Bankruptcy: Dischargeability of Debts - False Representation

     In Crestar Bank v. Green, Judge Tice, for the United State Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, ruled that a debt to the debtor's cousin and his assignee was non-dischargeable pursuant to Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(6). 

     Originally the Creditor had complained that the debtor had falsely attested to a notary public and to a real estate lawyer that his note secured by the real estate had been paid in full. The Creditor argued that discharge was precluded as a false representation under Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(2)(A). The evidence was that the debtor had conceded that he voluntarily and intentionally signed the certificate releasing the deed of trust. The debtor also admitted that at the time he signed the certificate he knew that the document represented that the note was "paid in full". The debtor also admitted that he knew that he was transferring title of the property to the buyer even though the property was the security for repayment of the note to his cousin.

     The Court, despite the Creditor's argument, held that the false representation was not made to either the note holder or to the successor bank, and neither creditor relied on the false representation. Therefore, Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(2)(A) did not preclude discharge. However, the Court held that the false representation was a willful and malicious injury to another person's property under Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(6). The Court found that the debtor effectively forged his cousin's signature and released the cousin's deed of trust. The debtor's intentional act of forging and recording the certificate of satisfaction constituted willful and malicious injury to the cousin's property rights. Therefore, the bank, as assignee, was entitled to the damages caused by the debtor's wrong. Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that the debt to the cousin and his assignee was non-dischargeable pursuant to Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(6).

Bankruptcy: Dischargeability of Debts - Reliance on Financial Statement

     In the case of Paterno Imports Ltd. v. McBee, Judge Tice of the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia, sitting in Richmond, held that a plaintiff/creditor, a wine import company who had obtained a judgment against the debtor and his business, failed to prove that it required or relied on the alleged material misrepresentations in a financial statement provided to the debtor company. Accordingly, the judgment the import company ultimately obtained against the debtor and his business was not exempt from discharge. 

     The Court ruled that the case hinged upon the events surrounding a meeting between the debtor, the debtor's counsel, the plaintiff and the bank official. Each party presented evidence in diametric opposition to the other party's claims. The oral testimony presented by the parties at trial was, in its most important aspect, conflicting and irreconcilable. 

     The Court pointed out that in a dischargeability case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. The Court found that the plaintiff failed in its burden. Despite the fact that the plaintiff's counsel prepared extensive documentation which the debtor was required to sign both personally and for his company, the debtor's guaranty did not mention a financial statement, and no other writing presented at trial suggested that the guaranty was conditioned upon the plaintiff's approval or acceptance of the debtor's financial statement. 

     In summary, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish (1) that the plaintiff and the debtor entered into an agreement under which the plaintiff would forbear from pursuing further collection efforts against the debtor's business and give it time to resolve its financial difficulties, in exchange for the debtor's personal guaranty of the company's debt to the plaintiff; (2) that any transaction between the plaintiff and the debtor was conditioned upon the plaintiff's acceptance or approval of the debtor's personal financial statement; or (3) that at the meeting of the parties the debtor produced a personal financial statement or that there was any discussion of such a statement. The Court stated that these findings required the Court to conclude that the plaintiff did not rely upon the debtor's personal financial statement or any other statement. Therefore, the debt was discharged.

Bankruptcy: Dischargeability of Debts - Company Funded & Controlled by Wife

     In the case of Old National Bank v. Reedy, Judge Tice of the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia, denied a complaint against dischargeability. In Reedy the debtor, a consultant on obtaining government contracts, had financial difficulties in his prior business operations. One year before he filed for bankruptcy, the debtor’s wife agreed to assist him from her own financial resources by capitalizing and operating a company in which she was the sole shareholder and through which husband could perform his consulting work. The creditor bank had argued that the establishment and operation of this business was a transfer with intent to defraud creditors. 

     The Court held that the case was devoid of any direct testimony by the debtor concerning specific intent to delay, hinder or defraud his creditors. Instead, there was credible evidence regarding the legitimate business purpose of setting up and operating the corporation in its present form. 

     In Reedy the debtor's wife completely capitalized the business and maintained the books and records while the debtor performed consulting services. Such control was a condition to the debtor's wife's capital contribution. Moreover, the debtor's wife initiated the incorporation of the business and had been the only stockholder since its inception. No transfer of stock ever occurred. 

     In summary, the Court denied the creditor's request for two reasons. First, there was no transfer of property by the debtor. Although the debtor had earned some consulting commissions, there was no evidence that he had an established business or that he transferred a business to the corporation. He merely went to work for and rendered services to a new employer. There was no basis in the trial record for the Court to ignore the business as a separate and independent entity. The business's receipts of consulting income did not constitute transfers by the debtor. Second, there was no intent by the debtor to hinder or delay his creditors. The formation of the business by the wife almost a full year before the debtor filed bankruptcy served a legitimate business purpose of enabling the debtor's wife to assist him in dealing with his financial problems. The Court found that the new arrangement removed the debtors' ability to make imprudent financial decisions and gave wife the reassurance she needed if she was to assist him from her own independent financial resources.

