|
 |
THE CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY LETTER
|
|
|
In This Issue:
|
Jan. 19, 2004
|
|
|
|
•
|
King's FEES & ETHICS IN CONSUMER BK CASES
|
|
|
|
•
|
BUSINESS PROPERTY CANNOT BE REDEEMED
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
CREDIT CARD DEBT AT RECORD LEVELS
|
|
|
|
•
|
THE 116 BEST BANKRUPTCY WEB SITES
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
FAIR AND ACCURATE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
The One-Stop site for Consumer Bankruptcy Lawyers
Books / Software / Periodicals
FEATURED -
King's FEES & ETHICS IN CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY CASES
This is the only book on these sensitive subjects written for lawyers who regularly represent debtors in consumer and small business bankruptcy cases. Protect and enhance your compensation . . . shield yourself from ethical problems, disgorgement orders and unfair fee restrictions. Recover lost revenue and hidden costs. Contents:
The law of compensation explained - Surveys of billing rates and billing practices around the country - Sample fee applications and motions; Recoverable costs - Retainer agreements . . . what's proper, what's not. - Traps for the unwary, and how to avoid them - History, public policy and case law on compensation of the debtor's bar.
_____________________
King's DISCHARGING TAXES IN BANKRUPTCY ed. 2000
5th ed. • 915 pages • 75 exhibits and checklists • over 1,000 cases cited • indexed $95 - 2002 Supplement available, plus Gold's Tax Discharge Chronometer
This book has been called "the bible" for discharging taxes in consumer bankruptcy cases. Used by thousands of lawyers, trustees, judges and other tax professionals across the country, it explains in simple yet comprehensive terms what kinds of taxes can be erased, when they can be erased, and how they can be erased in chapter 7, 13, or 11. It covers all the issues and traps for the unwary. This book is even used by revenue officers!
Says Ike Shulman, former President of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, "Every serious bankruptcy practitioner should have this book!"
________________________
OTHER POPULAR TITLES -
King, Discharging Taxes in Bankruptcy with 2002 supplement $135
King, Marketing A Consumer Bankruptcy Practice $89
King, Chapter 7 Law & Practice $129.50
King, Chaper 13 Law & Practice $129.50
King, Fees & Ethics in Consumer Bankruptcy Cases $79.95
NCLC, Consumer Bankruptcy Law & Practice $140
James Pub, Bankruptcy Courts & Procedures $110
Aspen, Basic Bankruptcy Law For Paralegals $79.95
Aspen, Automatic Stay Litigation $195
Juris, Fundamentals of Bankruptcy & Corporate Reorganization $80.75
CD TimeValue, TValue5 Interest Calculator $149.00
CD Gold, Tax Discharge Chronometer $139.00
CD Collier TopForm Bankruptcy System $700
OVER 100 SELECTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM
|
|
|
|
|
THE FAIR AND ACCURATE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS ACT OF 2003
On December 4, 2003, President Bush signed into law H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"). It appears in the statute books as amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is at 15 United States Code §1681 et seq.
The Act is designed to protect consumers from identity theft and to provide consumers with the tools necessary to ensure the accuracy of their credit reports.
FACTA gives consumers access to their credit scores and gives each consumer one (1) free credit report per year. Congress delegated implementation and regulation to two administrative agencies, the Federal Reserve Board (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System) and the Federal Trade Commission, and by February 4, 2004, they are to jointly determine when each provision of the Act shall be effective, which shall be no later than December 4, 2004.
The legislation creates a national fraud alert system to simplify consumers' ability to report fraudulent activity, and enacts a number of protections for consumers' personal information.
___________________
BANKRUPTCY RULES HEARING CANCELLED
The January 30, 2004 Washington, DC hearing on the proposed bankruptcy rules has been cancelled due to the fact that there were no requests to testify or appear in person.
Written comments on the proposed rules are still being accepted up to February 16th.
SOURCE: CLLA.org
|
|
|
|
|
Where a fraudulently transferred asset appreciates in value after the transfer, the appreciated value can be recovered.
