It is common for people to fall behind on their mortgage payments. If you find yourself in this position, there are ways you can find relief.
Filing for bankruptcy can delay foreclosure.
When a person files for Chapter 13 or Chapter 7 bankruptcy, they usually receive immediate protection from creditors through a special court order known as an “automatic stay”. This means creditors must immediately stop their collection attempts.
If a foreclosure sale has been scheduled for your home, it will be postponed until the bankruptcy is finalized. Sometimes there are exceptions to this rule, so it is important to contact San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm so we may discuss all of your options. Your initial consultation is free.
Filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy can help you avoid foreclosure and keep you in your home. Chapter 13 bankruptcy allows you to set up a repayment plan to pay off the past due payments.
A short sale can stop foreclosure.
It is important to remember a short sale can stop foreclosure, but it also has serious tax and credit consequences. In addition, some lenders and mortgage companies will refuse to do a short sale. Filing for bankruptcy can help you keep your house.
A short sale is when lender agrees to take less than the total amount owed on the loan in a voluntary sale to a third party. But a short sale is anything but short—it is usually a very lengthy and complex process.
Contact San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm to help you through this process or negotiate a short sale settlement.
This blog is updated by the San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm. The blog is designed to illuminate, update and educate consumers about their bankruptcy rights. Our staff of Bankruptcy Attorneys help consumers file for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 and 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Feel free to contact our Bankruptcy Lawyers for a free consultation at 619-260-1800 or visit us at www.gobksandiego.com
Showing posts with label short sale. Show all posts
Showing posts with label short sale. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Bunkruptcies Increase in March 2010
NY Times Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/business/economy/02bankruptcy.html?source=patrick.net
Sharp Increase in March in Personal Bankruptcies
By DUFF WILSON
Published: April 1, 2010
Sign in to Recommend
Twitter
Sign In to E-Mail
More Americans filed for bankruptcy protection in March than during any month since the federal personal bankruptcy law was tightened in October 2005, a new report says, a result of high unemployment and the housing crash.
Federal courts reported over 158,000 bankruptcy filings in March, or 6,900 a day, a rise of 35 percent from February, according to a report to be released on Friday by Automated Access to Court Electronic Records, a data collection company known as Aacer. Filings were up 19 percent over March 2009. The previous record over the last five years was 133,000 in October.
“Even with the restrictive new law, we’re back up over where we were before the law changed,” Mike Bickford, president of Aacer, said in a phone interview Thursday from his headquarters in Oklahoma City. He faulted the stagnant economy, saying a surge in bankruptcies generally follows economic contraction by 6 to 18 months, and he pointed to March as a historically busy month for bankruptcy filings.
Other experts point out that filings invoking Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code, a simple and inexpensive option, are rising faster than more complex Chapter 13 reorganization filings, under which consumers repay a portion of their debts so they can keep their homes, suggesting that more homeowners are simply walking away from underwater mortgages.
“Fewer people are trying to save their homes,” Katherine M. Porter, a University of Iowa law professor and bankruptcy expert, said in an interview by phone on Thursday. “They realize their payments are not affordable, and bankruptcy judges do not have the power to adjust the mortgages to make them more affordable.”
Statistics from the United States Trustee Program, the Justice Department office that oversees bankruptcy cases, show that Chapter 7 filings as a percentage of all bankruptcies have increased to about 73 percent in 2009 from about 62 percent in 2006-07. Of the 158,141 bankruptcy filings in March, 118,505, or 75 percent, were Chapter 7s and 38,241 were Chapter 13s, the Aacer report says.
“We think that means fewer and fewer families think they’re really going to save their homes,” Professor Porter said. “They don’t have any equity, so why try to keep up with their home payments?”
The nation’s high unemployment rate is one more reason for people to choose Chapter 7, Professor Porter said. “To file Chapter 13, you need ongoing income, and to the extent we have more people who are unemployed, they can’t use Chapter 13 because they don’t have that income to pay into the plan,” she said.
Finally, Professor Porter said, March is the high season for bankruptcy filings because many people in financial distress get a tax refund check that they can use to pay the $1,500 to $3,500 that a bankruptcy lawyer charges.
“People use their tax refunds to pay their attorney fees,” she said.
San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm and its San Diego Bankruptcy Lawyers can help you stop foreclosure, save your home, eliminate your credit cards and protect your assets. Visit us at www.gobksandiego.com.
