.”

But he also stated:

“FHFA’s previously released analysis concluded that principal forgiveness did not provide benefits that were greater than principal forbearance as a loss mitigation tool. FHFA’s assessment of the investor incentives now being offered will follow the previous evaluation, including consideration of the eligible universe, operational costs to implement such changes, and potential borrower incentive effects.”

DeMarco seems to be saying that this new analysis may well not change their policy. Why not? After looking at all their options (“the eligible universe”), and considering how borrowers would react to principal reductions (“incentive effects”), it seems to come down to “operational costs”—changes to their accounting and computer systems—which could outweigh the other benefits. It just might be too hard to change Fannie and Freddie’s operations so that principal reductions would work for them.

The Bigger Picture      

So is the FHFA so institutionally ingrained with the short-term profit motive that it would reject Fannie and Freddie’s own conclusions about principal reductions being good for their long term financial health? Does it have SO little ability to adapt? Does the FHFA have such tunnel vision that it can’t give any consideration to the potential benefits to the national housing market, where home values STILL continue to slide? And where in DeMarco’s comments is there any hint whatsoever of compassion for the millions of Americans—about half of them under his control—at continued risk of losing their homes?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Putting "Profits Before People"?

Now that Fannie and Freddie are essentially owned by the taxpayers, why aren’t these institutions doing more to help homeowners? Particularly, why are they so adamantly against allowing mortgage principal reductions?

These are questions that ProPublica, “an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest,” has been following and reporting on in a recent series of articles. I’m highlighting two of those articles in this blog.

Inherently Conflicting Purposes

“Why Fannie and Freddie Are Hesitating to Help Homeowners” describes “Fannie and Freddie's role in the housing market, and why it seems as if their actions often go against the interests of homeowners.” At the heart of it, these two institutions operate within a conflict about their core purpose: they were set up to make home ownership more accessible, but they are also supposed to make a profit. This first purpose would encourage Fannie and Freddie to be as flexible as possible to allow distressed homeowners to keep their homes. But the profit-making purpose would seem to run counter to letting homeowners too easily get out of their mortgage commitments.

Tax-Payer Takeover Only Complicated the Conflict

Now that taxpayers stand to gain or lose many billions of dollars depending on the profitability of Freddie and Fannie, that would seem to put more emphasis on profit-making and less on homeowner relief. On the other hand, providing significantly more help for distressed homeowners would arguably help stabilize home prices and improve the economy to everyone’s benefit.

As the ProPublica article states:

The two aims of Fannie and Freddie are continually at odds — policies encouraging refinancing and forgiveness for more mortgage holders can increase costs to the taxpayer-owned companies. While the administration has made relief for homeowners their priority, [Edward] DeMarco [the acting head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which oversees Fannie and Freddie] says his agency's priority is to protect Fannie and Freddie's profits, aka taxpayers' assets. Of course, many of those taxpayers are struggling homeowners, and that is at the heart of the dilemma over Fannie and Freddie's future.

Mortgage Principal Reduction Caught between the Conflicting Purposes

A second ProPublica article addresses whether Fannie and Freddie will allow some homeowners to reduce their mortgage principal balances. That decision hangs in the political balance because of this same conflict between profitability and helping homeowners:

The Obama administration has repeatedly tried to push principal reduction — reducing the size of a borrower's mortgage — as a way to help homeowners, especially those with homes worth less than their mortgages. But... time and again, Fannie and Freddie wouldn't participate: a crippling problem, since the two companies own or guarantee about half of the country's mortgages.

[Edward] DeMarco [the interim head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), says principal reduction could cost taxpayers $100 billion. Some economists counter that while principal reductions might lead to a short-term hit for Fannie and Freddie, it would ultimately result in fewer underwater mortgages, fewer foreclosures and a healthier housing market — all good for Fannie and Freddie's bottom line.

To give DeMarco the last word, until my next blog:

DeMarco has... [told] Congress many times that "as conservator, FHFA has a statutory responsibility to preserve and conserve the enterprises' assets." In plainer terms, he [states] that his role is to "make sure Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac undertake activities that don't cause further losses for the American taxpayers."

DeMarco has strongly asserted his independence insisting that he is promoting needed fiscal discipline.

Study Shows Chapter 7 Debtors Represented by an Attorney Are "Almost Ten Times More Likely to Receive a Discharge" of their Debts

My own professional experience about the dangers of filing bankruptcy without an attorney is validated by carefully analyzed data.

