Bankruptcy: Retirement Plan Exemptions - IRA - SEP- Pension Plan in Chapter 7

The United States Bankruptcy Court, in Alexandria, in the case of In re: Bissell, ruled that where a debtor has an IRA, an SEP and an ERISA-qualified pension plan, his exemption under Virginia Code §34-34 is computed without regard to the pension plans. The Bankruptcy Court rejected the creditor’s attempt to apply the value of the ERISA-qualified plan to the amount exempt under Virginia law, so as to wipe out the exemption for the IRA or the SEP and obtain an additional $71,538 for the bankruptcy estate.

The debtor asserted that the maximum exemption allowable under Virginia Code §34-34 for his individual retirement account and his simplified employer plan was computed without regard to his ERISA-qualified pension plan. He aggregated the value of the IRA and the SEP and applied the maximum allowable under exemption, $52,955, against this amount. He acknowledged that since the IRA and SEP have a total value of $71,538.52, the excess over the maximum allowable exemption of the IRA and SEP, $18,583.52, was not exempt under Virginia Code §34-34. The ERISA-qualified pension plan does not form a part of the computation because it, unlike the IRA and SEP, is not property of the estate.

The creditor asserted that the value of the ERISA-qualified pension plan must first be applied to the $52,955 amount exempt under Virginia Code §34-34. Since the pension plan had a value of $363,915.13, this method of computing the allowable exemption would exhaust the $52,955 exemption allowed under §34-34. There would be no exemption remaining available for the IRA or the SEP and the full value of the two accounts, $71,538.52, would be turned over to the trustee.

The Bankruptcy Court found that the creditor’s interpretation of §34-34 was contrary to the commonly accepted practice. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the definition of “retirement plan” in Virginia Code §34-34 must be read narrowly to exclude ERISA-qualified pension plans. To hold otherwise would invoke federal preemption which would exclude ERISA-qualified pension plans in any event and possibly preempt the entire statute. It would frustrate the General Assembly’s intent to protect retirement plans.

The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the Virginia General Assembly confronted the inherent problems in using §55-19 and spendthrift trusts to protect retirement plans. It sought for the first time to comprehensively remedy the problems and to provide greater and better protection for retiree’s pension plans, in particular ERISA-qualified pension plans. The General Assembly’s chosen route was the establishment of a uniform exemption for all retirees. The Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Patterson v. Shumate changed one of the underlying assumptions of the General Assembly by definitively holding that ERISA-qualified pension plans were not property of the bankruptcy estate. Had the General Assembly intended to adhere to the uniform exemption for retirees, it could have easily amended Virginia Code §34-34 to expressly reduce the exemption of non-ERISA-qualified pension plans, such as IRAs and SEPs, that were covered by Virginia Code §34-34 by the amount of any ERISA-qualified pension plan excluded from the bankruptcy estate or exempt from creditors in a state court proceeding. It did not. It accepted that ERISA-qualified pension plans could be reached by neither bankruptcy trustees in bankruptcy nor creditors in state court and it expanded the exemptions available based, in part, on this premise. The 1996 General Assembly protected rollover contributions. In 1999, the General Assembly added Roth IRAs. With some restrictions, the 1999 amendment also placed IRAs, SEPs, and Roth IRAs on the same footing as 401 plans and other ERISA-qualified pension plans. This partially reduced the inequality between those plans, although it did not completely eliminate it. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the creditor’s position in this case ran counter to the expanding protections provided by the General Assembly over the last decade and the judicial role of liberal construction of exemption statutes. Its implicit construction contracts the exemption and magnifies the very inequality the General Assembly sought to minimize.

The Bankruptcy Court overruled the creditor’s objection to debtor’s claim of exemption. The amount of the exemption of the IRA and the SEP under Virginia Code §34-34 was computed without regard to the ERISA-qualified pension plan. The IRA and SEP were exempt in the aggregated amount of $52,955 plus any additional amount allowable under Virginia Code §34-4.

Collections: Attorney's Fees on Collection Accounts

Creditors rightfully expect their debtors to pay the attorney's fees that result from collection procedures. Courts, however, normally refuse an award of attorney's fees unless the debtor has executed a document awarding such costs in the event the account is turned over to an attorney for collection. Many creditors utilize a standard form contract, or note, which has such a provision. Because many forms are multi-state, and because states' laws vary, most standard forms provide for "reasonable attorney's fees." Traditionally, most courts in Central Virginia have interpreted "reasonable" to be the equivalent of 25% of the principle amount of the judgment, regardless of the actual legal fees charged, whether hourly or contingency. However, these days may be coming to an end due to court rulings!

