I recently received the following letter (in pertinent part) from the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA):
Following
an excellent last with in
bankruptcy court with an attorney for the Department of Education, I
wanted to let others know that, with huge amounts of assistance and
advice from
John Rao and NACBA, borrowers are likely soon going to be able to enroll in income driven repayment plans while in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy
case.
My case will be, and the Department
of
Education agrees, the first time where a Chapter 13 Debtor has been
allowed to enroll in a IBR. Previously, they have simply refused or
ignored
requests, depriving Chapter 13 debtors of some very valuable options
regarding their student loans.
This will be a huge
development and one that will open up many other opportunities for
student loan
debtors, including starting down the road to obtaining cancellation or,
even better, Public Loan Forgiveness while in bankruptcy.
It may also lead to being able to have defaults on student
loans
waived through bankruptcy, rather than rehabilitating or consolidating
loans, with the resulting 18.5% penalty. Just imagine marketing
Chapter 13
as a way to help get clients back on track with student loans without
taking that hit!
Also, currently there are no real
options for curing a default under a income driven repayment plan,
meaning
that once a problem arises, the borrower may have to start again at
square one. Chapter 13, however, allows the cure or waiver of ANY
default,
including under an IBR.
And, as a practical
concern, joining income driven repayment of student loans with Chapter
13 bankruptcy, not only helps deal with the borrower's entire financial
situation, but it provides a mechanism for paying attorneys' fees for
this assistance. (Attorneys' fees in excess of the regular bankruptcy
fees!)
There are very real
complications
with this, from the specific language to be used, to enrolling
borrowers in an IBR, to bankruptcy issues such as separate
classification, good
faith and feasibility.
And while we believe that
these options for debtors are available under the Code and in plan
confirmation even over objections raised by the government, we have
worked to get
the consent of the Department of Education, so as to avoid unnecessary
litigation for you in the future. We have also started to discuss these
issues
with both the UST and Chapter 13 Trustees, who are increasing conscious
of the fact that the inability to deal with student loans is impacting
bankruptcy filings and are sympathetic to this idea.
J. Dinkins G. Grange is an attorney in Northeast Florida, helping his clients find solutions to their financial problems, which in some cases includes bankruptcy in some cases. This Blog contains general bankruptcy relevant information. His practice includes representing clients in various areas of civil litigation including Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies, foreclosure defense and probate.
Friday, March 13, 2015
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
CHASE To Pay $50M To More Than 25,000 Homeowners
The U.S. Trustee Program (USTP) has entered into a national settlement
agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) requiring Chase to pay
more than $50 million including cash payments, mortgage loan credits and
loan forgiveness to over 25,000 homeowners who are or were in
bankruptcy, according to a USTP press release today. Chase will also
change internal operations and submit to oversight by an independent
compliance reviewer. The proposed settlement has been filed in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where it is
subject to court approval. In the proposed settlement, Chase
acknowledges that, in bankruptcy courts around the country, it filed
more than 50,000 payment change notices that were improperly signed,
under penalty of perjury, by persons who had not reviewed the accuracy
of the notices. More than 25,000 notices were signed in the names of
former employees or of employees who had nothing to do with reviewing
the accuracy of the filings. The rest of the notices were signed by
individuals employed by a third-party vendor on matters unrelated to
checking the accuracy of the filings. Chase also acknowledges that it
failed to file timely, accurate notices of mortgage payment changes and
failed to provide timely, accurate escrow statements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)