In my work as a bankruptcy attorney, I spend a fair amount of my time attending Chapter 7 “341 hearings” with my clients. That’s the usually straightforward 10-minute or so meeting with the bankruptcy trustee that everyone filing bankruptcy gets to go through a month or so after their case is filed. As I wait for my clients’ turn and listen to other hearings, I see the bad things that happen there to people who file bankruptcy without an attorney. I won’t go through a litany of horror stories here, but let me just say I’ve seen countless examples proving how dangerous it is to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy without an attorney. Besides, I know how complicated bankruptcy laws and procedures are because that’s what I deal with day in and day out. Yet, I’ve always wondered: in actual fact, beyond my own professional knowledge and experience, how much more dangerous is it going without an attorney?

This question is addressed, among many others about the current state of bankruptcy, by a book that was published just a few weeks ago, Broke: How Debt Bankrupts the Middle Class. A compilation of articles by respected scholars, one of the chapters focuses on “pro se” filers (those without attorneys). The author of this chapter, Asst. Professor Angela K. Littwin of the University of Texas School of Law, analyzed data from the Consumer Bankruptcy Project, “the leading [ongoing] national study of consumer bankruptcy for nearly 30 years.” She concluded “that pro se filers were significantly more likely to have their cases dismissed than their represented counterparts.”

I haven’t yet gotten my hands on that book for the statistical details there, but in another closely related study from last year, Prof. Littwin concluded that “17.6 percent of unrepresented debtors had their cases dismissed or converted” to Chapter 13, [while] only 1.9 percent of debtors with lawyers met this fate.”  Even after controlling for other factors such as “education, race and ethnicity, income, age, homeownership, prior bankruptcy, whether the debtor had any nonminimal unencumbered assets at the time of the filing,” “represented debtors were almost ten times more likely to receive a discharge than their pro se counterparts.”

In her carefully understated and scholarly appropriate way, Prof. Littwin concluded that “there may always be additional unobservable factors for which I cannot control... [b]ut this analysis suggests that filing pro se dramatically escalates the chance that a Chapter 7 bankruptcy will not provide a person with debt relief.”

I Just Got Sued by a Creditor . . . What Do I Do Now?

Getting a lawsuit filed against you by a creditor starts a very fast-ticking alarm clock. Don’t hit the snooze button on this one.

Here are the realities:

#1: Most conventional creditors don’t sue very quickly. So the fact you are being sued usually means you are in pretty serious financial trouble.

The vast, vast majority of debts that go into default don’t stay with the original creditors. They are assigned to collection agencies. Sometimes the creditor continues to own the rights to the debt, and the collection agencies just gets a percentage of what it collects. But much more often these days creditors sell all the rights to their non-performing debts to collection agencies, at a steep discount. The collection agency then pounds on you to pay the debt. It is often reluctant to sue you because doing so is relatively expensive, and requires putting out cash it may well never get back from you. Instead it will aggressively contact you and badger you into paying whatever it can get out of you for a period of time, and will then often turn around and sell the remaining debt to another collection agency, at an even steeper discount. Once a collector resorts to suing you, it’s admitting that getting money out of you by other means has not been working. That usually means that you truly can’t afford to pay the debt, and that it will only get money out of you if it is forcibly taken from you.

 

#2: Although you may feel powerless when you get served with a lawsuit, and are tempted to do nothing about it, that is almost never a good idea.

Collection agencies are not stupid. Your collector does not invest in the cost of a lawsuit unless it thinks it stands a good chance of getting a decent return on that investment—meaning your money in its pocket. A collection agency that makes too many wrong bets will soon be out of business. The ones that are in business know what they are doing. If you get sued, there’s a good chance the collector has its eyes on some specific target of yours that will get it paid—a paycheck to garnish, some real estate to put a lien on, or even a rich relative for you to beg from. The collector counts on your avoidance behavior so that it can get a judgment against you, and then to use the force of law to start grabbing your earnings and/or assets. Beat them at this game by finding out what they can and can’t do to you, and how you can protect yourself, preferably BEFORE they get their judgment,. Don’t let your creditors take advantage of you and your fear.  Most consumer or bankruptcy attorneys will give you a free consultation with honest advice about what’s best for you in your specific situation There’s no good reason not to find out your options and have a proactive game plan.

 

#3: Once you are served with a lawsuit, you have very little time to respond. If you don’t in time, you lose. The resulting default judgment is much more than simply an admission that you owe the debt.

