Anticipated Amendments to Bankruptcy Rules Require Changes to Claims Filing Procedures

The US Supreme Court recently authorized a number of significant changes to the procedural rules applicable to bankruptcy proceedings. Absent Congressional intervention, which appears unlikely, the new rules will take effect on December 1, 2017. The amendments will most impact creditors dealing with consumer debtors in Chapter 13 cases, creating new deadlines for filing proofs of claim and allowing debtors to prosecute challenges to secured creditor claims through the plan submission and confirmation process. Some of the more significant changes are:

• Adoption of an “official” Chapter 13 Plan. The new rules provide for an “official,” standardized Chapter 13 Plan. Under amended Rule 3015(c), debtors will need to use the “official” form unless their jurisdiction has adopted its own local form, which must itself include the information outlined in Rule 3015.1. Among other things, Rule 3015.1 will require local form Chapter 13 Plans to include a paragraph requiring the debtor to highlighting any nonstandard plan provisions, provisions that limit any secured creditor’s claim to the value of its collateral, or provisions that seek to avoid a lien on the debtor’s real or personal property.
• Required Notice for Chapter 13 Confirmation Hearings and Objections to Confirmation. Rule 2002 has been amended to establish definitive notice provisions in Chapter 13 cases. A new subsection (2002(a)(9)) will require the debtor to provide creditors with at least 21 days’ notice of the deadline for objecting to Chapter 13 Plans. Another new subsection (2002)(b))(3)) calls for 28 days’ notice of the confirmation hearing in Chapter 13 cases.
• Proofs of Claim. The amendments will also alter the procedures for filing proofs of claim. Specifically:

• Rule 3002 is amended to clarify that secured creditors must file proofs of claim to have their claims allowed. (However, the Rule makes clear that a secured creditor’s claim will not be rendered void if it chooses not to file a proof of claim.)
• Rule 3002(c) makes changes to the periods for calculating the claims bar deadline in Chapter 7 (liquidation), 12 (family farmer), and 13 (individual debt readjustment) cases. For those types of cases, the deadline for filing a proof of claim will be reduced. Whereas the current Rule requires proofs of claim to be filed within 90 days after the initial §341 meeting of creditors, the revised Rule will require creditors to file their proofs of claim within seventy (70) days after the bankruptcy petition filing date.
• When a case is converted to a case under Chapter 12 or 13, the new, 70-day period for filing proofs of claim will run from the date of the court’s order converting the case. If a case is converted to a case under Chapter 7, a new time period for filing claims will begin running.
• Amended Rule 3002(c)(6) will allow the Bankruptcy Court to extend any proof of claim deadline if the debtor has failed to file a complete list of his/her creditors.
• New Rule 3002(c))(7) establishes a 2-stage deadline for filing mortgage proofs of claim where the claim is secured by an interest in the debtor’s principal residence.

• Claims Objections. Rule 3012, as amended, provides that any party-in-interest may seek a determination of the amount and priority of any claim. Moreover, in a departure from current practice, the amended Rule will permit plan proponents in Chapter 12 and Chapter 13 cases to include objections to the amount and/or priority of claims in the body of the Plan. Rule 3007, as amended, will require that a party objecting to a proof of claim must serve the affected creditor by first-class mail directed to the name and address indicated on the filed proof of claim form. Under amended Rule 3007, the Bankruptcy Court will no longer be required to schedule or hold a hearing on every claim objection.
• Objections to Liens or Transfers of Exempt Property.  Consistent with revised Rule 3012, amended Rule 4003(d) will allow a request to avoid a lien or other transfer of the debtor’s exempt property to be made either by motion or in the debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan.

Again, these changes to the Bankruptcy Rules are scheduled to take effect on December 1, 2017. Creditors should become familiar with the new requirements and begin developing internal procedures as necessary to ensure compliance. 

Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court Confirms that Chapter 13 Debtors May “Strip Off” Second Mortgages

Recently in In re Guerra, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts joined the majority of courts in finding that United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bankof Am. v. Caulkett does not affect a chapter 13 debtor’s ability to strip off a second mortgage.  In Caulkett, the Supreme Court held that a debtor in a chapter 7 bankruptcy may not void a junior mortgage lien under 11 U.S.C. § 506(d) when the debt owed on a senior mortgage lien exceeds the current value of the collateral. 

Prior to Caulkett, it was well established in the First Circuit that a chapter 13 debtor could “strip off” a wholly unsecured mortgage.  In the chapter 13 plan context, “strip off” means discharging a creditor’s junior mortgage on real property where the junior mortgage has no value because the amount of senior liens and encumbrances exceeds the value of the property. 

In Guerra, the debtors sought to strip off a second mortgage through their chapter 13 plan. Under the chapter 13 plan, the second mortgage was treated as a wholly unsecured claim subject to discharge under 11 U.S.C § 1328(a).  The second mortgage holder objected and argued that Caulkett prohibits the debtor from treating an “underwater” second mortgage as unsecured. 

