A bankruptcy attorney in Indiana – actually anybody in Indiana – has to care about the future of GM. And actually, as a debt consolidation lawyer offering bankruptcy services in Indiana, I’ve been sharing news about the GM bankruptcy with my clients and Bankruptcy in Indiana readers from the beginning.
A few weeks ago, I wrote these words: “Tracking Indiana employment statistics is like riding an emotional roller coaster.” Well, as I was telling some colleagues who are bankruptcy lawyers in Columbus, the GM saga has been like a roller coaster and then some, and the drama continues…..
The reason the fate of the GM stamping plant is such an item of interest for all the Anderson, Bloomington, Indianapolis and Columbus bankruptcy lawyers who work in the Zuckerberg bankruptcy law offices can be summed up in one word – jobs!
Even though I’m an Indiana lawyer for bankruptcy, it often happens that clients come to talk
with me who are far from certain that filing bankruptcy in Indiana is the best thing for them. Sometimes, people just want my advice as a debt consolidation lawyer. Or perhaps they want my help to stop foreclosure on their home.
Needless to say, the subject of just how bankruptcy in Indiana works comes up in the discussion, and invariably that comes around to the Indiana means test. The means test is a standard by which the court determines if someone is eligible to file bankruptcy in Indiana, and which type of bankruptcy they qualify for.
As part of providing Indiana bankruptcy information, I explain that, if your income is less than the median income earned by Indiana residents during the last six months, you could probably qualify to file either Chapter 7 bankruptcy, or you could file under the new Chapter 13 bankruptcy laws of Indiana. If your income is less than the median, on the other hand, Chapter 13 could be your only option.
Once I’ve explained the means test to my clients, my next step as a bankruptcy attorney in Indiana is to explain that federal law actually sets standards for each kind of expense. There are allowable amounts that people who file bankruptcy in Indiana are allowed to keep for their own use, to support themselves and their families, before they’re expected to make debt repayments. For example, one reader asked about his family of six, and was told that the allowance would be around $1900 a month for food, housekeeping supplies, apparel and services, personal care products and services, and miscellaneous.
Well, there’s an allowance for car expenses as well, which include lease payments or car payments, gasoline, and maintenance. In the Midwest region, for example, the monthly vehicle allowance is $210 for one car, $420 for two.
One of the Columbus bankruptcy lawyers from the Zuckerberg bankruptcy law offices there brought an interesting case to my attention. In this court case, debtors had filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy and had claimed a vehicle allowance as part of their allowable expenses. The thing was, though, they both owned their cars free and clear. The question before the court, then, was – could they still claim the car expense allowance and use the money for other expenses?
The court’s answer was, very simply “yes”. These two debtors had no monthly car loan to pay or lease obligation, either prior to filing bankruptcy or now, but they were allowed to claim an allowance for avehicle expense anyway!
Goes back to what I was saying yesterday – all’s fair in bankruptcy!
The Federal Bankruptcy Court in Boston handed down a decision sharply criticizing an attorney with 28 years of experience for putting his two clients, an elderly widow and her disabled daughter, through duplicative bankruptcy proceedings and attempting to collect excessive fees for both. Judge Boroff stated that it had “particular dismay with respect to the type of conduct” of the attorney. Based on the Court’s decision, clients seeking personal bankruptcy attorneys in Boston need to be ever vigilant about the reasonableness of the recommendations by those attorneys.
The Court examined the Bankruptcy Petitions and determined that notwithstanding the Chapter 13 filings, the petitioners had simple, straight forward, Chapter 7 cases.