Most collection lawsuits consist of a statement that you owe a debt, have not paid it according to its terms, and now owe the entire balance, plus ongoing interest, and the attorney fees and costs to bring the lawsuit. Most debtors’ reactions to this is, “yeah, I know I owe the money, so what’s the point of fighting it?” Here are some simple reasons you owe it to yourself to quickly see an attorney about the lawsuit, again preferably before the deadline expires and a judgment is entered against you.

a) You need to understand the consequences of the lawsuit, and your options for dealing with it. A lawsuit is a serious matter. You should not be flying blind about how it can affect you, and what you can do about it.

b) You may have defenses. Collection agencies routinely try to collect debts on which the statute of limitations has expired. They can sue the wrong person. It is worth having an attorney look over the paperwork for any such defenses.

c) You may have a counterclaim—an argument that the creditor did something wrong and owes you money for damages. These can be based on the creditor’s collection behavior, or the way the debt was entered into, and could result in a favorable settlement for you.

d) A lawsuit may include allegations beyond the usual ones about you owing the debt, which could restrict your options later. Once a judgment is entered, it is too late to deny the allegations upon which it is based.  The debt thus could become much more difficult to address in a future bankruptcy, for example.

e) Having an attorney review the lawsuit gives you the opportunity to think about it as part of your overall debt picture. Many consumers do not have an attorney who they can talk to on a regular basis. So problems accumulate and questions aren’t asked. That can lead to a tremendous amount of confusion and anxiety. Seeing an attorney about a pending lawsuit should lead to a discussion about how addressing it fits in with everything else going on in your financial life.  

How Quickly Will Bankruptcy Stop My Wage Garnishment?

Wage garnishments are stopped instantaneously... except that different state laws and procedures can effect what happens to the current paycheck.

Bankruptcy is a federal proceeding governed by federal law, but state law often plays into it as well. This question about stopping wage garnishments is a good example of the mix of federal and state law.

Except in rare circumstances (mostly involving income taxes and student loans), your wages cannot be garnished for repayment of a consumer debt before the creditor sues you in court and gets a judgment. That lawsuit will almost always be in state court, because the jurisdiction of federal courts is limited. The vast majority of the time debtors do not respond to such lawsuits by the legal deadlines, so the creditors win their judgments by default. Once your creditor has such a state court judgment in hand, it must then follow state law in collecting on it.

But states’ garnishment laws vary widely. Most states permit wage garnishment in some form, but a few restrict it to only very select kinds of debts (like child support, taxes, and/or student loans). Other states which do allow wage garnishment for conventional debts often have special garnishment statutes favoring some of those same select debts. State laws also differ on what part of a paycheck is subject to garnishment compared to the part that is “exempt,” or protected. And laws differ on the details of garnishment procedure, which can become critical as we return to the topic of this blog—how fast a bankruptcy stops a garnishment.

The moment your bankruptcy is filed, the “automatic stay” goes into effect. The filing itself operates as a “stay,” or a stopping, of virtually all collection activity. It operates as an immediate and one-sided court order against creditors, made effective by the very act of filing the bankruptcy case.  So the bankruptcy filing and the automatic stay stops a wage garnishment in its tracks.

But what if the bankruptcy is filed within just a day or two after the money has been taken out of your wages under a state court garnishment order but not yet turned over by your payroll office to the creditor? What does the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay require here when it says that the bankruptcy filing stops “the enforcement, against the debtor or against property of the estate, of a judgment obtained before the commencement of the [bankruptcy] case”? (Section 362 (a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.)  Money that was taken out of your paycheck before your bankruptcy case was filed is not “property of the estate,” which consists of all your assets as of when your case is filed. But arguably it’s not your money either as of the time when your case is filed because it was already legitimately taken from you by the garnishment order. So can the creditor get that money that your employer is holding, or would that be a violation of the automatic stay?  

Because different state laws may have different answers to the question of who owns money that has been garnished from your wages but not yet forwarded to the creditor, whether the automatic stay prevents that money from going to the creditor can turn on those different state laws.

Overall, reputable creditors tend to be cautious about violating the automatic stay, and so will usually err on the side of caution to prevent doing so. But other creditors may be more willing to be aggressive, especially if the state’s statutes and/or courts have given them some cover to do so.

The bottom line is that your experienced bankruptcy attorney will be able to tell you two things:

1) what the interplay between the bankruptcy code’s automatic stay and your state’s garnishment law means for a particular paycheck of yours; and

2) whether your specific garnishing creditor tends to be cautious or aggressive about garnishments stopped by bankruptcy.