Foreclosure: Deed in lieu of Foreclosure

     In certain cases it may be more practical for the lender to seek or accept from the borrower a deed in lieu of foreclosure rather than incur the expense of foreclosure – this is at the lender’s discretion. If the lender agrees, in return for voluntarily surrendering the property, the borrower will seek either partial or complete satisfaction of the debt. 

     Considerations. Before accepting the deed in lieu of foreclosure, the lender must consider many matters: 

     · Value of the property vs. the amount of the debt. 

     · Other debts on the property. A deed in lieu of foreclosure does not extinguish prior or junior liens or encumbrances. Thus the lender, in accepting the deed, accepts the property with the liens. It is possible for the lender to structure the deed in lieu of foreclosure so that it does not release the deed of trust so as to preserve a future foreclosure to extinguish subordinate liens. 

Real Estate: Foreclosing on Homeowner Association Liens to Secure an Interest in Real Estate

     In prior blogs we have been discussing the benefits of using real estate to improve creditors’ positions. As I have emphasized, properly securing debts through real estate could make the difference between collecting the funds and incurring a loss. In this blog, we will review the benefits of using homeowner association liens to aid in the collection of your debt. In a prior blog we reviewed the special procedures for the collection of homeowners association dues under Virginia Code §55-516. We will now review the procedures for suits to foreclose on the lien.

     Suits must be brought within thirty six months of filing, but after the perfection of the lien. The Homeowner’s Association may sell the lot at a public sale, subject to prior liens. There are detailed requirements in the code, a brief summary of which include the following:

   1. The association shall give notice to the lot owner prior to advertisement as required in the code.

     2. After expiration of the 60-day notice period, the association may appoint a trustee to conduct the sale.

     3. If the lot owner meets the conditions specified in this subdivision prior to the date of the foreclosure sale, the lot owner shall have the right to have enforcement of the perfected lien discontinued prior to the sale of the lot. Those conditions are that the lot owner: (i) satisfy the debt secured by lien that is the subject of the nonjudicial foreclosure sale and (ii) pays all expenses and costs incurred in perfecting and enforcing the lien, including but not limited to advertising costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. 

    4. In addition to the advertisement requirements, the association shall give written notice of the time, date and place of any proposed sale in execution of the lien, and include certain information required in the code.

   5. The advertisement of sale by the association shall be in a newspaper having a general circulation in the city or county wherein the property to be sold, with certain information requirements as set forth in the code.

   6. Failure to comply with the requirements for advertisement contained in this section shall, upon petition, render a sale of the property voidable by the court. 

     7. In the event of a sale, the code sets forth bidding and proceeds application procedures.

     8. After sale, the trustee shall deliver to the purchaser a trustee's deed conveying the lot with special warranty of title. 

     9. After completion, the trustee shall file an accounting of the sale with the commissioner of accounts. 

     We have experienced attorneys and staff who can examine title, file homeowner association liens, and litigate to enforce the same.

Collections: Liability for Charges above the Credit Limit

     A client recently asked me to write about 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.

     I will review this situation with four varying fact patterns in two separate issues.
     Fact Pattern One: 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". During the next several years the credit limit was increased to $6,000. Normally no notification is sent of the increase, but in this case a letter was sent to the customer notifying the customer of the credit limit increase. Customer makes charges up to $6,000, but 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. Customer’s attorney does not have a copy of the letter increasing the credit limit, but produces the original letter opening the account with a $4,000 credit limit. Customer’s attorney argues that the retailer was the one who set the credit limit at $4,000, and by not exercising due diligence of his business, allowed the credit limit to be exceeded. Customer’s attorney argues that his client's liability should not exceed $4,000, while the retailer argues that the liability should be $6,000. In what amount should the retailer be able to judgment against the customer?
     In an actual case in Seattle, Washington, the trial judge was ready to grant the request for a reduction in liability to $4,000. However, since the retailer had his customer's file folder with him and found the letter increasing the credit limit to $6,000, the judge granted the retailer judgment in the amount of $6,000.
     Fact Pattern Two: 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 is allowed to makes charges 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 Ingram Micro Inc. v. ABC Management Technology Solutions, LLC, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that a creditor was entitled to recover payment of an unpaid debt because the debt was within the scope of the continuing guaranty agreement. The agreement clearly included a guaranty of all debts. Further, the court reiterated a contractual principal that when an agreement is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face, it must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms and the intent of the contracting parties.
     In this fact pattern, the original agreement stated that the applicant agrees “to pay any and all sums that may become payable under this account”. This agreement was intended to cover credit up to $4,000. However, the agreement is also likely to cover any and all other debts over the original credit limit if it can be shown that the intent of the contracting parties as expressed through the contractual language was to include any debts incurred after the credit application was accepted.
     A future blog will address the next two fact patterns.