The Virginia Supreme Court, in the case of Coady v. Strategic Resources, Inc., ruled that an award of attorney’s fees rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. In the case of J. R. Mullins, et al. v. Richlands National Bank, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the trial court must determine the reasonableness of attorney's fees when disputed. In the case of Chawla v. BurgerBusters, Inc., the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that a party requesting an award of attorney’s fees must establish a prima facie case that the fees requested are reasonable. In the case Schlegel v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., the Court denied the request for attorney’s fees, citing the “test” to be used. It is as follows: In determining whether a party has shown the reasonableness of the fees, the fact finder may consider the time and effort expended by the attorney, the nature of the services rendered, the complexity of the services, the value of the services to the client, the results obtained, whether the fees incurred were consistent with those generally charged for similar services, and whether the services were necessary and appropriate.

With all of this said, you could win a contested trial on the merits, but be forced to present an “expert witness” (i.e., another attorney) to testify to the reasonableness of your attorney’s fees! To avoid this problem, and, to insure at least a fighting chance of obtaining at least the 25%, or even 33 1/3rd % (which most attorneys charge in percentage collection cases), creditors should make certain that their forms specify "____% attorney's fees", or amend the standard form to "____%" and have the debtor initial adjacent to the change.

It is important to note that the judicial award of attorney's fees is made upon the entry of judgment. If creditors take their own judgment, no attorney's fees will be awarded, even though the judgment may eventually be turned over to an attorney for collection. In this case creditors, not the debtor, will bear the full cost of collection. Accordingly, I recommend that creditors timely turn over all accounts to their attorney for prompt action.

Foreclosure: Advertisements of Sale

The Code of Virginia provides specific guidance as to advertisements for foreclosure sales. The sale must be properly advertised or it will be void upon order of the court.

Virginia Code §55.1-322 states that if the deed of trust provides for the number of publications of the advertisements, no other or different advertisement shall be necessary, provided that: if the advertisement is inserted on a weekly basis, it shall be published not less than once a week for two weeks, and, if such advertisement is inserted on a daily basis, it shall be published not less than once a day for three days, which may be consecutive days. If the deed of trust provides for advertising on other than a weekly or daily basis, either of these statutory provisions must be complied with in addition to the provisions of the deed of trust. If the deed of trust does not provide for the number of publications for the advertisement, the trustee shall advertise once a week for four consecutive weeks; however, if the property, or a portion of the property, lies in a city or county immediately contiguous to a city, publication of the advertisement may appear five different days, which may be consecutive. In either case, the sale cannot be held on any day which is earlier than eight days following the first advertisement or more than thirty days following the last advertisement.

Advertisements must be placed in the section of the newspaper where legal notices appear, or, where the type of property being sold is generally advertised for sale. The trustee must comply with any additional advertisements required by the deed of trust.

Virginia Code §55.1-323 requires advertisements to describe the property to be sold at foreclosure; however, the description does not have to be as extensive as in the deed of trust – substantial compliance is sufficient so long as the rights of the parties are not affected in any material way. The statute does require the property to be described by street address, and, if none, the general location of the property with reference to streets, routes, or known landmarks. A tax map number may be used, but is not required

Virginia Code §55.1-323 requires the advertisement to state the time, place and terms of the sale. If the deed of trust provides for the sale to be conducted at a specific place, the trustee must comply with this term. If there is no mention in the deed of trust, §55.1-320(7) provides that the auction may take place at the premises, or, in front of the circuit court building, or, such other place in the city or county in which the property or the greater part of the property lies. In addition, the sale could be held within the city limits of a city surrounded by, or contiguous to, such county. If the land is annexed land, the sale could be held in the county of which the land was formerly a part.

The statute provides that the advertisement shall give the name or names of the trustee or trustees. In addition to naming the trustee, the advertisement must give the name, address and telephone number of the person who may be contacted with inquiries about the sale. The contact person can be the trustee, the secured party, or his agent or attorney.

Real Estate: The Virginia Property Owners’ Association Act – Memorandums of Lien

In the last issue of Creditor News, I began discussing the Virginia Property Owners’ Association Act.