The Bankruptcy Consequences of the National Mortgage Settlement

The bankruptcy world played a quiet but significant role in bringing about this controversial $26 billion settlement. So, fittingly, the settlement terms require the banks to make significant changes in their behavior in bankruptcy court.

Before leaving my current series of blogs on this mortgage settlement, I had to tell you about its bankruptcy angles.

The bankruptcy courts are where some of the earliest signs of bank misconduct appeared. For many years before the “robo-signing” scandal broke in the fall of 20010, mortgage lenders had been making a bad name for themselves in bankruptcy court with shoddy accounting and loose paperwork. Unlike most foreclosures—judicial or non-judicial—in which homeowners do not have attorneys representing them, the majority of homeowners in bankruptcy do have attorneys. So when, for example, mortgage lenders try to get “relief from stay”--permission to foreclose on a home under bankruptcy protection—the homeowner has both a convenient forum—the bankruptcy court—and an advocate who can point out to the court that the lender has not credited all the payments, that it has misplaced payments in some “suspense account,” and/or that it hasn’t even provided its own attorney with accurate accounting information or documentation.  

The bankruptcy system also had another player with a major role, as U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder highlighted when he announced the settlement last month:

The U.S. Trustees Program, which serves as the watchdog of all bankruptcy court operations, was one of the first federal agencies to investigate mortgage servicer abuse of homeowners in financial distress.  As part of their investigation, Trustees reviewed more than 37,000 documents filed by major mortgage servicers in federal bankruptcy court – and took discovery in more than 175 cases across the country. 

Accordingly, the Complaint filed against the banks as part of this settlement documentation includes a major section on “The Banks’ Bankruptcy-Related Misconduct,” listing 15 distinct types of misconduct. (See pages 34-38 of the Complaint.)

And each bank’s Consent Judgment contains a series of requirements related to their bankruptcy procedures. (See the Ally Financial/GMAC Mortgage/Residential Capital ”Consent Judgment” here, along with its exhibits, totaling more than 300 pages. The other banks’ Consent Judgments can be found here.)

Here is an example of some of the requirements, as applicable to the banks’ filing of proofs of claim (“POC”) in bankruptcy court, which they file to establish the nature and amount of a debt:

The lender “shall ensure that each POC is documented by attaching:

a. The original or a duplicate of the note, including all indorsements; a copy of any mortgage or deed of trust securing the notes (including, if applicable, evidence of recordation in the applicable land records); and copies of any assignments of mortgage or deed of trust required to demonstrate the right to foreclose on the borrower’s note under applicable state law  ... .

....

f. The POC shall be signed (either by hand or by appropriate electronic signature) by the responsible person under penalty of perjury after reasonable investigation, stating that the information set forth in the POC is true and correct to the best of such responsible person’s knowledge, information, and reasonable belief, and clearly identify the responsible person’s employer and position or title with the employer.”

These requirements strike at the rampant problems with insufficient documentation and authorization, including assignments and recordings.  There are similar rules applicable to motions for relief from stay, about fees charged by lenders during Chapter 13 cases, and their loss mitigation behavior during bankruptcy.

Remember that this national mortgage settlement does NOT settle or waive any “claims and defenses asserted by third parties, including individual mortgage loan borrowers on an individual or class basis.” (See the Federal Release, Exhibit F, p. 42, and the State Release, Exhibit G, p. 10, in the Ally Financial “Consent Judgment,” by way of example.) In effect that means that debtors in bankruptcy are not limited by the settlement from pursuing mortgage lenders for their violations of bankruptcy law, including those laws referred to in this settlement. These lenders simply also have their feet to the fire for the next three and a half years while the settlement is in effect and they are being monitored for compliance with its requirements.

National Mortgage Settlement to Hand Out Cash to Foreclosed-Out Homeowners

Most of the $26 billion or so in this national settlement is designed to help current homeowners keep their homes. But $1.5 billion of it will go to about 750,000 who have already lost their homes to foreclosure. That’s about $2,000 each.

Who’s included?

• The entire settlement—including this foreclosure cash restitution payment—applies only to mortgages held by the five biggest home mortgage holders and their subsidiaries: Bank of America, Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan Chase, Ally Financial/GMAC and Citi. To contact these banks to find out if your mortgage is included, go to the special website for this settlement for their toll-free phone numbers and websites. (See the right column, under “Settlement Parties.”)
• Your home must have been “finally sold or taken in foreclosure between and including January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011.”
• One state–Oklahoma—did not join in this settlement, so foreclosed homeowners in Oklahoma are not eligible for this payment.

