Bankruptcy: Chapter 13 Plan Confirmation - Valuation of a Car

     Two bankruptcy cases help clarify the value that Bankruptcy Courts should place upon a vehicle when considering a Chapter 13 plan confirmation.

     In the case of In Re Mays, the United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Virginia, refused to confirm a plan which did not value a Ford pickup, which the debtors proposed to keep, at the truck's retail value as reflected in the NADA Used Car Guide. The Court found that Bankruptcy Code §325(a)(5) provides that if a debtor in Chapter 13 intends to retain property subject to a lien, then the secured creditor must receive the present value of its allowed secured claim. The Court further found that the retail price, as opposed to the acceptable wholesale price, was the most commercially reasonable price.
     In the case of In Re Dews, the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia, reached a similar conclusion that retail value is the appropriate value. In doing so, the Court recognized that this valuation was a change to the standard set forth in the case of In Re Jones, which held that the open market between private parties was the appropriate reference point to establish value. The standard was worked out in practice to generally mean somewhere around the average of the wholesale and retail values.
     The lesson of these two cases is that Chapter 13 plans should be reviewed to ensure that value is properly assessed. The end result will be, of course, a higher return on creditor claims.

Collections: Liability for Charges above the Credit Limit - Continued

     In a previous blog, we looked at two fact patterns involving situations where a customer makes retail purchases for products in an amount greater than the customer’s established credit limit – specifically, if the customer later fails to pay for the product, can he be successfully sued for payment. In those situations, we found that a court will likely hold a customer liable for charges that exceed the originally agreed upon credit limit. The credit terms require the customer to pay any and all sums that become payable because of the express terms of the contract and the intentions of the contracting parties. The next two fact patterns present new issues.
      Fact Pattern Three: When the retail account was originally opened, the credit limit (stated in a letter to the customer) was set at $4,000. The credit terms in the credit application state the applicant agrees "to pay any and all sums that may become payable under this account". Despite the credit limit, customer sends one of his employees to retailer to make a purchase, with customer knowing what the cost of the purchase will be. Retailer allows the purchase over the $4,000 limit. Later customer fails to make full payment. Retailer sues customer for the amount owed, let us say that it is $6,000. Customer raises the defense that charges above the credit limit should not have been allowed. In what amount should the retailer be able to judgment against the customer?
      In addition to the contract issue discussed in the previous patterns, this fact pattern presents an agency law issue. The Circuit Court of the City of Richmond dealt with a similar issue in Chevy Chase Savings Bank v. Strong. In this case, the bank issued a credit card. A card user then incurred charges on the credit card but the card user was the card owner’s husband. The court held that the wife was liable for the charges because she gave her husband authority to use the card. The husband was an agent, and was therefore only liable if the wife was able to prove that her husband exceeded his authority or that he agreed to become personally liable.
      In this fact pattern, the customer has given his employee authority to act on his behalf so the employee is his agent and the customer is the principal. As principal, the customer is liable for all charges. The credit was given to the customer, so he is liable for the charges, unless he is able to prove that the employee exceeded his authority or agree to become personally liable. In this case, the employee did not act outside of his authority and did not agree to become personally liable, so the customer will be liable for a balance incurred.
      Fact Pattern Four: When the retail account was originally opened, the credit limit (stated in a letter to the customer) was set at $4,000. The credit terms in the credit application state the applicant agrees "to pay any and all sums that may become payable under this account". Despite the credit limit, one of customer’s employees goes to retailer to make a purchase, without customer knowing what the cost of the purchase will be. Retailer allows the purchase over the $4,000 limit. Later customer fails to make full payment. Retailer sues customer for the amount owed, let us say that it is $6,000. Customer raises the defense that charges above the credit limit should not have been allowed. In what amount should the retailer be able to judgment against the customer?
      Although there was not express authority to spend a specific amount like the previous situation, the same rule applies. The employee acted as an agent for the customer. The customer is liable for the debt unless the customer is able to prove that the employee acted outside the authority given.
     However, similar to Chevy Chase Savings Bank v. Strong¸ evidence that the customer did not specify an amount to spend is not likely to be sufficient evidence to prove that the agent acted beyond to scope of authority given.

Foreclosure: Default

     Question: When is a loan in default? Answer: Under one or more of several circumstances. The most common way that a borrower is in default is monetary – e.g., the borrower fails to make a required payment. However, default can be for a non-monetary reason as well, such as:

1. Failure to pay taxes.
2. Failure to pay insurance.
3. Failure to remove or bond over mechanic’s liens.
4. Failure to perform requirements unique to the loan.
     If you have questions about default, please call Eddie at 545-6251.

Real Estate: Making Owners and General Contractors Personally Liable to Subcontractor, Laborer or Materialman

     Virginia Code §43-11 provides a way for owners or general contractors to be made personally liable to subcontractor, laborer or materialman if notice is appropriately given, and if the payer makes payment to the owing party without paying the notifying creditor. Specifically, §43-11 (2) states that:

     “…if such subcontractor, or person furnishing labor or material shall at any time after the work is done or material furnished by him and before the expiration of thirty days from the time such building or structure is completed or the work thereon otherwise terminated furnish the owner thereof or his agent and also the general contractor, or the general contractor alone in case he is the only one notified, with a second notice stating a correct account, verified by affidavit, of his actual claim against the general contractor or subcontractor, for work done or materials furnished and of the amount due, then the owner, or the general contractor, if he alone was notified, shall be personally liable to the claimant for the actual amount due to the subcontractor or persons furnishing labor or material by the general contractor or subcontractor, provided the same does not exceed the sum in which the owner is indebted to the general contractor at the time the second notice is given or may thereafter become indebted by virtue of his contract with the general contractor, or in case the general contractor alone is notified the sum in which he is indebted to the subcontractor at the time the second notice is given or may thereafter become indebted by virtue of his contract with the general contractor. But the amount which a person supplying labor or material to a subcontractor can claim shall not exceed the amount for which such subcontractor could file his claim.”
     The notices referred to in this code section are commonly referred to in the industry as “42-11 letters”. We have experienced attorneys and staff who can examine title, file mechanic’s liens, and litigate to enforce the same. If you have a need, please call us.

Bankruptcy: Chapter 13 Plan Confirmation - Good Faith

     Two cases decided by Judge Tice of the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia, demonstrate a lack of good faith in the debtors' proposed Chapter 13 bankruptcy plans.

     In the case of In Re Oliver, Judge Tice denied plan confirmation for several reasons: the low percentage of the repayment of debt (about ten percent to unsecureds), the length of the plan (only three years), the "peculiar nature" of the unsecured claims, and the fact that the petition was filed after another court concluded that a major debt listed in this plan was nondischargeable under the debtors' prior Chapter 7 petition. Each of these reasons went against a finding that the plan was "proposed in good faith" under Bankruptcy Code §1325(a)(3). The matter was brought before Judge Tice upon an objection by a bank, whose claim comprised 80% of the total unsecured debt.
     In the case of In Re Kasun, Judge Tice denied plan confirmation for two reasons: a lack of good faith (since the plan discriminated against the debtors' unsecured creditors) and the payment of a nonessential luxury item. The debtors, proceeding in bankruptcy without an attorney, purposed that they retain a sailboat, on which a secured creditor had a $32,000.00 lien, with a $600.00 per month payment, and for which the debtors paid a boat-slip charge of $172.00 per month, while the plan proposed paying unsecured creditors only 34.9% of their claims. The Bankruptcy Trustee filed the objection.
     The lesson of Oliver and Kasun - read Chapter 13 plans carefully, do not take proposals for granted and seek competent legal advice when necessary.