Sharp Increase in March in Personal Bankruptcies
By DUFF WILSON
Published: April 1, 2010
Sign in to Recommend
Sign In to E-Mail
More Americans filed for bankruptcy protection in March than during any month since the federal personal bankruptcy law was tightened in October 2005, a new report says, a result of high unemployment and the housing crash.
Federal courts reported over 158,000 bankruptcy filings in March, or 6,900 a day, a rise of 35 percent from February, according to a report to be released on Friday by Automated Access to Court Electronic Records, a data collection company known as Aacer. Filings were up 19 percent over March 2009. The previous record over the last five years was 133,000 in October.
“Even with the restrictive new law, we’re back up over where we were before the law changed,” Mike Bickford, president of Aacer, said in a phone interview Thursday from his headquarters in Oklahoma City. He faulted the stagnant economy, saying a surge in bankruptcies generally follows economic contraction by 6 to 18 months, and he pointed to March as a historically busy month for bankruptcy filings.
Other experts point out that filings invoking Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code, a simple and inexpensive option, are rising faster than more complex Chapter 13 reorganization filings, under which consumers repay a portion of their debts so they can keep their homes, suggesting that more homeowners are simply walking away from underwater mortgages.
“Fewer people are trying to save their homes,” Katherine M. Porter, a University of Iowa law professor and bankruptcy expert, said in an interview by phone on Thursday. “They realize their payments are not affordable, and bankruptcy judges do not have the power to adjust the mortgages to make them more affordable.”
Statistics from the United States Trustee Program, the Justice Department office that oversees bankruptcy cases, show that Chapter 7 filings as a percentage of all bankruptcies have increased to about 73 percent in 2009 from about 62 percent in 2006-07. Of the 158,141 bankruptcy filings in March, 118,505, or 75 percent, were Chapter 7s and 38,241 were Chapter 13s, the Aacer report says.
“We think that means fewer and fewer families think they’re really going to save their homes,” Professor Porter said. “They don’t have any equity, so why try to keep up with their home payments?”
The nation’s high unemployment rate is one more reason for people to choose Chapter 7, Professor Porter said. “To file Chapter 13, you need ongoing income, and to the extent we have more people who are unemployed, they can’t use Chapter 13 because they don’t have that income to pay into the plan,” she said.
Finally, Professor Porter said, March is the high season for bankruptcy filings because many people in financial distress get a tax refund check that they can use to pay the $1,500 to $3,500 that a bankruptcy lawyer charges.
“People use their tax refunds to pay their attorney fees,” she said.
San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm and its San Diego Bankruptcy Lawyers can help you stop foreclosure, save your home, eliminate your credit cards and protect your assets. Visit us at www.gobksandiego.com.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Union Trib: Hefty tax bill hits those who lost home...short sale or foreclosure
Hefty tax bill may hit those who lost home
By Roger Showley, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 12:03 a.m.
LINK: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/03/hefty-tax-bill-may-hit-those-who-lost-home/?source=patrick.net
Charlie Neuman / UNION-TRIBUNE
Phyllis and Jack Roth of Fletcher Hills are facing a California tax bill of up to $20,000 because, they have found, the state treats short-sales differently than the IRS.
San Diegans who have lost their homes through foreclosure or short-sales thought they had emerged from the dark times and could start rebuilding their lives.
Then the state tax man came calling.
With less than six weeks before taxes are due, an estimated 16,000 former homeowners statewide will owe $15 million in extra income taxes this year and $29 million through 2012.
The tax applies to what is called the “cancellation of debt” that occurs when property owners lose their homes through foreclosure or arrange a short-sale in which they sell for less than the mortgage balance. The lender sends them a form itemizing the forgiven debt, and the amount is subject to income tax.
Congress exempted most homeowners from the extra federal tax through 2012, and the state followed suit for 2007 and 2008 but did not extend the provision last year. The state Assembly may vote tomorrow on a bill to repeal the tax, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed such a bill last year over unrelated provisions.
“They’re probably stuck,” San Diego tax attorney Bob Kevane said of former homeowners facing the tax. “The biggest way around it is if you’re insolvent.”
Brad Nemeth, another tax attorney, said he doubts the tax will be eliminated.
“The state of California is seriously upside down financially, and I think the governor will probably veto it again,” Nemeth said.