 What are the conditions for receiving the money?

• Although one section of the settlement website states that there’s “no requirement to prove financial harm,” the Executive Summary on the same website adds that eligible borrowers are those “who were not properly offered loss mitigation or who were otherwise improperly foreclosed on.” Sounds like some showing of improper servicing or foreclosure behavior by the bank will be required, without a need to prove that this behavior necessarily caused you financial harm. But exactly what information or evidence will be required is not clear yet.  
• What is clear is that former homeowners will not need to release any potential claims against their mortgage holder in order to receive the money. The payment received would, however, be credited as an offset against any such other claim against the bank.

What’s the procedure and timetable?

• Within about 90 days, a Settlement Administrator will be selected “to administer the distribution of cash to individual borrowers.”
• Over the following six to nine months, that Administrator will work with the banks to identify the eligible former homeowners, and send out letters to them to apply for the payment.
• If you are concerned about the Administrator having your current address, you should contact your Attorney General’s Office to have it send your address to the Administrator.
• The amount to be distributed to each foreclosed homeowner will depend on how many people qualify and apply. And since the $1.5 billion or so pool of money paid by the banks towards these for payments also pays for “all the costs and expenses of the Administrator,” that reduces what will be available for the homeowners. (The actual amount of the pool, by the way, is actually exactly $1,489,813,925.00—I do not know the reason for that odd amount!).

The National Mortgage Settlement's Actual Terms Finally Released

The settlement documents of the deal that was announced more than a month ago were finally completed and filed at court on Monday, March 12. They catalog page after page of serious wrongdoing by the banks in their servicing of mortgages and processing of foreclosures.

In my last blog I said that the settlement would be finalized and made public “any day now.” It actually happened only hours later.

The settlement documents consist of hundreds of pages, but I’ll make it easy for you.

One document talks about the past, the wrongdoing by the banks. That’s the Complaint. The plaintiffs are the United States, 49 of the 50 states (all except Oklahoma), and the District of Columbia; the defendants are five of the biggest banks—Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi, and Ally/GMAC, and their subsidiaries, totaling 18 named defendants. This 99-page Complaint is the subject of today’s blog.

The rest of the documents—one Consent Judgment for each of the five banks—talk about the agreed penalties for the banks’ past wrongdoing, but mostly focus on the future: 1) where the money from those penalties is going to be spent; and 2) the new standards by which these banks are now required to service mortgages and process foreclosures.  In my next blog I’ll talk about these penalties, and how they are supposed to help homeowners who have been hurt by the banks.

To say that the Complaint is 99 pages long is misleading, because it actually ends on page 48, followed by signature pages for each of the 51 plaintiffs. And In fact the document doesn’t really get to the point until the Factual Allegation starting on page 21. The detailed litany of bank misconduct goes on relentlessly for the following 16 pages, totaling 55 paragraphs of allegations, some including many subparagraphs of even more detailed allegations. It’s difficult to do justice to all this in one blog. To try to show both the breadth and depth of the alleged misconduct, I’ll give you most of the Complaint’s outline of the types of wrongdoing, and one or two examples quoted under each one:

A. The Banks’ Servicing Misconduct

            1. The Banks’ Unfair, Deceptive, and Unlawful Servicing Processes

Failing to timely and accurately apply payments made by borrowers and failing to maintain accurate account statements; imposing force-placed insurance without properly notifying the borrowers and when borrowers already had adequate coverage.

             2. The Banks’ Unfair, Deceptive, and Unlawful Loan Modification and Loss       Mitigation Processes

Providing false or misleading information to consumers while initiating foreclosures where the borrower was in good faith actively pursuing a loss mitigation alternative offered by the Bank; miscalculating borrowers’ eligibility for loan modification programs and improperly denying loan modification relief to eligible borrowers.

   3. Wrongful Conduct Related to Foreclosures

Preparing, executing, notarizing or presenting false and misleading documents, filing false and misleading documents with courts and government agencies, or otherwise using false or misleading documents as part of the foreclosure process (including, but not limited to affidavits, declarations, certifications, substitutions of trustees, and assignments).

 B. The Banks’ Origination Misconduct

   1. Unfair and Deceptive Origination Practices

In the course of their origination of mortgage loans in the Plaintiff States, the Banks have engaged in a pattern of unfair and deceptive practices. Among other consequences, these practices caused borrowers in the Plaintiff States to enter into unaffordable mortgage loans that led to increased foreclosures in the States.

