Nolo’s Bankruptcy & Foreclosure Blog

In an earlier post I warned that filing bankruptcy might make it more difficult to obtain a mortgage modification from Countrywide or other lenders while you are under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. I suggested that it might be a good idea to hold off on filing bankruptcy if at all possible until you see whether a foreclosure workout with your lender is possible.

On October 17, however, in a letter to all mortgage lenders who hold FHA-insured loans (HUD Mortagee Letter 2008-32), the Department of Housing and Urban Development has made it clear that loss-mitigation efforts should move forward despite the fact that the mortgagor is in bankruptcy.

While the HUD letter doesn't constrain holders of non-FHA insured mortgages such as Bank of America/Countrywide, these and other lenders will often follow HUD policies, making it likely that you won't miss out on a mortgage modification opportunity if you decide that filing bankruptcy is in your best interest.

Of course, it would make sense for you to contact your lender to see whether it will be following this new HUD policy or whether your bankruptcy will take you out of the running for a mortgage modification. It also makes sense for you to check with a HUD-certified housing counselor by calling 1-888-995-HOPE.

A reviewer of my new foreclosure book took me to task for underestimating how difficult it had become to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy under the 2005 bankruptcy legislation. Many people have this misconception. It's true that bankruptcy became more expensive, if you use an attorney -- attorney fees doubled under the new law in many parts of the country. And it's also true that there are a few additional hoops to jump through. However, self-help is a reasonable option for most bankruptcy filers and the new hoops are easily navigated.

Probably the biggest misconception is that many people are barred from Chapter 7 because their income is too high. The new bankruptcy law did make filing more difficult for people whose incomes exceeded the median income for their state, but only between 5% and 10% of would-be filers face this problem. All the others slide easily under the median income bar.

The new bankruptcy law did make it more difficult to get rid of some types of debts -- private commercial loans, recent credit card charges, and debts incurred in a divorce or separation decree -- but the vast majority of debts that could be discharged under the old law can continue to be discharged under the new law, including credit card and medical debt, deficiencies from foreclosures and repossessions, and bank loans.

Under the new law, filers have to undergo two mandatory counseling sessions -- one before and one after filing -- but these have not proven to be a barrier to filing, at least after an initial confusion due to ignorance of the new law. Also, the new law requires some additional documentation, such as tax returns, wage stubs, or bank records, but once again, virtually all filers can handle these items.

There are many things to consider when deciding whether to file bankruptcy, but you should not be misled into believing that it is no longer feasible. For almost all filers, the new bankruptcy is very much like the old bankruptcy -- an essentially administrative process in which you disclose information, appear for one brief meeting with the trustee, and wait for your discharge papers to arrive in the mail 60 days later.

On October 6, it was announced that Countrywide Financial has agreed to the largest program ever to modify (reduce) the principal and interest of home loans as part of a lawsuit settlement with officials in 11 states. This was followed several days later by the passage of the federal bailout bill, which contains language likely to also result in widespread loan modifications. In other words, if you have defaulted on your mortgage, or are likely to default in the near future, help may be on the way.

This raises an interesting question for homeowners who are contemplating filing bankruptcy: What effect will bankruptcy have on a homeowner's ability to participate in a lender's home loan modification program? While only time will tell for sure, here are two important points to consider.

First, when you file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy (the most common kind), the title to your home technically passes to your bankruptcy estate and is "owned" by the bankruptcy trustee -- the official appointed to handle your case. Countrywide is telling its homeowners that it won't consider them eligible for a modification while a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case is pending. So filing bankruptcy might take you out of the action just at the wrong time.

Even more problematic, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy typically cancels the promissory note portion of your mortgage along with your other debt. However, even if you don't owe anything on the mortgage itself, the lender will still have a lien on the property in the amount of the mortgage, and will be entitled to foreclose on that lien. In other words, even though you don't owe anything on the mortgage after bankruptcy, you'll still have to pay on it if you want to keep your house. Confusing? You betcha.

So, what's my point? If you don't owe anything on your house after your mortgage, you won't have a mortgage to modify, and it's unlikely that the new programs will offer modifications for liens remaining after bankruptcy. The only way to avoid this result is to offer to reaffirm the mortgage as part of your bankruptcy case (that is, agree to a new mortgage) and hope the lender agrees. As part of this process you can attempt to negotiate different terms for the new mortgage that would be similar to what you would otherwise get outside of the bankruptcy process.

Bankruptcy used to be a really good remedy for people facing foreclosure. However, in the brave new world of mass mortgage modifications, bankruptcy may foreclose your ability to partake of the manna from heaven pouring forth from our nation's mortgage lenders. For this reason, if you think you might qualify to have your mortgage modified, either by Countrywide or by your lender, strongly consider holding off on your Chapter 7 bankruptcy until you know which way the mortgage modification winds are blowing. For more information on whether you might qualify to have your mortgage modified, find a non-profit HUD-certified housing counselor by calling 1 888 995-HOPE.

The credit bubble is leaking furiously, as shown by skyrocketing foreclosure rates, but it hasn't popped yet. People keep borrowing more, and if they can't borrow on their home equity, they just run up the debt on their credit cards. And if people can't afford to pay their mortgage loans, you can bet they won't be able to pay down their credit cards, which generally have far steeper interest rates and penalties.

To borrow from Winston Churchill, it appears that foreclosures were not the beginning of the end of the credit crisis, but merely the end of the beginning.

Trends in earning, spending, and saving have pointed to a credit crisis for years. It may not end until an unprecedented wave of consumer and small business bankruptcies wipe away the debt that just can't be repaid. Personal bankruptcy rates are already rising -- there were 40% more in 2007 than in 2006, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute. There may come a day, not too far away, when millions of consumers will throw up their hands and walk away from their mountain of unsecured debt by declaring bankruptcy.

You can follow the credit bubble as it shifts and morphs its way through our financial institutions at http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases, where the Federal Reserve posts monthly reports that track the effects of the credit crisis on America's financial infrastructure.

If the flow of money is the fuel of American capitalism, then these reports are the fuel gauge. The Fed's unglamorous reports give us hard data on how much money is coursing through the American economy.

• Monthly G.19 Reports. These are the reports on consumer borrowing, both traditional loans (such as car loans) and "revolving debt," also known as credit cards. Each month, the Fed lists the total amount Americans have on our credit card bills. The amounts are staggering -- $968 billion in credit card debt, more than 7% higher than just last year -- and show no signs of shrinking. Read more at http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g19/.
• The "charge off" rate. This is the percent of loans, including credit card balances, that the lender has written off as uncollectible. The latest figures show that banks are giving up on 5.47% of the credit card amounts owed to them. This figure is the highest since the current bankruptcy law took effect, with the exception of a brief flurry of bankruptcies before the passage of the law. More information here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/chargeoff/.
• The savings rate. This data shows how much Americans are saving each year. It's been hovering between zero and 2% for five years: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PSAVERT. For other Fed research data on personal spending, see http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#personal.
• The bankruptcy filing rate. This data is kept by the US court system, updated monthly and can be found here: http://www.uscourts.gov/bnkrpctystats/statistics.htm.

You can get other important numbers and information from non-governmental sources, including:

• RealtyTrac, which offers one-stop shopping for the latest foreclosure statistics and news: http://www.realtytrac.com/news-trends/index.html
• InsideARM.com, which offers an excellent, well-organized archive of timely articles on economic data affecting the debt and credit industry. The link below is for Credit Card news, but be sure to hover your cursor over the News & Analysis link for a list of other areas you can search: http://www.insidearm.com/go/tags/credit%20card.

An article titled "Lose Homes, Pay More Tax" by Jonathan Glater, published in the May 30, 2008 edition of the New York Times, accurately described a little-known oddity of our tax laws (described in the article as a "tax bomb"). If a lender forgives or writes off debt (same thing), the amount forgiven can be treated as taxable income by the IRS. So, for instance, if you have a second home (not your primary residence) and you lose it to foreclosure or even a short sale, you will be taxed on the shortfall to the lender. Fortunately, loans made to acquire or improve primary residences are excluded from this rule for tax years 2007 through 2009.

What the Times article left out -- strangely, seeing as so many bankruptcy lawyers were quoted -- is that there are two exceptions to the tax bomb. If you are insolvent at the time of the debt forgiveness, you will also be forgiven your tax liability. And, here's the kicker: If you file bankruptcy prior to the debt forgiveness (read: foreclosure) the bankruptcy will not only hold off the foreclosure (at least temporarily), but also discharge the debt, so there's nothing to forgive and no income to tax.

Insolvency can be difficult to prove after the fact, but there is no doubt about the bankruptcy exception. Although many people shy away from bankruptcy, it can be a marvelous remedy when dealing with the possibility of foreclosure. It's beyond my comprehension why that point wasn't made.

An article on Newsweek's website asserts that chapter 7 bankruptcy filings are following an upward trend, with more and more people seeking bankruptcy protection, despite recent changes to the law making it more difficult to file. Readers of this blog will know that I advocate bankruptcy as a way to avoid foreclosure; according to Newsweek, filing bankruptcy to deal with an imminent foreclosure is one of the reasons for the boom:

In some cases struggling homeowners are filing to prevent foreclosure. (A record high 243,353 homes went into foreclosure in April, according to data released on May 14 by RealtyTrac.) Squeezed by rising costs for everyday necessities like gas and groceries and unable to tap into their homes for temporary relief -- declining values have left some people owing more than their homes are worth; it's also more difficult to get home equity lines of credit or loans -- many people have turned to their credit cards "as a last resort," says Robert Lawless, a professor of law at the University of Illinois who follows bankruptcy trends.

While digging the debt hole deeper seems like it might be a good idea in the short term, filing bankruptcy now will help you avoid the costly penalties that credit card companies will saddle you with as your balance goes ever-upward. If you're thinking of filing for chapter 7 bankruptcy, be sure to visit LegalConsumer.com, my co-blogger's website, to try out his free means test calculator. The calculator can quickly tell you whether you qualify for chapter 7 bankruptcy under the changes in the law that went into effect in early 2008.

On January 23, I wrote in this blog that people ought to use their rebate check to file bankruptcy. I pointed out that past attempts to stimulate the economy in this manner had pretty much failed, due to the fact that people used the money to pay down their debt, and that this time the loan sharks would gobble up most of the government's gifts hook, line, and sinker.

In an April 25, 2008 Associated Press article by Tom Raum, President Bush is reported to have said the money would help Americans cope with rising gasoline and food prices, as well as aid a slumping economy. According to the article, Sen Charles Schumer (D. N.Y) responded: "It's galling to think that taxpayers' stimulus checks will be lining the pockets of OPEC. The sad truth is that the average American family will spend almost their entire stimulus check on higher gas prices this year."

Let's say it like it is: George Bush (and, not so coincidentally, most of Congress) is giving their oil buddies a $150 billion tax rebate. It may be in your bank account for one brief moment, but it will quickly be recycled into the major oil companies' coffers. All of this takes place in the context of the worst housing slump since the depression, record foreclosure numbers, and a recession in many -- if not all -- states.

My earlier proposal makes even more sense now. It will help folks who really need help and will serve to make our economy stronger. Everyone with significant debt (which is just about everyone) should use his or her rebate check to file for bankruptcy. The entire process can cost as little as $600 for people who represent themselves (which many currently do, with paperwork help from paralegals and targeted legal advice from lawyers). And even if you choose to hire a lawyer to represent you, the proposed rebates will definitely give you a good start on the fees, especially if you are married.

Bankruptcy has been around since biblical times, and has long been recognized as an important component of the capitalist economy in that it restores debtors to the consumer marketplace. Specifically, bankruptcy gets rid of credit card and most other kinds of debt (exceptions are alimony and child support; most student loans; recent taxes; and debts caused by fraudulent or willful and malicious actions). Most people are solvent for the first time in years when they emerge from bankruptcy, and once again are able purchase goods and services without going into more debt.

