News

Los Angeles 341A Hearings

By Anerio Altman

When you file a Chapter 7, Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 matter, you must appear at a hearing called the 341A Meeting of the Creditors. The 341A is the opportunity for the creditors, or people you owe money to, to appear and ask you questions about this Bankruptcy that you filed. You must appear at this hearing, and you must bring your picture ID and social security card.

In Los Angeles, you do not attend a 341A hearing in the court building.  Your 341A Hearing will be held at 915 Wilshire Boulevard, 9th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017.  This building is in downtown LA and there is parking in the building itself.  It isn’t cheap.

All meetings are held on the 9th floor.  Follow the directions when you get to the 9th floor.

There is ample parking near the courthouse on the street and in various parking structures.

GOOD PLACES TO EAT:

This is a small cafe in the building that is fine.  Several places are in walking distance but traffic can be pretty severe in this area.

Riverside Bankruptcy Court 341A Hearings

By Anerio Altman

When you file a Chapter 7, Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 matter, you must appear at a hearing called the 341A Meeting of the Creditors.  The 341A is the opportunity for the creditors, or people you owe money to, to appear and ask you questions about this Bankruptcy that you filed.  You must appear at this hearing, and you must bring your picture ID and social security card.

In Riverside, you do not attend a 341A hearing in the court building.  Your 341A Hearing will be held at 3801 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501.

There is no security gate to go through.

These meetings are held in meeting rooms with the appropriate Trustee.  The United States Trustee is located in this building on another floor.

All meetings are held on the first floor.

Chapter 7 Hearings are held at room 103 or 104.

Chapter 13 Hearings are held at room 101.

Chapter 11 Hearings are held in various rooms on the first floor.

There is ample parking near the courthouse on the street and in various parking structures.

GOOD PLACES TO EAT:

I recommend nothing in Riverside to eat other than Starbucks which is down the road on University Avenue.

Santa Ana 341A Hearings

By Anerio Altman

When you file a Chapter 7, Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 matter, you must appear at a hearing called the 341A Meeting of the Creditors.  The 341A is the opportunity for the creditors, or people you owe money to, to appear and ask you questions about this Bankruptcy that you filed.  You must appear at this hearing, and you must bring your picture ID and social security card.

There is a security gate to go through.  You will need to take your shoes off and walk through a metal detector.  Wear socks.

In Santa Ana, this hearing is held at 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701.

Chapter 7 Hearings are held at room 3-110.

Chapter 13 Hearings are held at room 1-154.

Chapter 11 Hearings are held in various rooms on the first floor.

There is ample parking near the courthouse on the street and in various parking structures.

GOOD PLACES TO EAT:

In case you are hungry or would like coffee, here are our recommendations:

Cafe Calacas

Mil Jugos

Chapter One

Who’s Afraid of a Recoverable Draw?

By Anerio Altman

Recoverable draws are not recoverable….at least not in Bankruptcy.

Sometimes we have to argue against the former employers of the Debtor who claim that they are entitled to be paid a recoverable draw from the Debtor’s bankruptcy case.  They will file a Proof of Claim requesting payment.  In our Firm’s experience, these efforts, so far, have never been successful.

A recoverable draw is a tool utilized by many employers for their employees who are paid as salary, or hourly, employees and who earn their income in part, or in total, upon sales commission.  These arrangements are most often witnessed in real estate and mortgage companies and are extremely popular among both the employers and employees in that industry.

A recoverable draw works as follows:  The employee, either by prompting or by its own volition, chooses to advance some of his or her compensation from their future commission.  This advance can be a sporadic event, or may be a regular part of the employee’s pay cycle, where he or she receives a recoverable draw every week or month, ultimately to be paid back or off from future commissions.This agreement is both permissible and legal so long as the employer follows certain guidelines.

However, very few employers follow these guidelines.  While there is no “brightline” test for any instance of a recoverable draw, these are the general points of analysis:

California Doesn’t Like Employers to Recover Wages:  In California, the default presumption under California Law is that any monies paid by an employer to an employee are presumed to be wages.  Wages are not recoverable once paid to the employee.  When wages are “recovered” in this instance, they are “recovered” from the employee’s future commissions.  The future commissions exist in the coffers of the employer, and are distributed to the employee. Draws can be pulled from those commissions.  However, once those wages are in the hands of the employee, they are gone.