 C. The Banks’ Bankruptcy-Related Misconduct

Making representations that were inaccurate, misleading, false, or for which the Banks, at the time, did not have a reasonable basis to make, including without limitation representations contained in proofs of claim under 11 U.S.C. § 501, motions for relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362, or other documents.

 D. Violation of Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)

The Banks foreclosed upon mortgages without required court orders on properties that were owned by service members who, at the time, were on military service or were otherwise protected by the SCRA.

 The 55 paragraphs of wrongdoing resulted in these five banks agreeing to pay about $26 billion in a combination of cash and other forms, to the states and to individual homeowners. As I said, I’ll tell you how this is supposed to be divvied up in my next blog.  

The Terms of the Month-Old $26 Billion National Mortgage Settlement Are, Still, . . . "Coming Soon"

The settlement announced on Feb. 9 has been publicly released so far only in a broad outline of its terms. Any day now the actual agreement will be finalized and filed at court. In the meantime here are some tantalizing tidbits.

More than a month has passed since the announcement of the long-awaited mortgage settlement by the state attorneys general and the federal government with the five largest mortgage loan servicers. A special website, set up by the Attorneys General on the Executive Committee that negotiated the settlement, provides a 4-page “Settlement Fact Sheet” and also a “Settlement Executive Summary” of similar length. This website also provides some other possibly helpful information like the phone numbers for the loan servicers involved and the address, phone number and website of each state’s attorney general. But none of that is going to get you very far in any practical way because in fact the details of the settlement are still being put into writing. The “National Mortgage Settlement” has in fact not quite been settled, at least not in detail. As the website says, it’s still “coming soon.”

It's worth reading the relatively short “Fact Sheet” and the “Executive Summary,” and to look through the rest of the website. Here are some aspects of the deal from those sources that may surprise you:

• Although 5 loan servicers are involved in this settlement, one stands out, Bank of America, because it is obligated to pay more than twice as much as any of the others. It’s expected to pay (through a combination of cash payments, mortgage write-downs, and refinances) about $12 billion. Much of B of A’s financial exposure comes from its ownership of a huge portfolio of former Countrywide mortgages.
• The largest portion of the settlement funds—about $10 billion—will go towards reducing the principal balance of mortgages. The banks have been extremely resistant to principal reductions, and this settlement requires the largest reductions ever. However, the amount is still very small compared to the total amount of negative equity among these banks’ homeowners.
• In an effort to beef up the enforcement side of the settlement, an independent Monitor has been named who will have what at least sounds like significant powers to enforce a detailed set of new mortgage servicing standards. Penalties for violations will be up to $1 million per violation, and up to $5 million for some repeat violations.
• The mortgage servicers will receive credit for different efforts they make to help their homeowners. The banks will get credit for mortgage write-downs, but also partial credit for write-downs by investors on mortgages that the banks do not own but merely service, as well as for helpful actions banks are already taking like approving short-sales. The compromise was to provide as much benefit as possible to homeowners while giving banks some flexibility in earning credit for their efforts.

The effectiveness of this settlement will depend on how strongly the written agreement is drafted. I’ll provide practical information about this written agreement just as soon as it is filed at court, so please check back here again.

Special Protection for Your Co-Signers Under Chapter 13

Chapter 7 protects you and your assets with the automatic stay. Chapter 13 goes a big step further by also protecting your co-signers and their assets.

The first three chapters of the Bankruptcy Code—chapters 1, 3, and 5—include code sections that tend to apply to all of the bankruptcy options. In contrast, the code sections within chapters 7 and 13 apply only to cases filed under those chapters. Because the automatic stay—your protection from collection by creditors that kicks in as soon as your bankruptcy case is filed—applies to all bankruptcy cases, it is found in one of the earlier chapters of the code. It’s in chapter 3, section 362.

But the very first section of chapter 13—section 1301—also deals with the automatic stay, and adds another layer of protection that only applies to cases filed under Chapter 13.

The core of section 1301 states that once a Chapter 13 case is filed, “a creditor may not act, or commence or continue any civil action, to collect all or any part of a consumer debt of the debtor from any other individual that is liable on such debt with the debtor.”

This means that a creditor on a consumer debt, who is already stopped by the general automatic stay provisions of section 362 from doing anything to collect a debt directly from the debtor, is also stopped from collecting on the same debt from anybody else who is co-signed or otherwise also obligated to pay that debt.