Just imagine how the economy would hum if consumers were freed from the punishing interest rates that often creep over 30% for technical violations of credit contracts. By filing bankruptcy, people will use their government checks to improve their own balance sheet, instead of donating their money to the oil companies and the fat cats who use the large credit corporations to bleed us dry. While it's true that mass bankruptcy filings would tighten rather than loosen consumer credit, it can't get much tighter. Anyway, it's not a bad idea for us to break our national addiction to debt and learn to pay as we go.

Pretty much every bankruptcy attorney will tell you the same story: When you ask a client why he or she wants to file bankruptcy, the typical answer is, "I can't stand the phone calls." I get story after story from normally gregarious people about how they and their families are living in fear of their telephone.

Most people who fall behind on their debts feel guilty, and the debt collectors know it. They prey on that guilt in the expectation that money will somehow be found -- the children will withdraw from college, the daughter will forgo her braces, the mother will take a second job (leaving an empty house for the children to come home to). In the proud tradition of community loan sharks, it makes no difference to the collectors where the money comes from, only that it be paid.

My reaction when I hear these stories? My outer self clucks in sympathy while my inner self gets really furious at the fact that these good people have been made to feel like criminals by the real criminals: The credit card companies that charge 30% interest, trap people into over-payments and delinquencies by unfair billing practices, and raise interest rates on the basis of late payments on unrelated debts.

I also get frustrated because, of the hundreds of people I've counseled in the past several years, not one person knew that they could use a federal law known as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to stop collection agencies from phoning them -- and from engaging in a lot of other harassing conduct. Whether or not they decide to file for bankruptcy, these people come away from my counseling greatly empowered by a bit of information that every citizen should know at least as well as they know the pledge of allegiance.

And (drum roll, please) the information is, you can make a bill collector bug off with the following letter, properly addressed to the harassing debt collector:

Attn: [Collector],

Re: [Your name], [Account #]

Dear [Collector]: For the past three months I have received several phone calls and letters from you concerning an overdue [Creditor's name] account. This is my formal notice to you, under Title 15 United States Code Section 1692c, to cease all further communications with me except for the reasons specifically set forth in the federal law. This letter is not meant in any way to be an acknowledgment that I owe this money.

Very truly yours,

[Your name]

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act has some enforcement teeth, including stiff fines payable to the victim, and attorneys' fees. Unfortunately, it's sometimes hard to put together a case. The best approach is to start recording your calls, which is okay as long as you tell them you are doing it. This alone may chase them off, but if they are so brazen as to continue calling you after you have told them not to, and they talk for the benefit of the recorder, you may have a good case to take to a lawyer for follow-up.

Unfortunately, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act doesn't apply to the original creditor, and when creditors own their own collection agencies, as some of the big ones do, the line is gray regarding the federal law's applicability. Also, there are some collectors that aggressively push the envelope in their collection activities and frequently violate your rights under the Act. Nevertheless, many states have similar laws that do apply to the original creditor and the almost universal effect of a letter such as the one I've described above is to stop the harassment, regardless of whether it is the creditor or a collector who is making the calls.

If you're like many homeowners, your home is encumbered with a second or third mortgage (or deed of trust), and perhaps a home equity loan. Numerous articles describe you as using your home like an ATM machine. Having all these secured debts on your home is tantamount to a juggler having too many balls in the air -- at least one must fall, sooner rather than later.

If, for one reason or another, you just can't keep up, you may be able to avoid foreclosure if you pay the right loan and either blow off the rest, or at least make reduced payments. In almost every case, the right loan to stay current on will be your first mortgage or deed of trust. While I'm always hesitant to tell people to stop meeting their shelter obligations in full and on time, sometimes it's the only rational thing to do -- as wrong as it may feel to many of you. If reducing the amount you throw at your home every month will let you stay there and keep your ahead above water, at least until you can work out a better solution, I'm all for it.

