tampa bankruptcy Tag Archives — Page 2 of 3 — Securities Fraud Lawyers Blog

U.S. Supreme Court to review Eleventh Circuit ruling where Chapter 7 debtors are allowed to strip off second mortgages

Published on: November 24, 2014 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

By Alfred Villoch, III, Esquire, with Savage, Combs & Villoch, PLLC

On November 17, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in two cases: Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett (In re Caulkett), 566 Fed. Appx. 879, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9407 (11th Cir. Fla., 2014) and Bank of Am., NA v. Toledo-Cardona (In re Toledo-Cardona), 556 Fed. Appx. 911, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9035 (11th Cir. Fla., 2014). In both cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that a Chapter 7 debtor could strip off a second mortgage when the home’s value fell below the amount owed on the first mortgage.

What that ruling means is, if you file bankruptcy and the second mortgage on your home is completely “underwater,” like many second mortgages after the recent housing bust, then you could keep your house subject to the first mortgage and strip off the second mortgage completely leaving the debt secured by that second mortgage to be discharged in the bankruptcy. In the Toledo-Cardona case, the debtor kept his home and stripped off the second mortgage that had a value of over $100,000.00. That is why Bank of America and other lenders are not pleased with the decision.

I haven’t been able to pay my bills. Could I lose my car?

Published on: October 19, 2014 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

By Alfred Villoch, III, with Savage, Combs & Villoch, PLLC

If you miss car payments, the company that loaned you the money to purchase the car can likely take back your car in what is called “repossession.” The right to take back your car for nonpayment usually comes from the terms of the signed loan paperwork when you buy your car. Usually, a few missed payments and the loan company will start calling you and sending you warning letters. Warning calls and letters will ultimately lead to repossession. Once the loan company repossesses, it can then sell your car at an auction and apply that money to pay down the amount that you still owe. This can also happen with car title loans (e.g., where you receive a loan and agree to give the loan company your car title as security and part of your promise to pay back the loan. This is called a security interest). In situations where the car is part of your promise to pay back a loan, the answer is “yes”: you could lose your car if you don’t make your car payments. Bankruptcy can immediately stop this process.

If you haven’t paid other bills, like a credit card or a payday loan, you could still lose your car, but the situation is a bit different and the company must take a few extra steps. For example, the company must first sue you to get a judgment in court. With a judgment in hand, the company can then apply to the court to have the sheriff take your car and sell it. This process is similar to repossession and is called a writ of attachment. The company would then use the money from the sale of your car as payment down on the amount that you owe. Bankruptcy can immediately stop this process too.

Is a bad faith action still viable when an insured defendant files bankruptcy?

Published on: October 15, 2014 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

By Alfred Villoch, III, with Savage, Combs & Villoch, PLLC

Johnny Smith accidentally runs a red traffic light and slams his pick-up truck into a motorcyclist, Drew Lenders. Sadly, Drew was not wearing a helmet and suffered significant head trauma and memory loss. Drew’s hospital bill alone is $50,000 He also missed 3 months from work and, therefore, lost about $12,000 in wages. Drew hires an injury attorney and formally demands the $50,000 policy limits from Johnny’s auto insurance, ABC Insurance Co., within 30 days. But believing that the motorcyclist should have been wearing a helmet, ABC Insurance allows Drew’s demand to expire and, instead, hires a biomechanical engineer to find out if Drew’s injuries would have been prevented had he worn a helmet. Meanwhile, Johnny files bankruptcy.

One year later, a jury awards $200,000 verdict against Johnny and in favor of Drew. ABC Insurance pays the $50,000. Because Johnny is not responsible for an excess judgment by virtue of his prior bankruptcy, is a bad faith claim against ABC Insurance even a viable cause of action? The answer is “yes.”

Is marijuana legal in your state? Don't count on bankruptcy protection if your weed business fails.

Published on: September 28, 2014 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

By Alfred Villoch, III, Esquire, with Savage, Combs and Villoch, PLLC

A federal judge recently dismissed a bankruptcy case filed by a marijuana business owner in Colorado, according Tom McGhee of the Denver Post. Why? Because marijuana remains illegal under federal law and that causes major impediments in obtaining relief under federal bankruptcy law. See Dkt #74, In re Arenas, Case No. 14-11406 (Bankr. D. Colo. Aug. 28, 2014); see also “Judge denies bankruptcy protection to Denver marijuana business.”

In that case, Mr. Arenas, the debtor in bankruptcy, produced and distributed marijuana in Colorado at the wholesale level. He possessed all of the required licenses and permits to legally produce and distribute marijuana. The bankruptcy court even acknowledged that Mr. Arenas’ marijuana business was perfectly legal under Colorado law. But the court also found that leasing space to a marijuana dispensary and cultivation of marijuana made Mr. Arenas liable for criminal penalties under the the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (the “CSA”). Because of that, the bankruptcy court dismissed Mr. Arenas’ case upon a motion filed by the United States Trustee.

I filed bankruptcy. What is the 341 meeting of creditors?

Published on: September 27, 2014 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

By Alfred Villoch, III, with Savage, Combs and Villoch, PLLC

This meeting is named after section 341 of the bankruptcy code. It’s usually held about one or two months after you file for bankruptcy. You are required to attend this meeting in order to successfully complete bankruptcy and discharge your debts. Your attorney will attend the 341 meeting with you and will make sure that you are comfortable and prepared. You should bring your driver’s license and social security card.