H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the Department of Finance, said Schwarzenegger remains opposed to the bill in its present form but has not announced whether he will veto it again. Other versions of the tax repeal are in the hopper and could be passed next month, legislators’ analysts said.
Failure to halt the tax could cost Jack and Phyllis Roth of Fletcher Hills as much as $20,000 in state income taxes this year — they paid $781 last year — because of the home they sold short in Flinn Springs in November. They bought it in 2004 for $545,000, invested $50,000 in improvements, and then saw its value fall by one-third before they sold it for $410,000. The result was about $190,000 in net loss that was forgiven by the Roths’ lender.
Phyllis Roth, 63, a tax preparer, said she did not realize until recently that the state would treat the short-sale differently than the Internal Revenue Service would. She estimates her state taxes at $15,000 to $20,000.
“I didn’t call anybody,” she said. “I was looking online and didn’t see anything. That’s what happens when you rely on yourself.”
The state Franchise Tax Board has received an increasing number of calls from former homeowners who are discovering the giant tax bills they face, said spokeswoman Denise Azimi. Azimi said the former homeowners can work out a payment schedule, though the state charges 4 percent interest on such stretched-out payments.
If the tax is repealed eventually, the taxpayers could seek a refund, but for now, they have to pay what is due by April 15 or face a penalty.
Not all foreclosures and short-sales are subject to the tax, experts said.
In California, most home buyers get mortgages involving a “nonrecourse” loan — meaning that if the property is foreclosed, the lender has no recourse for recovering lost money except by selling the property itself. Lenders cannot go after the owners’ assets to make up the difference, and no tax is due. These rules apply to principal residences only.
However, when owners refinance or take out a second mortgage or home equity line of credit — as happened often during the housing boom — those loans are written as recourse loans and lenders can seek repayment from the owners’ other resources. Sometimes lenders agree to waive the lost amount, but under current state law, that amount is taxable for homes sold since Jan. 1, 2009.
“It’s one of those little land mines waiting to jump up on people,” Nemeth said.
Taxes also are not due if owners declare insolvency or bankruptcy, the lawyers said. For young homeowners whose main asset was their home, it’s likely they could fall under this provision. For others, the valuation of assets becomes a factor in determining solvency.
“Sometimes if they have other real estate, we try and value the stuff realistically, so that they have as little impact as possible,” Kevane said.
For the Roths, who continue to own a previous home and have other assets, their nearly $200,000 in losses does not cancel out their other holdings. The couple said they normally operate conservatively and only bought the home, which they lived in while their son continued to live in their first house, so they could sell it at a profit and pad their retirement accounts.
“If we have to pay it, we’ll pay it,” Phyllis Roth said of the taxes. “It’s less money to retire on, but it’s not the end of the world.”
Back in Sacramento, the proposal to waive the cancellation of debt tax has passed the Senate and awaits an Assembly vote. Its fate is wrapped up in a larger bill, SB8X-32, by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, which would bring other state tax provisions into compliance with federal law.
One of those, which prompted Schwarzenegger’s veto last year, relates to “erroneous reporting” of tax liability, by which some large taxpayers seek to avoid penalties for under-reporting of income by overestimating taxes due. Federal law charges a penalty for overestimating without a reasonable explanation, and the state bill would adopt similar penalties.
Wolk, who chairs the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee, said it was appropriate to group all tax conformance measures into one bill. But if her bill is vetoed again, she indicated she would act to get the cancellation of debt tax repealed.
“We’re certainly not going to allow homeowners to have to pay significantly more tax when they’ve had to relinquish their homes through short-sales (and foreclosures),” Wolk said.
Roger Showley: (619) 293-1286; roger.showley@uniontrib.com
By Roger Showley, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 12:03 a.m.
LINK: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/03/hefty-tax-bill-may-hit-those-who-lost-home/?source=patrick.net
Charlie Neuman / UNION-TRIBUNE
Phyllis and Jack Roth of Fletcher Hills are facing a California tax bill of up to $20,000 because, they have found, the state treats short-sales differently than the IRS.
San Diegans who have lost their homes through foreclosure or short-sales thought they had emerged from the dark times and could start rebuilding their lives.
Then the state tax man came calling.
With less than six weeks before taxes are due, an estimated 16,000 former homeowners statewide will owe $15 million in extra income taxes this year and $29 million through 2012.
The tax applies to what is called the “cancellation of debt” that occurs when property owners lose their homes through foreclosure or arrange a short-sale in which they sell for less than the mortgage balance. The lender sends them a form itemizing the forgiven debt, and the amount is subject to income tax.