The Act specifically provides for remedies outside of the more common remedy of filing suit for the amount owed and receiving a judgment. A memorandum of lien to a holder of a credit line deed of trust under the Act is given in the same fashion as if the association’s lien were a judgment. Under the Act, the association can file for and perfect a lien against the homeowner that is prior to all other subsequent liens and encumbrances except real estate tax liens, liens and encumbrances recorded prior to the recordation of the declaration, and sums unpaid on and owing under any mortgage or deed of trust recorded prior to perfection of this lien.

To perfect the memorandum of lien, the association must file with the clerk of the circuit court in the county or city in which the development is situated a memorandum verified by the oath of the principal officer of the association or another officer provided for in the declaration. The memorandum must be filed within 12 months from the first assessment became due and payable. Additionally, prior to filing a memorandum of lien, a written notice must be sent to the property owner by certified mail, at the owner’s last known address, informing the owner that the lien will be filed in the circuit court clerk’s office at least 10 days before the actual filing date of the lien. The memorandum must name the development, describe the lot, name the person(s) constituting the owners of the lot, list the amount of unpaid assessments currently due or past due relative to such lot together with the date when each fell due, list the date of issuance of the memorandum, name the association with a name and address of the contact for the person to contact to arrange for payment or release of the lien, and state that the association is obtaining a lien in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Property Owners’ Association act as set forth in Chapter 26 (section 55-508 et seq.) of Title 55.

The Act provides that a judgment or decree in this action must include, without limitation, reimbursement for costs and reasonable attorney’s fees for the prevailing party. Also, if the association prevails, it may also recover interest at the legal rate for the sums secured by the lien from the time each sum became due and payable. If the owner then satisfies the debt, the lien must be released, and failure to release the lien results in a penalty.

Once a lien has been perfected, the association must enforce the lien within 36 months from the time when the memorandum of lien was recorded. This time period cannot be extended.

In the next issue of Creditor News, I will discuss foreclosure on a lien.

Bankruptcy: Debtor can contribute for Retirement in Chapter 13 Case

In the case of In re: Ricardo Cantu, Jr., the United State Bankruptcy Court at Alexandria ruled that a debtor in a Chapter 13 case can contribute for retirement under 11 U.S.C. Section 541 (b)(7).

In Cantu the Chapter 13 trustee objected to the debtor making voluntary retirement contributions. The Court, in its review, noted that the issue of voluntary contributions has been the subject of some debate in the case law in recent years. The Court stated that there are essentially three divergent lines of cases. The first line holds that the debtor is not entitled to any deduction for voluntary contributions, whether or not he was making voluntary contributions pre-petition. The second line is that voluntary retirement contributions may be continued as long as they are consistent with the debtor’s pre-petition history of contributions. The third line, which the Court noted was the majority view, concludes that the bankruptcy code allows for the deduction, whether or not the debtor was making voluntary contributions prior to the bankruptcy filing, but subject to a determination of the debtor’s good faith.

The Court noted that the bankruptcy trustee urged the Court to adopt the second line of cases, but the Court adopted the third, deciding that the bankruptcy code does not limit the debtor’s ability to make contributions post-petition, nor is there any distinction between pre-petition contributions and post-petition contributions. The Court held that the use of the term “any amount”, without limitations, followed by the term “contributions”, compelled the conclusion that Congress meant no such distinction.

The Court further decided that there was no evidence that the debtor proceeded in anything other than good faith. Accordingly, the Court overruled the chapter 13 trustee’s objection.

Collections: Acceleration of Demand Notes

The Twentieth Judicial Circuit examined a debtor's assertion that the note's "detailed enumeration of events consisting default was inconsistent with a demand note", and that since the note was not a demand note, the creditor must demonstrate "good faith" in accelerating repayment of the note. The case was NationsBank of Virginia, N.A. v Barnes. The Court examined Virginia Code §8.3A-108(a), which states that a note is payable "on demand" if it says it is payable on demand or states no time for payment. The Court found that the note in this case was a form with a box "on demand" checked, with no time set for repayment, only a provision requiring monthly payments of interest. The Court ruled that the note was unambiguous and clearly a demand note, and that no showing of "good faith" was required before requesting payment on the note.

Despite the favorable result for the creditor, great care should always be taken to clearly identify payment demand terms.