In re Integra Realty Resources, Inc., (10th Cir. 2004)
______________________
A debtor with large law school debts who suffered from major depressive disorders was entitled to an undue hardship discharge even though she had disposable income sufficient to repay a substantial part of the debt. The court found that the mere existence of the debt contributed materially to the debtor's mental illness and it was unlikely she could recover unless the debt was eliminated.
In re Reynolds (N.D.Minn. 2004)
_______________________
Debtor prohibited from redeeming tools intended primarily for business use.
The right of redemption is available for property that constitutes consumer goods. Property held primarily for business purposes cannot be redeemed. In re Runski, 102 F.3d 744 (4th Cir. 1996). The statute contemplates that property may be held or used partly for a consumer purpose and partly for a business purpose. In that event, it is only if the property is intended “primarily” for personal, family, or household use that redemption is available.
In re Jones (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill. 2004)
_______________________
The following information must be included in a complaint to avoid preferential transfers in order to survive a motion to dismiss: (a) an identification of the nature and amount of each antecedent debt and (b) an identification of each alleged preference transfer by (i) date, (ii) name of debtor/transferor, (iii) name of transferee and (iv) the amount of the transfer.
In re Valley Media, Inc. (Bkrtcy. Del. 2004)
_______________________
U.S. SUPREME COURT -
Supreme Court hears argument re: Allowance of Partnership Tax Assessment Claim in Bankruptcy of Individual Partners.
The issue in this case is whether an IRS claim for unpaid partnership taxes are valid claims in the bankruptcy files of the individual partners when those partners were not named in the IRS assessments.
Abel and Sarah Galletti and Francesco and Angela Briguglio (the Debtors) were general partners of Marina Cabrillo Partners (the Partnership). The IRS assessed deficiencies against the Partnership for unpaid federal employment taxes for years 1992 to 1995. The Gallettis and the Briguglios each filed joint Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions in 1999. The IRS attempted to file claims in each of the proceedings for the unpaid tax assessments of the Partnership. The Debtors objected, asserting that they were not personally liable for the Partnership's tax claims because the IRS had not named them in the assessment, and that the three-year statute of limitation had run, thus barring the IRS from assessing tax deficiencies against the individual partners for the tax debts of the Partnership. The United States Bankruptcy Court sustained the Debtors objections. The IRS appealed and the United States District Court for the Central District of California affirmed the judgment in favor of the Debtors. After the IRS appealed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the IRS' claims were properly disallowed under Bankruptcy law due to the IRS failure to name the partners as liable taxpayers for the Partnership's debts. Thus, the IRS may not collect against the partners for the Partnership's tax debts. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit held that the three-year statute of limitations had run, thus barring the IRS from filing individual tax assessments or obtaining judgments against the partners for the Partnership's tax debts.
On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the IRS argues that derivative taxes owed by the partnership may be collected from each defendant without making a separate accounting for each named defendant. [Summarized by Misty Willits.]
United States v. Galetti
Argued: 01/12/04
Court below: 314 F.3d 336 (9th Cir. 2002)
________________
U.S SUPREME COURT -
Held: A debtor forfeits the right to rely on Rule 4004 if the debtor does not raise the Rule's time limitation before the bankruptcy court reaches the merits of the creditor's objection to discharge.
This case concerns the duration of a right to object to a pleading on the ground that it was filed out of time. Under the Bankruptcy Rules governing Chapter 7 liquidation proceedings, a creditor has "60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors" to file a complaint objecting to the debtor's discharge. Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 4004(a). That period may be extended "for cause" on motion "filed before the time has expired." Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 4004(b). In the matter before us a creditor, in an untimely pleading, objected to the debtor's discharge. The debtor, however, did not promptly move to dismiss the creditor's plea as impermissibly late. Only after the Bankruptcy Court decided, on the merits, that the discharge should be refused did the debtor, in a motion for reconsideration, urge the untimeliness of the creditor's plea.
Kontrick v. Ryn, 02-819 (U.S. 2004)
Argued November 3, 2003 Decided January 14, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
