Question: Why don’t I “qualify” for a Chapter 7 Liquidation?
Not every consumer debtor is eligible to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and there might be several reasons why you might fall into that category. One common reason would be that you have filed bankruptcy in the past. A debtor may not receive a discharge in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy if the debtor has been granted a Chapter 7 discharge within the prior 8 years; or if the debtor has been granted a Chapter 13 discharge in the prior 6 years (unless the plan repaid at least 70% of the debts and was proposed in good faith) [see Bankruptcy Code Section 727(a)(8)-(9)]. Congress changed the Code in 2005 to increase the time between filings from 6 years to 8 years for Chapter 7. But even if you are not eligible for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the Chapter 13 will offer significant relief from creditor harassment by providing an “automatic stay” [See 11 U.S.C. Section 362] which does not allow creditors to commence or continue collection actions in most situations.
Another reason that you may not be able to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is that you earn too much money. Again, Congress modified the Bankruptcy Code in 2005 and really took a lot of discretion away from debtors and their attorneys whether they are eligible for a Chapter 7. Congress created a very mechanical approach in determining whether a debtor could repay some of his or her debts with a calculation called the “means test.” In short, the bankruptcy means test is a formula that looks at your current monthly income and subtracts allowable expenses (many of which are fixed national or local standards) to determine whether a debtor has the “means” to repay any of the unsecured creditors. The test is not always practical or pragmatic. For instance the income side of the equation looks at income received from all sources in the six full months prior to filing regardless of whether the debtor will have that income in the future. If a debtor has had to pull money from a retirement account in order to survive, this influx of money may incorrectly increase the appearance of current income even though the debtor does not plan on withdrawing funds in the future. Such a strict calculation can also lead to “game playing” such as filing a bankruptcy for a teacher immediately after summer break to list three months of no income at all! In addition the expenses can be purely fictional too. Debtors that use propane for heating may not be entitled to their actual utility expense, but instead would be limited to the lower local standards set for that expense. It appears that Congress would suggest that debtors should freeze in the winter so long as money is being paid to the unsecured creditors. Sometimes I refer to this calculation as the “mean test.”
However, the United States Supreme Court stepped in and gave its opinion in the case Hamilton v. Lanning [130 S.Ct. 2464 (2010)]. The Lanning Court held that the mechanical approach of the means test clashes with other provisions of the Code and gave bankruptcy judges some discretion modifying the means in test in special circumstances. A bankruptcy judge “may account for changes in the debtor’s income or expenses that are known or virtually certain at the time of confirmation [of a Chapter 13 plan]. So while the means test may still require a Chapter 13 filing, at least the judge can lower the amount that must be paid to creditors if a debtor truly cannot afford the payment.
BUT WAIT … there are many reasons why a debtor might benefit from a Chapter 13 bankruptcy EVEN IF that debtor qualifies for a Chapter 7 liquidation. You might be able to think of a few, but maybe I will surprise you. Please stay tuned for the next Chapter. I appreciate all of your positive feedback and questions – keep them coming!