The following post was contributed by Ken Andrews of the Doan Law Firm in California. Ken also runs a blog called “San Diego Predatory Lending”, where the original of this article is posted. The article discusses a bankruptcy defense based on existing law to dispense with second mortgages.
A lot has been written by me and others about How To Walk Away From Your Home. My blog has become more of a self-help guide to walking away in California. I get at least 25 calls and emails a week from people who want to get out from their underwater homes, but are scared they will be liable for the unpaid mortgage debt. As I previously explained, California homeowners who used 80/20 loans to purchase their homes and have not refinanced the second mortgage
But I also get many folks who have refinanced that second mortgage, or who want to keep their homes, but can’t pay for the adjusted payment on their mortgage, or don’t want to pay on a house that worth substantially less than they owe on it. They have tried to get the bank to work with them, but are frustrated because the bank won’t talk unless they are two payments behind and the only thing the bank will do is freeze their payments or add their arrears to their loan balance. Banks will not reduce the principal amount on loans to fair market value to save a borrower from foreclosure. They just won’t do it.
Once again it’s the 80/20 loan to the rescue. This beautiful piece of financial engineering genius (you really need to click on that link, it’s hilarious!) has found yet another way to help distressed home owners. And not just in California, this trick works all over the United States.
The trick is called a “Chapter 13 Lien Strip” but I like to call it the “Back Door Cram Down.” You may have read about the proposed mortgage “Cram Down” legislation that would allow Chapter 13 judges to reduce or “Cram Down” mortgages balances to fair market value in a Chapter 13 case. This legislation has zero chance of passing until a new election and Congress are seated next January.
Instead, we are “Cramming Down” second mortgages using the old Bankruptcy code section 1322 which states:
“Contents of plan
(b) The plan may–
(2) modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence, or of holders of unsecured claims, or leave unaffected the rights of holders of any class of claims.”
What’s not obvious about this code section is a loan is not “secured” by your personal residence if there is no value or equity in your home that would go to the lender if the home was sold. That means the loan can be converted to unsecured or the lien “stripped” from the house by “modifying the rights of holders of secured claims.” This turns it into unsecured debt, like credit card debt, which can be discharged!!!! This is why I call it a “Back Door” cram down because we are cramming down the second mortgage to unsecured status.
Here is an example. You bought your home in 2006 for $500k with 100% financing using an 80/20 loan. So your first mortgage is 80% or $400k and your second mortgage is 20% or $100k. The market is down more than 20% from its peak and your house is now only worth $375k. This means if the house was sold, the first mortgage would take all $375k and the second mortgage would get nothing. In this case the second mortgage is “wholly unsecured” and the second clause of section 1322(b) does not apply, so we can modify the rights of the second mortgage holder and turn it into unsecured debt.
What happens to the now unsecured stripped off second mortgage? It gets paid in your Chapter 13 plan but only after your other secured debts are paid. Secured debts are the first mortgage, your property taxes, and your car payments. And because a Chapter 13 plan lasts only 3-5 years (usually 5) a whole lot of that unsecured debt does not get paid. At the end of 5 years, most unsecured debts (not student loans, back income taxes, or family support payments) are discharged so you don’t have to repay them.
So at the end of 5 years, you are left with just your just mortgage payment on your house. Your cars and your back property taxes are paid off, your student loans and back income taxes are paid down, but your second mortgage and your credit card debt is gone! Beautiful isn’t it? God bless the 80/20! It just keeps on giving.
You can read more about Chapter 13 plans here so I’m not go into great detail on them other than to say they are like debt consolidation inside of a bankruptcy, they last 3 to 5 years (usually 5) and you also can included student loans and back income taxes.
So what is the downside? First off, you will have gone “Bankrupt.” Your creditors will report that for 7 years and it will appear as a public record for 10 years on your credit report. Creditors do not really distinguish between a Chapter 7 or a Chapter 13 bankruptcy so your credit will take a beating. But I like to point out to people that if they do nothing, their credit will likely take a beating anyway, so it’s not really any worse.
The other major downside is you must make every plan payment for 3 to 5 years. If you fail, everything goes back to the way it was. You owe all that debt, and the second lien is no longer stripped off. So I always tell my clients to make a budget that will work for 5 years, not just one that looks good to the Bankruptcy Court.
7 responses so far ↓
1 SoCalGal // May 19, 2008 at 9:56 am
Many of the statements in this article are incorrect, so the best comment I could leave is that anyone facing foreclosure should get competent legal advice, especially regarding student loans, which generally are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
http://bankruptcy.lawyers.com/Student-Loans-In-Bankruptcy.html
2 dhavey // May 19, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Do you have any case law where this strategy was used and/or successful?
3 Ken Andrews // May 19, 2008 at 4:59 pm
SoCalGal:
I’m sorry you were unable to comprehend article. I said you can include student loans and taxes in a Chapter 13. What that means is that in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, student loans will receive a pro rata payment along with other unsecured creditors for the life of the plan. This means some of your payment will pay down non-dischargeable debt which is an added benefit of Chapter 13.
My article does in fact clearly state they are non-dischargable here:
“At the end of 5 years, most unsecured debts (not student loans, back income taxes, or family support payments) are discharged so you don’t have to repay them.”
You will note the exception for student loans, back taxes and family support payments that I clearly state will not be discharged.
dhavey: As far as case law, I suggest you goggle “chapter 13 lien strip” and see there is quite a bit of information on it and it has become quite popular in the current real estate market.
Cheers,
Ken
4 noah // Jun 20, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I am not sure if this applies to Florida or if it only applies to California. I will have to check on this and see. It seems very interesting though.
Noah@ShortOnChange.com
http://www.ShortOnChange.com
5 MickProPer // Jun 25, 2008 at 12:10 am
Just a minor correction; your comments regarding “lien stripping” are right on, however it is possible, under certain limited circumstances, to receive discharge on a student loan, even a Federally-insured or FHMA loan.
The code speaks to an “undue hardship” standard; in practice the bankruptcy judges generally utilize a three-pronged approach: first, the repayment of the loan MUST represent a severe undue hardship, such that it represents a bar to the “fresh start” concept of bankruptcy.
Second, the education the loan represents must be of no present value to the debtor; and third, it must be likely that it will never be of future value to the debtor.
Thanks for the great posting!
/\/\ \/\/
Mick
6 MickProPer // Jun 25, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Also had a second thought on this: the debtor’s right to reaffirm the secured debt, is based upon the protection of the debtor’s exempt equity in the property. If there is no equity, or the debtor is in an “upside down” position, the principal mortgage lender CAN choose to refuse re-affirmation, and just take the property back. I helped out with a CA case several years ago, in which this occurred.
/\/\ \/\/
Mick
7 Ken Andrews // Jun 25, 2008 at 3:51 pm
MickProPer:
I’m sorry but there seems to be confusion with regard to “include.” In a chapter 13 bankruptcy, student loans may be “included” in the pool of “unsecured” creditors that receive a “dividend.” There are two benefits to this. First, you do not have to make any payments on those for 5 years. Second, part of your monthly chapter 13 payments go to pay down your student loans. This is at the expense of your other unsecured creditors because they will get less. At the end of five years, you will begin paying the student loans again, but the balance will be reduced by the montly plan payments that went to the student loans.
With regard to your second coment regarding reaffirmation, that applies to chapter 7 bankruptcy. Chapter 13 requires the payments to be included in the plan or the property surrendered.
I hope that clears things up.
You must log in to post a comment.