Congress exempted most homeowners from the extra federal tax through 2012, and the state followed suit for 2007 and 2008 but did not extend the provision last year. The state Assembly may vote tomorrow on a bill to repeal the tax, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed such a bill last year over unrelated provisions.
“They’re probably stuck,” San Diego tax attorney Bob Kevane said of former homeowners facing the tax. “The biggest way around it is if you’re insolvent.”
Brad Nemeth, another tax attorney, said he doubts the tax will be eliminated.
“The state of California is seriously upside down financially, and I think the governor will probably veto it again,” Nemeth said.
H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the Department of Finance, said Schwarzenegger remains opposed to the bill in its present form but has not announced whether he will veto it again. Other versions of the tax repeal are in the hopper and could be passed next month, legislators’ analysts said.
Failure to halt the tax could cost Jack and Phyllis Roth of Fletcher Hills as much as $20,000 in state income taxes this year — they paid $781 last year — because of the home they sold short in Flinn Springs in November. They bought it in 2004 for $545,000, invested $50,000 in improvements, and then saw its value fall by one-third before they sold it for $410,000. The result was about $190,000 in net loss that was forgiven by the Roths’ lender.
Phyllis Roth, 63, a tax preparer, said she did not realize until recently that the state would treat the short-sale differently than the Internal Revenue Service would. She estimates her state taxes at $15,000 to $20,000.
“I didn’t call anybody,” she said. “I was looking online and didn’t see anything. That’s what happens when you rely on yourself.”
The state Franchise Tax Board has received an increasing number of calls from former homeowners who are discovering the giant tax bills they face, said spokeswoman Denise Azimi. Azimi said the former homeowners can work out a payment schedule, though the state charges 4 percent interest on such stretched-out payments.
If the tax is repealed eventually, the taxpayers could seek a refund, but for now, they have to pay what is due by April 15 or face a penalty.
Not all foreclosures and short-sales are subject to the tax, experts said.
In California, most home buyers get mortgages involving a “nonrecourse” loan — meaning that if the property is foreclosed, the lender has no recourse for recovering lost money except by selling the property itself. Lenders cannot go after the owners’ assets to make up the difference, and no tax is due. These rules apply to principal residences only.
However, when owners refinance or take out a second mortgage or home equity line of credit — as happened often during the housing boom — those loans are written as recourse loans and lenders can seek repayment from the owners’ other resources. Sometimes lenders agree to waive the lost amount, but under current state law, that amount is taxable for homes sold since Jan. 1, 2009.
“It’s one of those little land mines waiting to jump up on people,” Nemeth said.
Taxes also are not due if owners declare insolvency or bankruptcy, the lawyers said. For young homeowners whose main asset was their home, it’s likely they could fall under this provision. For others, the valuation of assets becomes a factor in determining solvency.
“Sometimes if they have other real estate, we try and value the stuff realistically, so that they have as little impact as possible,” Kevane said.
For the Roths, who continue to own a previous home and have other assets, their nearly $200,000 in losses does not cancel out their other holdings. The couple said they normally operate conservatively and only bought the home, which they lived in while their son continued to live in their first house, so they could sell it at a profit and pad their retirement accounts.
“If we have to pay it, we’ll pay it,” Phyllis Roth said of the taxes. “It’s less money to retire on, but it’s not the end of the world.”
Back in Sacramento, the proposal to waive the cancellation of debt tax has passed the Senate and awaits an Assembly vote. Its fate is wrapped up in a larger bill, SB8X-32, by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, which would bring other state tax provisions into compliance with federal law.
One of those, which prompted Schwarzenegger’s veto last year, relates to “erroneous reporting” of tax liability, by which some large taxpayers seek to avoid penalties for under-reporting of income by overestimating taxes due. Federal law charges a penalty for overestimating without a reasonable explanation, and the state bill would adopt similar penalties.
Wolk, who chairs the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee, said it was appropriate to group all tax conformance measures into one bill. But if her bill is vetoed again, she indicated she would act to get the cancellation of debt tax repealed.
“We’re certainly not going to allow homeowners to have to pay significantly more tax when they’ve had to relinquish their homes through short-sales (and foreclosures),” Wolk said.
Roger Showley: (619) 293-1286; roger.showley@uniontrib.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)