Real Estate: Using Mechanic's Liens to Secure an Interest in Real Estate

     In recent blogs we have been discussing the benefits of using real estate to improve creditors’ positions. As I have emphasized, properly securing debts through real estate could make the difference between collecting the funds and incurring a loss. In this blog, we will begin a review of the benefits of using mechanic’s liens to aid in the collection of your debt.

     Virginia Code §43-3 et. seq. provides for special procedures for the collection of unpaid bills related to work performed on, or products supplied for, real estate. §43-3 A states:
     “All persons performing labor or furnishing materials of the value of $150 or more … for the construction, removal, repair or improvement of any building or structure permanently annexed to the freehold … shall have a lien, if perfected as hereinafter provided, upon such building or structure, and so much land therewith as shall be necessary for the convenient use and enjoyment thereof … subject to the provisions of § 43-20. But when the claim is for repairs or improvements to existing structures only, no lien shall attach to the property repaired or improved unless such repairs or improvements were ordered or authorized by the owner, or his agent.” Virginia Code §43-3 B provides for special rules regarding condominiums.
     Virginia Code §§43-4, 43-7 and 43-9 provide for the perfection of the lien by general contractors, subcontractors, laborers and suppliers. We will explore this more in future blogs.
     We have experienced attorneys and staff who can examine title, file mechanic’s liens, and litigate to enforce the same.

Bankruptcy: An Examination of the Dischargeability of Debts Regarding Property Damage-Malice

     In a past blog I began a multi-issue review of cases that address the dischargeability of debts regarding property damage-malice. The relevant bankruptcy code provision is §523(a)(6). I briefly established the standard used by courts to determine dischargeability of debts involving property damage and discussed how the court applied the standard to a case involving rented property.
     In the case of First Nat'l Bank of Md. v. Stanley, the United States Bankruptcy Court at Baltimore, Maryland, ruled that a debtor, whose creditor bank mistakenly extended his line of credit, and who used that windfall to purchase property that he speculated would shortly rise in value, converted the bank's money, despite his "good intentions" toward repayment, and discharge of the debt to the bank was denied as "willful and malicious" injury to the creditor under Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(6).
     The Court ruled that the act or conduct at issue in Stanley was conversion - an unauthorized exercise of dominion or control over property belonging to another that seriously interferes with the owner's rights. Although a person need not know that someone else has superior ownership rights in the property to be technically liable for the tort of conversion, the Court held that the test for malice under Vaughn requires such knowledge on the debtor's part before discharge will be denied - in other words, the debtor must have engaged in a "wrongful" conversion.
     In this case, the Court found that conversion was wrongful. The debtor knew that something was amiss when his credit limit on his line of credit was suddenly increased by a factor of ten. His explanation that he thought the bank had granted him a $73,000 "unsecured" line of credit was wholly irreconcilable with his knowledge that, just three months earlier, he had been approved for $2,000 less than the relatively modest secured line that they had requested. The Court pointed out that the debtor, though not a loan officer, was an accountant with one year of graduate school education; he was, by no means, unsophisticated.
     The proper focus in this case was not on debtor's "good intentions", but simply on his exercise of dominion and control over funds that he knew belonged to another. The debtor's deliberate conversion of the funds is the intentional, wrongful act that prevented the discharge of this debt to the bank.
     The Court found that the debtor inflicted willful and malicious injury on the bank; thus, he was not entitled to be discharged from the resultant debt.
     A future blog will apply the standard used by courts to determine dischargeability of debts involving property damage to another case involving withheld payments.

Bankruptcy: An Examination of the Dischargeability of Debts Regarding Property Damage-Malice

