South Bay Law Firm | Hope May Spring Eternal . . . But the Automatic Stay Does Not.
1690
single,single-post,postid-1690,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode_grid_1300,side_area_uncovered_from_content,footer_responsive_adv,hide_top_bar_on_mobile_header,qode-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,qode-theme-ver-10.1,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.0.1,vc_responsive
 

Hope May Spring Eternal . . . But the Automatic Stay Does Not.

Hope May Spring Eternal . . . But the Automatic Stay Does Not.

A South Carolina bankruptcy court decision issued earlier this month highlights and illustrates the perils facing individual sole proprietors who struggle to reorganize their financial affairs through the Chapter 11 process.

The debtors – a husband and wife who owned a business and several pieces of rental property – filed a Chapter 11 in November 2009, but the case was dismissed approximately 10 months later.  In February this year, while their appeal of that dismissal was pending, they filed a second Chapter 11.

When an individual debtor seeks bankruptcy protection for a second time within 12 months, Section 362(c)(3) (added in connection with the 2005 BAPCPA amendments) terminates the automatic stay by default unless, within 30 days, the debtor can demonstrate that their second attempt is in “good faith.”

List of HOT and ETL lanes in the United States

Image via Wikipedia

 

Put another way, an individual debtor’s second attempt at bankruptcy protection is presumptively in “bad faith” – and the automatic stay will self-terminate – unless the debtor can demonstrate otherwise.

Demonstrating otherwise is what the debtors attempted to do in In re Washington.

So what does it take for an individual to establish “clear and convincing” evidence of “good faith” in these circumstances?

Apparently, a good deal of personal organization – and evidence of consistent, clearly documented efforts to reorganize, with clearly documented results to show for it.

In Washington, the debtors produced evidence regarding their business income and rental receipts which the Court characterized as “inconsistent and confusing.”  The Court took issue with the debtors’ estimates of present income, found holes in their testimony regarding decreased expenses, and found the debtors’ revenue projections to be “unjustifiably rosy.”

In sum, although Debtors claim that their financial circumstances have changed substantially, it appears to the Court that, with minor exceptions, Debtors have the same debt, same business, same properties, and same financial circumstances as they did in their previous case. The Court finds that there has not been a substantial change in Debtors’ financial circumstances and therefore, a presumption arises under section 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(III) that Debtors’ case was not filed in good faith.

The Court found that the same result applied under section 362(c)(3)(i)(III)(bb). That subsection imposes a presumption that a debtor’s second case was not filed in good faith if the court finds reason to conclude that the current case will not be concluded “with a confirmed plan that will be fully performed.”

But if Washington provides a cautionary tale for individual debtors who are struggling through the bankruptcy process, it also emphasizes the touchstone for every successful reorganization, no matter how small:  A viable business strategy.

Enhanced by Zemanta
No Comments

Post A Comment