There Better Be A Written Agreement That Is Easily Understood:  If an employer is going to rip the wages away from an employee, they need to have a written agreement that can be understood by the average consumer.  If there is any dispute as to the meaning of the written agreement, that writing created by the employer will be interpreted as against the employer because they drafted it.  The employer should not rely upon constructive language concerning the construction of the written agreement to insulate it from this interpretation.

That Agreement Needs to Function as a Loan Document:  if an employer is going to pull back these wages from commission, the recoverable draws must be addressed through a separate loan document.    The written agreement must describe this arrangement and be able to stand on its own as a loan including finance charges, applicable disclosures, balloon payments etc.

The Draw Proceeds Must be Disbursed and Addressed as Separate Loan Proceeds:  Recoverable draws must be disbursed separately from the paychecks given to the employee, may not have payroll taxes removed and may not be linked to paychecks except to the extent that commission checks are lessened by the repayments to draw proceeds.

If the Recoverable Draw is Not Repaid By The Time the Employee Quits or Is Terminated, It is Not Getting Repaid:  Recoverable draws can be paid back from commissions if these procedures are followed, but once the employee has quit or is terminated and the final checks are paid out per California Labor Law, there are no longer commissions from which the employer can draw.  As such, upon termination of the employer/employee relationship, there is almost* no chance of recovery.

As always, if you have problems in your case or a question about how something works in Bankruptcy, please do not rely upon this post and please consult our law office.

*-The employer could create a balloon payment on the note that comes due upon termination of the employer/employee relationship but best of luck to the employer who tries that.  

Payroll Taxes: Don’t Take the Government’s Candy!

By Anerio Altman

Don’t take money from the Government.

They are big, they are powerful, and they are very possessive.

If you take their money, they become very angry.

One type of fund that an employer may wrongfully withhold from the government, and for which the employer will not discharge in Bankruptcy, are Payroll Taxes that the employer was supposed to collect on behalf of the U.S. Government from the employer’s employees.

The non-dischargeability of these taxes arises under Federal Law.  All things in Bankruptcy Practice are based on the U.S. Code.  (Bankruptcy Attorneys are not a horribly imaginative bunch so everything we do is based on the U.S. Code.)  The Non-Dischargeability originates from 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(1).  Everything under the code section of 11 U.S.C. 523 et seq. lists non-dischargeable debts in Bankruptcy.

11 U.S.C. 523(a)(1)  cross-references 11 U.S.C. 507(a)(8)(c) which specifically mentions as a non-dischargeable debt:  “(C) a tax required to be collected or withheld and for which the debtor is liable in whatever capacity;”

(If that isn’t self-explanatory as to why that clause applies to payroll taxes, stop reading now and call our law office at (949) 218-2002;  You are obviously a legal danger to yourself and others.)

The Government wrote the Bankruptcy Code.  In writing the Bankruptcy Code, the Government made it very clear that taxes that are owed to the Government, that you were never supposed to touch as an employer, are still owed after your file your Bankruptcy. Keep in mind that income taxes, taxes you yourself owe as an employer on your own income may be discharged under certain conditions.  If you owe income taxes as the business owner, they can be addressed in Bankruptcy.  (But see an attorney….and for goodness sake don’t rely on this blogpost for a full legal explanation!)

Conversely, payroll taxes are taxes that the government requires an individual to deduct from the salary of their employees when the employees are paid.  The employer was supposed to hold onto them on behalf of the government. So if you “lose” these funds for some reason, the government becomes particularly distraught…and may want to talk to you. stan_smith_american_dadThey just want to talk.

If you’ve been naughty, and “lost” these funds as an employer, you can propose a Chapter 13 plan or Chapter 11 plan to payback the “lost” payroll taxes over the life of the plan. But they aren’t going away just because you would like them to.

Victory in front of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel!

By Anerio Altman

This week, after a three year slough, Lake Forest Bankruptcy received a verdict in favor of its client.

At the heart of the case is a Creditor who committed an egregious violation of the discharge injunction and argued that he was above the law.