     In a previous blog I began a multi-issue review of cases that address the dischargeability of debts regarding property damage-malice. The relevant bankruptcy code provision is §523(a)(6). I briefly established the standard used by courts to determine dischargeability of debts involving property damage. The standard is very fact specific so reviewing cases will shed light on how the standard is applied.
     In Appalachian Equipment & Supply Co. v. McDaniel, the United States Bankruptcy Court at Harrisonburg, Virginia, determined that the creditor/plaintiff, a rental company, had satisfied all of the elements necessary to prove its case under Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(6), and thus, its claim for damages from the improper use of the forklift was declared exempt from discharge.
     The Court in McDaniel ruled that the physical evidence was the most reliable evidence offered. That evidence showed that the forklift was delivered to the debtor in normal operable condition. It also showed that when the creditor picked up the forklift, it was damaged and displayed light blue paint on the bottom of the carriage. The debtor's evidence showed that one of the vehicles which was placed on the tractor trailer was a light-blue car. To the Court, it appeared more likely than not that the bottom portion of the carriage of the forklift was used in conjunction with attempting to crush the light-blue car such that paint flecks from the car attached themselves to the underside of the carriage. The Court indicated that it was satisfied that the expert testimony of the witness for the creditor established that more likely than not that the carriage of the forklift was used to apply hydraulic pressure in a downward direction with such force that the carriage boon and forks of the forklift were damaged. In conclusion, the Court found that the debtor used the carriage to accomplish his intent to crush cars, such use was inconsistent with the normal usage of the forklift, and such usage led to the damage of the forklift. The Court further found that the creditor proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor's actions in using the forklift were intentional.
     The Court in McDaniel found that the debtor knew that a forklift should not be used to crush cars. The physical evidence and the expert evidence offered by the creditor were more persuasive than the debtor's attempts to deflect blame to another person. It showed that the debtor applied the boon portion of the forklift to employ downward hydraulic pressure to the crush the cars. The Court ruled that it was satisfied that the debtor used the forklift in an improper manner to crush the cars in order to load them onto his flatbed trailer. The Court found that the debtor was an experienced forklift operator. He brought equipment to the site which could have been used to safely crush the cars. He used the forklift in a manner inconsistent with the generally accepted practice for the usage of this type of forklift. In light of these surrounding circumstances, the Court ruled that the debtor knew, or should have known, that his acts would cause damage to the forklift and resulting harm to the creditor. Thus, the Court ruled that the debtor's actions fit the definition of malice as set forth in the case of St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Vaughn, the standard for denial of discharge.
     In a future blog I will apply the standard used by courts to determine dischargeability of debts involving property damage to a case involving withheld payments.

Bankruptcy: An Examination of the Dischargeability of Debts Regarding Property Damage-Malice

     In a past blog I announced that we would begin a multi-issue review of cases that address the dischargeability of debts regarding property damage-malice. The relevant bankruptcy code provision is §523(a)(6).
     Several cases illustrate well the dischargeability of debts involving property damage. In all cases, the trial and appellate courts are required to adhere to Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(6), which states that a debt causing willful and malicious injury to another entity is not exempt from discharge.
     The standard established by the courts to prove willful and malicious injury is described by the court in St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Vaughn. In Vaughn, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stated that the debtor must show, by contradicted and unimpeached evidence, to have committed a willful and malicious injury to the creditor’s property. There is no requirement of specific malice on the part of the debtor, however. The court held that “willful and malicious” injury means injury that is wrongful and without cause or excuse, but the debtor does not necessarily need to have ill will.
     However, this is a very general definition. Courts have applied this standard to many different situations and it is clear that this standard is very fact specific.  A future blog will apply and expand this standard in a case involving rented property.

Bankruptcy: Dischargeability of Debts Regarding Property Damage-Malice

     In a future blog, we will begin a multi-issue review of cases that address the dischargeability of debts regarding property damage-malice.
     Several cases illustrate well the dischargeability of debts involving property damage. In all cases, the trial and appellate courts are required to adhere to Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(6) which states that a debt causing willful and malicious injury to another entity is not exempt from discharge.
     If you have cases involving property damage that may fall within this code section, please let me know.

Real Estate: Using Homeowner Association Liens to Secure an Interest in Real Estate

     In recent editions of Creditor News we have been discussing the benefits of using real estate to improve creditors’ positions. As I have emphasized, properly securing debts through real estate could make the difference between collecting the funds and incurring a loss.  We will review the benefits of using homeowner association liens to aid in the collection of your debt.
     Virginia Code §55-516 provides for special procedures for the collection of homeowners association dues. This code section allows associations to place a lien on the land for unpaid assessments, as well as give associations a priority over certain other debts. To perfect the lien, however, it must be filed before the expiration of twelve months from the time the first such assessment became due and payable. This filing must be by a memorandum filed in the circuit court of the county or city where the development is located. The memorandum must contain the information specified in the statute. Before filing the lien, written notice must be sent to the property owner by certified mail giving at least ten days prior notice that a lien will be filed. Suit to foreclose on the lien must be brought within thirty-six months of filing. We will review foreclosure suit procedures in the next issue.
     We have experienced attorneys and staff who can examine title, file homeowner association liens, and litigate to enforce the same. 
     Check out issues of Creditor News by visiting http://www.lawplc.com.