The Bankruptcy Court disagreed with the junior mortgage holder and concluded that Caulkett had no effect on the interpretation of the interplay between §§ 506(a) and 1322(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.  As such, the ability to strip off and discharge a wholly unsecured mortgage lien in a chapter 13 plan remains an option for debtors. 

The junior mortgage holder also argued that its lien couldn’t be stripped because (according to its appraisal) the value of the property had increased during the 15+ months since the filing of the bankruptcy case, to the point where there was now enough value to recoup at least some of the second mortgage debt.  In other words, the second mortgage claim wasn’t “wholly unsecured.”  That argument didn’t work either.  For a variety of reasons, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that for lien stripping purposes, a mortgaged property should be valued at the outset of the case.  Because there was apparently no dispute that the mortgaged property was worth less than the balance outstanding on the first mortgage when the case was filed, the Court concluded that the second mortgage claim was completely underwater as of the petition date, and that the debtors’ chapter 13 plan could therefore strip the second mortgage lien and treat that claim as unsecured.

As “strip off” is still an option for debtors, in order to protect their security interest, junior creditors should be mindful of debtor estimates of value in their petition and schedules, which could tee up a chapter 13 plan to strip junior liens.   

Bodie B. Colwell practices as an associate with Preti Flaherty's Bankruptcy, Creditors’ Rights and Business Restructuring group from the Portland office. She focuses on supporting bankruptcy, insolvency, and creditors’ rights clients.

Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court Finds that Debtor Can Claim an Exemption in Her Home Even if She Does Not Live There

In a recent decision, the bankruptcy court for the District of Massachusetts found that a debtor who had not lived at a property for over 30 years could still claim an exemption in that property, even though her principal residence was elsewhere.

The debtor owned a one-half remainder interest in property occupied by her elderly parents. On her Schedule C, she claimed an exemption in the property in the whole value of her interest, $14,945.29 under § 522(I) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Chapter 7 Trustee objected to the debtor’s claim of exemption and argued that because neither the debtor nor her dependents resided at the property, she could not properly claim an exemption.

At hearing, the Debtor testified that she had not lived in the property for over 30 years and that her parents lived there. The debtor further testified that she lived in another town because of a medical condition and that it was her intention to move to and live at the property permanently when her medical condition permitted.

Noting that there are several cases holding that a debtor can have more than one “residence” for federal exemption purposes, the bankruptcy court found that the debtor’s intent to eventually live at the property, along with her testimony that she was often there to care for her parents and regularly stayed overnight at the property, was there to care for her parents and kept items at the property, was sufficient for the debtor to claim an exemption in the property.

This case is similar to In re Denker-Youngs, which was discussed on this blog last summer. In that case, the bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of New York found that a debtor who was ordered to vacate his home could still claim an exemption in the property. Like that case, the bankruptcy court for the District of Massachusetts gave weight to the debtor’s intent and her testimony that she intended to return to the property as soon as she was able.

Bodie B. Colwell practices as an associate with Preti Flaherty's Bankruptcy, Creditors’ Rights and Business Restructuring group from the Portland office. She focuses on supporting bankruptcy, insolvency, and creditors’ rights clients.

Trustee Lacks Standing to Assert Legal Malpractice Claims on Behalf of Debtors

The Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court (Panos, J.) dismissed an adversarial proceeding complaint brought against debtor’s counsel which alleged legal malpractice. The trustee alleged that debtor’s counsel committed malpractice and asserted that the legal malpractice claims are assets of the bankruptcy estate. Debtor’s counsel moved to dismiss. After a hearing, the Court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the alleged malpractice claims were not property of the bankruptcy estate and that the trustee therefore lacked standing to assert them.

In the adversarial complaint, the trustee alleged that because debtor’s counsel failed to instruct his client to record a declaration of homestead, the debtor was only able to claim a Massachusetts homestead exemption in the amount of $125,000. Had a declaration of homestead been recorded prepetition, the debtor would have been able to claim a $500,000 exemption, which would have immunized him from a judgment obtained by the bankruptcy trustee. The trustee further claimed that by converting the case from a chapter 13 to a chapter 7 bankruptcy rather than having the matter dismissed and re-filed, the debtor missed an opportunity to have additional debt discharged.

In addressing the issue of the homestead claim, the Court ruled that the trustee lacked standing to bring his claim where the claims are not property of the estate but rather post-petition property. The Court noted that Section 541(a)(1) provides that commencing a bankruptcy case “creates an estate [that includes] all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case." Therefore, until the debtor filed his chapter 13 petition, no purported malpractice had yet accrued where no harm had yet been suffered by the failure to record the declaration of homestead. Accordingly, the claim did not exist until after the estate was created and therefore was post-petition property belonging to the debtor.