The facts of the case are that a creditor chose to continue trying to collect upon a discharged pre-petition debt because that creditor did not believe that the Discharge Injunction applied to him. His belief was based upon a “No-Discharge” clause inserted into a loan agreement which stated that his loan could not be discharged in the Bankruptcy Court. Such agreements are void as a matter of public policy. Bank of China v. Huang (In re Huang), 275 F.3d 1173. multiple attempts to collect a debt, and multiple warnings to stop, he was sued in the Bankruptcy Court.

The Court found in case called In Re Zilog 450 F. 3d 996 sanctions cannot be issued. Per Zilog, a creditor cannot be the subject of sanctions unless they knew that the injunction in question applied to him and and they intended the act that violated the injunction. While there was no question the Creditor intended the act, the Court found that the creditor held the subjective belief that the law did not apply to him and thus sanctions were inappropriate.

After approximately three years, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel found in our client’s favor that while Zilog still remained the law of the land, the ruling could not be read so expansively that a Creditor could simply choose not to believe in the injunction and be ameliorated from any further liability. The Creditor was subject to sanctions.

The case has been reversed and remanded back to the Trial Court for a further determination of damages.

Victory for Debtors in the Ninth Circuit!

By Anerio Altman

Tuesday March 5th, 2013, Lake Forest Bankruptcy won a major victory on behalf of one of its clients in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The individual Debtor is a Real Estate Broker and had filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case. In that case, she thought to claim her Mercedes as a tool of the trade that she used for the purpose of avoiding a non-possessory non-purchase money loan (title loan) on her vehicle. She has this right pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 522(f) to acquire her “fresh start” and continue to operate her business. She would be unable to do so if she could not retain her vehicle, which she could not so long as the Creditor maintained a Title Loan on the vehicle.

She had filed by herself but needed assistance on the motion and retained Lake Forest Bankruptcy for the litigation. We filed claiming that the vehicle was a tool of the trade of a real estate broker. The lender objected.

The Honorable Theodor Albert ruled for the secured lender in that the language under 11 U.S.C. 522(f) did not expressly authorize a vehicle for this purpose and that the Debtor could not utilize the “wildcard” exemption for this purpose.

We appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and the Creditor exercised its power to push the decision to the District Court instead. Although we were not initially hopeful about a result from the traditionally conservative district courts, the Honorable Josephine S. Tucker ruled for our client.

The Secured Creditor then appealed the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals.

The court agreed with the District Court and affirmed the honorable Tucker’s opinion.

The ultimate result of this ruling is that an individual who claims that their vehicle is a tool of the trade and avoid Title Loans that they may have taken against their livelihood.

Decision attached:

2013MAR5 OPINION

11 U.S.C. 727: Death in the Bankruptcy Court

By Anerio Altman

The strongest remedy available to a creditor or interested party in the Bankruptcy Court is to request that the court deny an individual his or her discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 727(Hereinafter “727”).  A 727 cause of action occurs when a party requests that the court deny the Debtor their discharge for approaching the court dishonestly, or destroying property of the estate.

There are three types of 727 causes of action that may arise:  727(a)(2), 727(a)(3) and 727(a)(4).

These state as follows:

“Destruction of Property”:  11 U.S.C. 727(a)(2)

(2) the debtor, with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or an officer of the estate charged with custody of property under this title, has transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed, or has permitted to be transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed—

(A) property of the debtor, within one year before the date of the filing of the petition; or

(B) property of the estate, after the date of the filing of the petition;

“Hiding your personal history” 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(3)

(3) the debtor has concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsified, or failed to keep or preserve any recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, from which the debtor’s financial condition or business transactions might be ascertained, unless such act or failure to act was justified under all of the circumstances of the case;

“Lied on the Petition” 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(4)

(4) the debtor knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case—

(A) made a false oath or account;

(B) presented or used a false claim;

(C) gave, offered, received, or attempted to obtain money, property, or advantage, or a promise of money, property, or advantage, for acting or forbearing to act; or

(D) withheld from an officer of the estate entitled to possession under this title, any recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, relating to the debtor’s property or financial affairs;

The result of a verdict in favor of any of these three causes of action is a complete denial of the Debtor’s discharge and a determination that the debts attached to the Debtor’s case remain non-dischargeable…FOREVER.

727 causes of action may only be resolved by a formal trial in the Bankruptcy Court in an Adversary Proceeding.