If you think about it, that’s rather powerful. You are given the ability to protect somebody—often somebody your really care about—who is not filing bankruptcy and so is not even directly in front of the court. The person being protected may not even know that you are protecting them from the creditor.

This “co-debtor” protection does have some important conditions and limits:

1. It applies only to “consumer debts” (those “incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose”).

2. For purposes of this code section, income tax debts are not considered “consumer debts.” So spouses on jointly filed tax returns or business associates with whom you share a tax liability are NOT protected.

3. This protection does not extend to those who “became liable on... such debt in the ordinary course of such individual’s business.”

4. Creditors can ask for and get permission to pursue the otherwise protected co-debtor to the extent that:

(a)  the co-debtor received the benefit of the loan or whatever “consideration” was provided by the creditor (instead of the person filing the bankruptcy), or

(b)  the Chapter 13 plan “proposes not to pay such claim.”

5. This co-debtor stay evaporates as soon as the Chapter 13 case is completed, or if it’s dismissed (such as for failure to make the plan payments), or converted into a Chapter 7 case.

Choosing between Chapter 7 and 13 often involves weighing a series of considerations. If you want to insulate a co-signer or someone liable on a debt with you from any adverse consequences of your bankruptcy case, that is one consideration that will likely push you in the Chapter 13 direction because of the co-debtor stay.

Are You Eligible for Chapter 7? Chapter 13?

Eligibility can turn on 1) who is filing the bankruptcy, 2) the kinds and amounts of debts, 3) the amount of income, and 4) the amount of expenses.

1) Who is filing the bankruptcy:

If you are a human being (or a human being and his or her spouse), you can file either a Chapter 7 or 13 case.

If you are a part owner of a partnership or corporation, that partnership or corporation cannot file a Chapter 13 case. But it can file a Chapter 7 one. And it can do so whether or not you also file one individually.

2) The kinds and amounts of debts:

If you have “primarily consumer debts” (more than 50% by dollar amount), then you have to pass the “means test” to be allowed to be in a Chapter 7 case. (More about that below.)

Chapter 7 has no restriction on the amount of debt allowed. In contrast, Chapter 13 is restricted to cases with a maximum of $360,475 in unsecured debts and $1,081,400 in secured debts.

3) Amount of income:

The “means test” in Chapter 7 is quickly satisfied if your income is no more than the published “median income” for your family size and state.

Chapter 13 requires “regular income,” which is defined in somewhat circular fashion to be income “sufficiently stable and regular” to enable you to “make payments under a [Chapter 13] plan.” Also, if the income is less than the “median income” applicable to your family size and state, then the plan will generally last three years; if the income is at the applicable “median income” amount or more, the plan will last five years.

4) The amount of expenses:

In Chapter 7, if you are not below “median income,” then you enter into a largely mathematical test involving your expenses to see if you pass the “means test” and are eligible for filing a Chapter 7 case.

In Chapter 13, a similar calculation largely determines the amount you must pay monthly into your plan to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 13.

 

Choosing between Chapter 7 and 13 can often be very simple and obvious. But there are at least a dozen major differences among them, ones that you may well not be aware of. So when you come in to see me or another attorney, be clear about your goals but also open-minded about how to reach them. You may well have tools available that you were not aware of.

Pre-Bankruptcy Tax Strategies

Get the maximum benefit from your bankruptcy against your taxes by following these sophisticated strategies.

Pre-bankruptcy planning to position a debtor in the best way for discharging or for otherwise favorably dealing with tax debts is one of the more complicated tasks handled by a bankruptcy attorney. Do NOT attempt these strategies, including the five mentioned here, without an attorney, indeed frankly without an attorney who focuses his or her law practice on bankruptcy. Elsewhere in this website I make clear that you cannot take anything in this website, including what I write in these blogs, as legal advice. That’s especially true in this very sophisticated area. Also, I could write a chapter in a book on each of these five strategies, so all I’m doing here is introducing you to them, to begin the discussion when you come in to see me.

1^st:  Wait out the appropriate legal periods before the filing of your bankruptcy case.

As you may know from elsewhere in these blogs, most (but not all) forms of income tax become dischargeable after the passing of specific periods of time. Much of pre-bankruptcy tax strategy turns on figuring out precisely when each of your tax liabilities will become dischargeable, and then either waiting to file bankruptcy until all those liabilities are dischargeable, or, when under serious time pressure to file, at least when the maximum amount will be discharged as is possible under the circumstances.

2^nd:  File past-due returns to start the clock running on those as soon as possible.

If you know you owe taxes for prior years and don’t have the money to pay them, your gut feeling may well be to avoid filing those tax returns in an attempt to “fly under the radar” as long as you can. But irrespective of any other rules, you cannot discharge a tax debt until two years after the pertinent tax return has been filed. Get good advice about how to deal with the IRS or other taxing authority during those two years so that you take appropriate steps to protect yourself and your assets. You deserve a rational basis for getting beyond your understandable fears about this.

3^rd:  Try to stay in compliance with the new tax year(s) while you wait to file your bankruptcy case, by designating tax payments to the more recent tax years instead of older ones.

Because recent tax year tax liabilities cannot be discharged in a Chapter 7 case and must be paid in full as a priority debt in a Chapter 13 case, you want to try to stay current on your most recent tax debts. It’s also usually a necessary step in keeping the IRS and its ilk from taking aggressive action against you, thus allowing you to wait longer and discharge more taxes. With the IRS in particular you can and should explicitly designate which tax account any particular tax payments are to be applied to achieve this purpose.

4^th:  Avoid tax fraud and evasion, and whenever possible, withholding taxes.

Simply put, you can’t ever discharge any taxes related to fraud, fraudulent tax returns, or tax evasion, so avoid these kinds of illegal behavior. If you have any doubt, talk to a knowledgeable tax accountant or attorney. Unpaid tax withholdings also cannot be discharged, so either try to avoid them from accruing, focus your resources on paying them off, or just recognize that they will either have to be paid after your Chapter 7 case or as a priority debt during your Chapter 13 case.

5^th:  Be aware of tax liens.

Tax lien claims have to be paid in full in Chapter 13, with interest, and can survive a Chapter 7 discharge. So try to avoid having the taxing authority record a tax lien against you—admittedly sometimes easier said than done. Or if that is not possible, at least refrain from building up equity in possessions or real estate. That equity, although often exempt from the clutches of the bankruptcy trustee and most creditors, is still subject to a tax lien. So any built up equity just increases what you will have to pay to the taxing authority on debt you might otherwise been able to discharge completely.

To Win the Chapter 13 Tax Prize, You Have to Finish the Race

A Chapter 13 case can be such a good tool for dealing with income tax debt, especially if you owe more than just a year or two of taxes. BUT, you lose those benefits if you don’t successfully finish paying off the Chapter 13 plan. So, go into it only if you have both a burning desire to make it all the way and a truly feasible plan with which to do so.

Chapter 13 often enables you to tame the tax debt beast in a very tidy package. Often you can discharge (write off) some of your tax debts, and pay substantially less on the taxes you must pay, by avoiding or reducing interest and penalties. And you can usually do all this while paying less per month and while being protected from all the nasty collection mechanisms in the tax authorities’ arsenal.

However, the truth that you need to keep in the front and center of your mind is that it’s all conditional: you don’t get the prize until the end of the race. And if you don’t get to the end of the race, no prize for you. The prize is the discharge—the discharge of the debts for the tax years that can be discharged, and of the interest and penalties that you would owe if you weren’t in a Chapter 13 case. You have to get through the whole race--pay your plan payments as scheduled and meet the other requirements of your plan (such as sending yearly tax returns to your trustee, and keeping current on any ongoing child or spousal support payments).

Now this doesn’t mean that your Chapter 13 case is inflexible. Depending on the situation, an experienced attorney will likely be able to build some flexibility into the terms of your original plan. Or if your circumstances change, your plan can usually be amended accordingly.

But look at it this way: the IRS and any other tax authorities are put on hold and have to accept the reductions and the write-offs while your Chapter 13 case is proceeding. But in the background they continue tracking what you would owe—including accrued interest and penalties--if you weren’t in a Chapter 13 case.  If at any time during your case you do not comply with the terms of your plan and, after appropriate warnings, your case gets dismissed (thrown out), leaving the tax authorities no longer be prevented from chasing you. At that time all those taxes, interest and penalties that your Chapter 13 case would have avoided would come roaring back at you.

This is something you want to avoid at all cost. How do you avoid getting your Chapter 13 dismissed?

• Be fully engaged in the process of putting your Chapter 13 plan together at the beginning of your case, so that you understand its terms and truly believe that you can consistently comply with them.
• Keep track of your progress throughout your case, both to stay motivated and to catch any potential problems early.
• Inform your attorney if your financial circumstances change, whether they improve, so that you can account for increased disposable income, or if they deteriorate, so that you can reduce your required plan payments or take other appropriate action.