Moving on to the claim arising from the conversion of the case from a chapter 13 to a chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the Court similarly held that the claim was also not the property of the estate. Here, the Court found that the negligence which occurred during the pendency of the bankruptcy case logically could not have existed before the bankruptcy case commenced. Therefore, the earliest this claim could have accrued was upon conversion. Consequently, the Court held that “this was not a claim rooted in any way in the pre-bankruptcy past” and that the harmed caused by the malpractice “is entangled with [the debtor’s] ability to make a fresh start.” The Court therefore concluded that the trustee lacked standing to pursue the legal malpractice claim.

This case should remind practitioners to carefully consider the issue of standing whenever analyzing an adversarial proceeding claim. It also serves as a good reminder to all counsel that homeowners should record a declaration of homestead to be eligible take advantage of the heightened exemption amount available under Massachusetts law if things go south.

Matthew Libby is an associate in Preti Flaherty's Litigation Group, practicing from the firm's Boston office. He represents clients in commercial litigation and bankruptcy matters.

Court Finds that Parents Convicted of Ponzi Scheme Received Value from Tuition Payments

Do parents receive something of value when they pay for their child to attend college? The Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court (Hoffman, J.) recently considered this exact question in DeGiamcomo v. Sacred Heart University, Inc., AP No. 15-01126 (August 10, 2016). In this case, after the debtor’s parents were convicted of investment fraud for operating a Ponzi scheme, a Chapter 7 trustee attempted to avoid and recover over $60,0000 in tuition payments made to an area college as fraudulent transfers under Bankruptcy Code § 548(a)(1)(B) and the Massachusetts Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 109A. 

The trustee asserted that the “Ponzi scheme presumption” should have been applied, where, as the trustee claimed, the parents were insolvent at the time of the transfers and “received no reasonably equivalent value” from the college. The Ponzi scheme presumption is applicable where “the existence of a Ponzi scheme establishes that transfers were made with the intent to hinder, delay and defraud creditors.” Picard v. Merkin (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec., LLC), 440 B.R. 243, 255 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010). The Court, however, rejected the trustee’s argument and applied a more narrow view of the presumption. The Court held that only transfers made in furtherance of the Ponzi scheme are subject to the presumption of fraudulent intent. Otherwise, the Court reasoned, funds spent buying groceries, payment medical bills, or supporting children would be subject to a trustee’s claw back.

Turning to the question of whether or not the debtor parents received any “value” for making tuition payments on behalf of their child, the Court noted that other jurisdictions have split on the issue: some holding that there is a “societal expectation that parents will assist” with college payments and denying attempts at a claw back, while other jurisdictions have held that tuition payments were avoidable where the parents had no legal obligation to pay the tuition. Here, the Court determined that the debtor parents did indeed receive something of value for the tuition payments other than mere “ethereal or emotional rewards.” The Court held that “[a] parent can reasonably assume that paying for a child to obtain an undergraduate degree will enhance the financial well-being of the child, which in turn will confer an economic benefit on the parent.” This “quid pro quo” was enough for the Court to deny the trustee’s attempt to claw back the tuition payments and enter summary judgment in favor of the college. 

As an interesting side note to the case, after the trustee appealed the ruling, the Bankruptcy Court Judge Hoffman filed a statement requesting direct appeal to the First Circuit. Assuming the First Circuit takes the appeal, we will see if the First Circuit agrees with the Bankruptcy Court’s analysis.

Debtor May Still Claim Homestead Exemption Even If He Was Kicked Out

The bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of New York found that a debtor who was ordered to vacate his home could still claim an exemption in the property. In a divorce proceeding several months prior to the bankruptcy filing, the debtor’s spouse had been granted exclusive occupancy of the home and the debtor was barred from entering the property. At the time of the bankruptcy filing, the debtor was prohibited by the state court order from residing at the property.   The chapter 7 trustee objected to the debtor’s homestead exemption and argued that because the debtor’s voter registration, driver’s license, tax returns and bankruptcy petition listed a different address, the debtor could not claim the homestead exemption. The bankruptcy court found that the state court order did not prevent the debtor from claiming a homestead exemption because the debtor had intended to occupy the property and was forced to leave by the state court order. The bankruptcy court also noted that the debtor’s failure to change his address was not sufficient to “undercut the Debtor’s claim of homestead exemption.”  In reaching its conclusion, the bankruptcy court gave weight to the debtor’s intent and his testimony that he considered the property his principal residence. The bankruptcy court stated that “the record reflects that, as is typical in a marriage, the Debtor considered [the marital property], where he resided with his spouse, and which they owned together, to be his principal residence, and only left the [martial property] when forced to do so by the [divorce occupancy order].” (In re Denker-Youngs, Case No. 15-41069 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y June 2, 2016)) Bodie B. Colwell practices as an associate with Preti Flaherty's Bankruptcy, Creditors’ Rights and Business Restructuring group from the Portland office. She focuses on supporting bankruptcy, insolvency, and creditors’ rights clients.