How does this work? When you originally took out the loan to buy your home, you agreed to have the loan (or loans) secured by a mortgage or deed of trust (depending on the state where the property is located). (For the rest of this blog, I will use the term "mortgage" to refer to both mortgages and deeds of trust.) By recording the mortgage in your local land records office, the lender created a lien (legal claim) on the property, which can be enforced by foreclosure if the payment terms of the mortgage document aren't met. As you probably know, in foreclosure the property is sold to make good on the promissory note underlying the mortgage.

The main loan you used to buy your home is termed a "first mortgage." Why first? It's almost always recorded first and gets paid first in case of a sale. In the same manner, a second loan secured by the home is a second mortgage. For example, it's common to use a first mortgage to pay 80% of the sale price and get a second mortgage for the additional 20%. And that's not all. In the bubble years, home value appreciation supported additional loans against the home, often in the form of a home equity lines of credit. As with the first mortgage, the lender's primary remedy for a default on these additional loans is foreclosure.

For foreclosure to be an effective enforcement remedy there has to be enough equity in the home to pay off the holder of the loan being foreclosed. And if the home is sold in foreclosure, all senior lien holders (in that a first mortage is senior to a second mortgage) have to be paid off first. For that reason, until the last several years, banks wouldn't lend in the absence of good credit and a healthy chunk of equity to secure the loan. In the bubble years, however, many loans were made on the expectation that values would rise fast enough to provide adequate security for the prospective loan, even if there was no measurable equity at the time. Also, liberal (dare I say "dishonest" or "fraudulent"?) appraisals were easy to come by.

It's easy to see what happened when the crash came. Not only did homes stop appreciating in value, but the values continue to plummet, erasing whatever equity there may have been at the time of the loan as well as erasing the hope of equity to come. Importantly, then, if in your case one or more of the loans on your home has become unsecured-in-fact -- or never was secured to begin with -- skipping payments won't result in a foreclosure action. Sure you may get sued, but the lender's only remedy is to get a money judgment and put another lien on your home, just in case some equity develops in the future. And lawsuits usually take a long time to develop, giving you the opportunity to raise some money from another source and make up the payments or settle with the lender for less than you owe. Remember, the only reasoning for this strategy is the assumption that you can't afford to remain current on your "mortgage debt."

To determine whether the loans on your home are secured or unsecured (as a factual matter), begin with your home's value (be optimistic, but sensible) and subtract the first mortgage. If you hit zero or below, foreclosure is not a viable remedy for the other lenders, since there is no equity left in the home to pay them off. Assume, for example, that your home is worth $400,000. You have a first mortage of $350,000, a second mortgage of $50,000 and home equity line of credit worth $25,000. When you subtract the first and second mortgages from the home's value, you get zero. If you stop making payments on the home equity loan, the lender won't benefit from a foreclosure, since there wouldn't be anything left from the sale after the first and second mortgage holders are paid.

Of course, it's not always that simple. Sometimes a second or third mortgage is partly secured and partly unsecured. In that case, a foreclosure by the junior lien holder might recover some of the lien but not all of it. On the other hand, when foreclosure does occur, in most states it wipes out all the junior liens, regardless of the equity in the home. For instance, in the earlier example, if the owner of the first mortgage foreclosed on the loan, the liens held by the holders of the second mortgage and the home equity line of credit would both be extinguished, even though there was still equity (at least theoretically, since foreclosure sales usually accept bids far lower than the perceived market value).

If you have old, unpaid debts, you may be safe from a lawsuit to collect the debt, because a creditor or debt collector has a limited number of years to sue you for the debt. To get a better understanding of time limits for debt collection, check out this newly published article in the Nolopedia, "Time-Barred Debts: When Collectors Cannot Sue You For Unpaid Debts".

And if you want further information on debt collection & credit, you might also be interested in my previous post, "When Credit Bureaus Report Debts Discharged in Bankruptcy: It Should Be a Crime".