A trustee is the person who administers your bankruptcy case. The 341 meeting is an opportunity for the trustee appointed in your case to ask you questions generally about your assets, liabilities, and financial affairs. The trustee will investigate possible fraud, genuine mistakes in the paperwork, and will make sure that your paperwork is in full and complete order. The trustee will also speak with you about:

Tampa Bay Business Journal reports that Arigato Japanese Steakhouse, LLC, abruptly closes the doors of its three Tampa Bay restaurants.

Published on: September 20, 2014 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

By Alfred Villoch, III, at Savage, Combs & Villoch, PLLC

Arigato Japanese Steakhouse, LLC, a restaurant with three locations in the Tampa Bay area, including a popular location in the Carrollwood area, has permanently closed its doors, according to Eric Snider with the Tampa Bay Business Journal. The restaurant was founded in 1971 and has been in the Tampa Bay area since 1978.

Mark Douglas with WFLA quotes Arigato’s owner, Dale Del Bello, as stating that he is “currently working very hard and doing everything in [his] power to make good by everyone we are in debt to.” See “Arigato’s owner saddened by his restaurant closures in Clearwater and St. Petersburg.” While this is an admirable quote from the owner, it is likely a hollow promise based on recent filings with the bankruptcy court in Tampa.

Florida's Homestead Exemption: One reason the SEC struggled to collect $62 million from Paul Bilzerian.

Published on: September 18, 2014 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

By Alfred Villoch, III, at Savage, Combs & Villoch, PLLC

Today, the Wall Street Journal ran an article entitled “A Maze of Paper. SEC Judgment against Raider Paul Bilzerian: $62 Million. Collected: $3.7 Million.” In the article, Michael Rothfeld and Brad Reagan write how Paul Bilzerian was a corporate raider in the 1980s who victimized investors, parked stocks in other people’s names, and failed to make disclosures of his interest in other companies, to name a few things. Due to this fraud, Rothfeld and Reagan explain how the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commision (“SEC”) obtained federal court orders for Mr. Bilzerian to pay a whopping $62 million as penalties, but was able to collect only $3.7 million from him.

The WSJ article explores a few methods that Bilzerian used to thwart the SEC’s collection efforts, including moving to another country, but the article touched on one maneuver in particular that is dear to Floridians’ hearts: Bilzerian’s move to Florida to purchase land and build a 28,000-square-foot mansion.

Proposals for settlement in Florida bankruptcy cases: Will a bankruptcy court enforce them and award attorneys' fees and costs?

Published on: September 10, 2014 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

by Alfred Villoch, III, with Savage, Combs & Villoch, PLLC

In Florida, settlement of legal disputes is strongly encouraged. To encourage settlement, the Florida legislature enacted Section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes. Section 768.79 creates a substantive right to collect reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as “penalties” when a party declines to accept a reasonable proposal to settle. Rule 1.442, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure, provides the method to enforce the proposal for settlement and sets forth the parameters for implementing Section 768.79.

Specifically, Section 768.79 allows a defendant to recover reasonable costs and attorney’s fees if the defendant proposes settlement which is not accepted within 30 days and the defendant obtains a judgment that is at least 25% less than the proposal. Likewise, a plaintiff can recover reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff proposes settlement which is not accepted within 30 days and the plaintiff obtains a judgment that is more than 25% of his or her offer.

Parents often co-sign for their children's student loans. Should those parents face a less difficult standard in the bankruptcy discharge of their obligation for that student loan debt?

Published on: September 6, 2014 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

By Alfred Villoch, III, Esquire, at Savage, Combs & Villoch, PLLC

In a recent blog post, the Bankruptcy Blawg addressed how difficult (almost impossible) it is to get rid of student loan debt in bankruptcy. See http://www.thebankruptcyblawg.com/?p=26. Yesterday, the Tampa Bay Times published an article entitled “Co-signing a student loan carries risks for parents.” The article addresses how parents can feel a knee-jerk, moral obligation to co-sign for their child’s student loan. But when you co-sign, the parents are on the hook for the debt with equal force as if the loan was theirs alone. And they might not know that their child is not repaying the loan until they start receiving calls and letters from the bank. By that time, the parent’s credit score has very likely taken a dip, noted Mark Kantrowitz in the article.

Not only is the student loan default potentially devastating to the parent’s credit score, but it is virtually impossible to discharge in bankruptcy unless a bankruptcy court finds that the parent meets the Brunner test. See http://www.thebankruptcyblawg.com/?p=26. That means, the parent or the child must repay the entire debt (with interest and late fees, if applicable) or it may haunt the parent and child for the rest of their lives.

Can I get rid of my student loans if I file bankruptcy?

Published on: September 4, 2014 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

By Alfred Villoch, III, Esquire, at Savage, Combs & Villoch, PLLC

Student loans are very difficult to get rid of in bankruptcy. Whether you file bankruptcy under chapter 7 or chapter 13, the test remains the same: you have to prove “undue hardship” in order to discharge or get rid of your student loans. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(8).

But what is undue hardship? Unfortunately, the Bankruptcy Code does not define “undue hardship” or list any ways in which to determine who meets that standard. Instead, bankruptcy courts have been left to make their own definition through case law. In Florida, bankruptcy courts follow the Brunner test. This test requires the court to consider the following three categories or prongs to determine whether the debtor (i.e., the person who filed bankruptcy) has an undue hardship: