Because residential foreclosures in California are nearly always “nonjudicial” foreclosures (really trustee sales) conducted by the servicer or trustee of the first mortgage lender, California’s anti-deficiency rule prohibits that lender from suing the homeowner for any balance still owed after foreclosing (a “deficiency judgment”). In other words, California homeowners who suffer a foreclosure are generally safe from further collections at least from their first mortgage lender even without filing bankruptcy.

However, second loans are treated differently in California. “Non-purchase-money” loans, such as home equity lines of credit, are treated as “recourse” loans in California, meaning that the lender can sue the borrower on the promissory note even after the home has been foreclosed. This personal liability for recourse second mortgage loans is forever discharged if the homeowner gets a bankruptcy discharge under either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

However, just because the homeowner’s personal liability for a second mortgage or equity line has been discharged, this does not mean that the lender’s lien has been removed from the property. Foreclosing on a lien and suing on a promissory note are two entirely distinct legal remedies. Hence the California homeowner with a second mortgage who obtains a discharge in Chapter 7 bankruptcy will be safe from being sued by the second mortgage lender, but this does not mean that she owns her property free and clear of the second mortgage lien. She will never have to pay that second loan if the property is eventually foreclosed, and she may not have to make a payment on that second loan for as long as she owns the property, assuming the value of the property remains depressed leaving no value for the second lender to foreclose upon. However, because the lien is still attached, she cannot sell or otherwise transfer the property without paying off or settling the second loan.

Chapter 13 bankruptcy, can in certain circumstances, offer the additional benefit of removing the second mortgage lien entirely. If the homeowner has at least some disposable monthly income sufficient to feasibly complete a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, and if the property’s value at the time of filing Chapter 13 is less than the amount owed on the first mortgage loan, then the homeowner in Chapter 13 may avoid or “strip off” the second mortgage or equity line entirely. This means the homeowner can emerge from bankruptcy owning his property free and clear of the second loan. He can sell the property, or his heirs can inherit it, without having to negotiate a settlement with the second mortgage lender. When we’re talking about stripping off an equity line of say, $150,000, the advantage offered by Chapter 13 bankruptcy can be enormous if the homeowner desires to keep her home long term.

Even so, many people filing bankruptcy cannot afford to make payments into a Chapter 13 plan. Or their home is not so deeply underwater to qualify for a lien strip of their second mortgage. For them, discharging their personal liability for a second mortgage loan still provides significant debt relief that cannot be overstated. However, their second mortgage lender will still have a valid lien against the property. Although the lender will never be able to sue on that loan, it will be able to hold up an eventual sale or transfer of the property, and could conceivably even foreclose one day if the property ever appreciated to the point that they would get any proceeds from such a foreclosure.

If you’re a homeowner considering filing for bankruptcy in the Bay Area, contact us for a free consultation. We will advise you whether Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 will offer you the best solution for your debts, including a second mortgage or home equity line of credit.

Keeping the present interest rate at 3.4% for federally subsidized Stafford loans rather than allowing that rate to double to 6.8% in July, will not prevent the coming crisis in student loan defaults. That won’t happen without amending the Bankruptcy Code to offer a common sense approach to debt relief from student loans for a greater number of bankruptcy debtors. But keeping the interest rate low on federal student loans will help curb student loan debt balances from ballooning even further than they otherwise will if the rate is allowed to double.

Enormous student loan debts cause young people to delay or forego altogether getting advanced professional degrees, purchasing homes, having children, and starting businesses. And, of course, the prospect of crushing student loan debt discourages many from attending universities and graduate schools in the first place. Given that we need this and future generations to do these things for the good of our long term economy, it’s just dumb public policy to allow student loan interest rates to double.

Now, we can disagree about where the money should come from. Not wanting to totally alienate college age voters in an election year, the Republicans are now on board, it appears, to keep these rates low, but have proposed taking the money to pay for it from a fund created for health care. The Democrats prefer to pay for it by eliminating subsidies to oil and gas companies. That should be a pretty easy choice for any middle class families who might be paying attention. One piece of advice to parents: start a 529 college savings plan now; 529 college savings are even protected in Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

In the end, however, we will still face a huge rate of defaults on student loans in the coming decades as the overall amount of student loan debt continues to balloon. Default rates, which have been historically low compared to other types of debt, are already on the rise. As private student loans become more prevalent, imposing much higher interest rates and refusing to offer consolidation options or meaningful help to borrowers struggling and unable to pay, the default rate will continue to grow. Because they cannot be discharged in bankruptcy for all practical purposes, we risk creating a future permanent underclass of college educated people whose wages will be garnished into their retirement years. While it is certainly in the best interest of our future economy to keep federal student loan interest low, what we really need is to reform the Bankruptcy Code to allow for the discharge of student loans where debtors demonstrate a reasonable history of effort to pay their student loans but a present inability to pay them, not an absurd standard of probable future poverty as is the current case under the judicially created Brunner test of “undue hardship.”

In 2005, when Congress passed the sweeping pro-creditor changes to bankruptcy law contained in the BAPCPA, Congress made even private student loans nondischargeable without a showing of “undue hardship.” This subversion of the Bankruptcy Code’s favoring of discharge of prebankruptcy debts was nothing but a shameless giveaway to the private student loan industry, according student loan lenders special treatment not given to any other type of creditors. Moreover, because “undue hardship” was never defined by Congress, the bankruptcy courts were left to create their own judicial test for what constitutes “undue hardship” sufficient to discharge student loans.

Debtors filing bankruptcy in California who seek to discharge student loans must prove “undue hardship” by proving all three prongs of the “Brunner Test” as the Ninth Circuit adopted the Brunner test in 1998 in the case In re Pena.  This means that the bankruptcy debtor must file an adversary proceeding in his bankruptcy case and litigate whether his student loans should be discharged. The burden of proof is on the bankruptcy debtor, and he must prove by a preponderance of the evidence three separate prongs contained in the Brunner Test, namely: “(1) that the debtor cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a ‘minimal’ standard of living for herself and her dependents if forced to repay the loans; (2) that additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans; and (3) that the debtor has made good faith efforts to repay the loans.” In re Brunner, 831 F.2d at 396.

By giving student loan lenders such special treatment, Congress and the bankruptcy courts have denied tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of honest debtors the fresh start free of debt that bankruptcy is intended to provide. It is impossible to know how many debtors might have obtained a discharge of their student loans because I believe the vast majority of bankruptcy debtors with student loans simply cannot afford to litigate the issue of whether their student loans might be discharged. Most consumer bankruptcy attorneys in California are solo attorneys or very small firms that cannot afford to litigate these cases pro bono, and their clients, especially the ones who might just win a discharge of their student loans simply choose not to fight this costly fight.

Apart from the barrier to discharge imposed on student loan debtors created by the necessity of costly bankruptcy litigation, the other problem with student loans in bankruptcy is that the Brunner Test is as clear as mud. Reading the Ninth Circuit cases interpreting and applying the Brunner test (e.g., inter alia, In re Pena, In re Nys) the bankruptcy attorney cannot help but conclude that the bankruptcy court’s application of this test is an exercise in subjective speculation by the judge about each debtor’s present and future circumstances.  The student loan debtor’s chances of proving “undue hardship” and thereby obtaining a discharge of his student loans in bankruptcy are nothing but a very expensive gamble.

Today, Americans are saddled with over $1 Trillion in student loan debt. The rise of for-profit colleges and their aggressive peddling on television and elsewhere have encouraged millions of Americans to take out large student loans while graduating them with dubious skills and slim chances of earning enough to pay off their student loans. Private student loan lenders are largely unregulated, charge high interest, and are unsympathetic to borrowers who need lower interest and consolidation options. In this bankruptcy attorney’s view, the treatment by the Bankruptcy Code and by the courts of student loans represents an ongoing giveaway to student loan lenders, and coupled with the impending crisis over the sheer amount of student loan debt in this country and the rise of unscrupulous for-profit schools, represent a coming “perfect storm” for our ever shrinking middle class.

For a free consultation with experienced consumer bankruptcy lawyers in San Jose, California, contact us. We’ll be happy to review your entire financial situation and give you our honest opinion about whether filing bankruptcy might help.

In addition to analyzing the threshold issues in any consumer bankruptcy case, such as determining whether or not the debtor’s income is above or below her state’s median income, and if above, whether her debt is primarily consumer debt, whether she passes the Means Test, and other critical issues, individuals with tax debts arising from past unpaid state and federal income taxes need to obtain a tax transcript from the IRS and all notices they’ve received from the California Franchise Tax Board and IRS. The IRS tax transcript provides a timeline with the all-important dates when tax returns were filed, when tax liabilities were assessed, and when any tax liens may have attached.

For past income taxes to be discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in San Jose or any other bankruptcy court, your bankruptcy attorney must perform a complex analysis of the bankruptcy debtor’s tax debts, when his or her tax returns were due, when they were actually filed, and when the taxing authority, such as the IRS, assessed the taxes. This is why the bankruptcy attorney needs a copy of the tax transcript.

The first date to pin down is when was the tax return due for the tax year that gave rise to the particular tax debt? In order for the tax debt to be discharged, the tax return must have been first due to be filed more than three years before filing the bankruptcy petition. Next, if the debtor filed that return late, then it must have been actually filed at least two years before the bankruptcy petition is filed. Those are the easy ones. The next critical date is generally not something the debtor knows, and that is why our bankruptcy attorneys need a copy of the tax transcript. This is the date that the IRS assessed the tax liability. To be discharged in bankruptcy, the tax debt must have been assessed more than 240 days before the bankruptcy petition is filed. Additionally, the 240-day assessment period is tolled (meaning the clock stops) during any period when the debtor has made an Offer in Compromise with the IRS and such offer is pending. On the date such an Offer in Compromise is denied, the 240-day assessment period starts up again from when the clock was stopped, but in this situation, the Bankruptcy Code adds another 30 days to the 240 days before the bankruptcy petition should be filed.

Of course, all of the above age requirements that income tax debts must meet in order for the tax debts to be discharged in bankruptcy depend on the fact that the debtor actually filed her tax returns. Additionally, tax debts can never be discharged if the debtor is found to have willfully attempted to evade the taxes or if she filed a fraudulent tax return.

Analyzing whether individual income tax debts can be discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy requires an experienced bankruptcy attorney. Our San Jose bankruptcy lawyers offer free consultations to anyone considering filing bankruptcy in the Bay Area. Call us to schedule an appointment with us.

Bankruptcy Code section 548 (11 U.S.C. §548) defines what constitutes a fraudulent transfer. Briefly, fraudulent transfers made before filing bankruptcy come in two varieties: those involving actual fraud and those where constructive fraud is found. Actual fraud occurs when the debtor made the transfer with “actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” the debtor’s creditors. Constructive fraud, on the other hand, most commonly occurs when the debtor transfers an asset for “less than a reasonably equivalent value” and the debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfer or became insolvent as a result of the transfer. The Bankruptcy Code also provides for a handful of technical definitions of “insolvency” in the business context.

Under Bankruptcy Code section 548 the bankruptcy trustee can “avoid” any fraudulent transfer that was made within two years prior to the debtor’s bankruptcy filing. That means the family member or friend who received that car, money, property or other asset (again, either as an outright gift, or even after paying less than its full worth) can expect to be sued by the bankruptcy trustee to demand the return of the asset. For fraudulent transfers made more than two years before the filing, Bankruptcy Code section 544 allows the bankruptcy trustee to rely on state fraudulent transfer law, and step into the shoes of a creditor in order to likewise recover the asset for the bankruptcy estate. California’s fraudulent transfer law provides a substantially longer look back period of up to seven years. Additionally, if the debtor made a transfer to a self-settled trust of which the debtor is a beneficiary, and if the transfer was made with actual intent to defraud his creditors, the Bankruptcy Code provides for an even longer look back period of ten years.

Fraudulent transfers invariably cause a huge amount of grief for bankruptcy debtors and for their family members or friends who received the asset. Possibly the most disastrous consequence of a fraudulent transfer before filing bankruptcy is the possible denial of the debtor’s bankruptcy discharge. Under Bankruptcy Code section 727, any fraudulent transfer involving “actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” creditors, if the transfer occurred within one year before the bankruptcy filing, can disqualify the debtor from receiving a discharge at all.

Transferring an asset before filing bankruptcy—whether as a gift, or at a bargain price—is never a good idea. Even if your intent is not actually fraudulent, you should still never make such a transfer because doing so will nearly always cause grief for everyone involved, both you and the person to whom you transfer the asset. Because fraudulent transfers are a particularly complicated area of bankruptcy law, it is particularly important that you always seek the advice of a knowledgeable bankruptcy attorney if you are thinking about filing bankruptcy.

However, Bankruptcy Code Section 1308 (11 U.S.C. §1308) requires that a debtor in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy must have filed his or her taxes for all taxable periods during the four year period leading up to the filing of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. The deadline is the day before the Chapter 13 bankruptcy debtor’s first Meeting of Creditors. The San Jose Chapter 13 trustee will file a motion to dismiss a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case if the debtor has not filed his or her taxes by the Meeting of Creditors. While we may be able to obtain a brief extension on this requirement, no Chapter 13 bankruptcy client should count on it!

The San Jose Chapter 13 bankruptcy trustee will not accept a filing requesting an extension; nor will the Oakland Chapter 13 bankruptcy trustee, and I am certain that no other Chapter 13 trustee in the Northern District of California will accept an extension in lieu of a filed tax return in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

While this is an absolute requirement in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, we also encourage all San Jose Chapter 7 bankruptcy clients to be current in filing their tax returns prior to filing bankruptcy in San Jose. It is true that some Chapter 7 bankruptcy clients will have such low income as to not require filing a tax return at all. In such cases, although we may be able to comply with the requirements of Bankruptcy Code Section 521 (which requires that among other documents, the debtor’s most recent tax return be provided to the Bankruptcy Trustee), with a sworn declaration by the Chapter 7 debtor stating the reason why the debtor was not required to file a tax return, it is still preferable that every bankruptcy debtor file his or her most recent tax returns. This is because the Statement of Financial Affairs (“SOFA”) attached to the bankruptcy petition requires that the debtor state his or her gross income from employment or operation of a business for the two years preceding the filing of his or her bankruptcy petition.  Without having filed tax returns for these years, it may be very difficult for Chapter 7 bankruptcy petitioners to state such income with any precision.

Our San Jose bankruptcy lawyers are here to help debtors filing Chapter 13 bankruptcy or Chapter 7 in San Jose. We only represent debtors, and we are always sympathetic to the needs of our clients and never judgmental. We want your Chapter 13 or 7 bankruptcy to succeed. To ensure the success of your case, we urge you to file your tax returns now, whether or not you seek our bankruptcy advice.

Sadly, some have been unemployed for so long now that their unemployment benefits have run out. They may have already lost their home to foreclosure, and are in many cases living with parents, adult children, and even ex-spouses. Some of their creditors have already sued them after many months of nonpayment, but so what? They have no wages to garnish, no bank account to levy, and no property to attach with a lien. They are effectively, for the time being, “judgment proof.” Why even bother filing bankruptcy now?

While it is true that judgments creditors can’t squeeze blood from a stone, they will patiently wait and collect again once the judgment debtor gets a job. In California, judgments are renewable every ten years, and they accrue post-judgment interest at ten percent per year. Once a debtor allows a creditor to obtain a judgment against him, that creditor has an array of tools available to collect on that judgment, including attaching judgment liens to any real estate the debtor might own anywhere in California, garnishing wages, and levying the debtor’s bank account.

When the person with a judgment against her finally secures a steady job, the judgment creditor is ready to pounce with a wage garnishment. That is why now may be the best time to file for personal bankruptcy. Now that you finally have a steady job, why not get the fresh financial start by getting rid of old debts and judgments through bankruptcy? Getting out of debt is always the first step toward getting ahead.

For bankruptcy eligibility, whether in Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, the debtor’s monthly income is analyzed in comparison to his monthly necessary living expenses. Because “current monthly income” in bankruptcy is derived from the average of the six months immediately before filing bankruptcy, it is often advantageous for the debtor to file bankruptcy promptly after getting a new job if she has been unemployed for a long period of time, before her income from the new job causes a dramatic rise in her average current monthly income. And remember, as I wrote recently on this blog, employers are prohibited from firing you just because you file for bankruptcy protection.

If you have judgments that creditors have been unable to collect because you’ve been out of work for a long time, and you’ve recently secured a steady job, now may be the best time to consider filing personal bankruptcy, before your creditors can start garnishing your wages and taking your hard earned money out of your bank accounts. If you live in the Bay Area, call us for a free consultation with a bankruptcy attorney.

The Chapter 7 filer who seeks a fee waiver must file Official Form 3B together with his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and schedules. The bankruptcy judge will then rule on whether the Chapter 7 debtor may proceed “in forma pauperis” without paying the filing fee, or whether the Chapter 7 debtor must pay the fee in installments (usually four), or whether the debtor must pay the fee in its entirety promptly or have her case dismissed.

Just because a Chapter 7 debtor meets the criteria set out in 28 U.S.C. §1930(f), does not mean that the bankruptcy judge will grant the fee waiver. The Code states that the judge “may” grant the fee waiver if these criteria are met, not that the judge “must” grant it, so the determination is entirely up the discretion of the court. Some judges are more or less sympathetic when it comes to fee waiver applications, and in my experience, Chapter 7 debtors are far more often allowed to pay the fee in installments than not to pay it at all. Some Chapter 7 panel trustees are quite hostile to fee waiver applications, which is no wonder given that they receive a portion of the Chapter 7 filing fee and stand to earn nothing in a no asset Chapter 7 if a fee waiver is granted.

Note also that under the Judicial Conference of the United States Interim Procedures Regarding the Chapter 7 Fee Waiver Provisions a Chapter 7 debtor is not disqualified from obtaining a fee waiver solely because she has paid a bankruptcy attorney to represent her in her Chapter 7 case. In fact, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1006(b)(1) was amended to delete a sentence from the Fee Waiver Application that had previously required the debtor to state that he had not paid anything to a bankruptcy attorney or petition preparer.

It is important to remember that everyone who files Chapter 7 bankruptcy is suffering real financial hardship. To convince the court that a debtor should not have to pay the fee really requires a showing that the particular debtor is truly destitute. In my experience, fee waivers are rarely granted by the Bankruptcy Court in San Jose and throughout the Northern District of California, but if the client meets the guidelines, there is nothing wrong with trying, and I would argue, is entirely proper as zealous advocacy of a Chapter 7 debtor’s interests.

Assuming the client is ultimately eligible for bankruptcy relief, most civil judgments in California can be discharged in bankruptcy. If that debt would otherwise be dischargeable, the mere fact that the plaintiff obtained a court judgment against the debtor does not change the dischargeability of the debt. However, it is always important to remember that bankruptcy only discharges personal liability—a bankruptcy discharge by itself does not remove liens from property. If, for example, a debtor allows a judgment creditor to obtain a judgment and then record a judicial lien against the debtor’s home, then it may or may not be possible to remove that judgment lien in the debtor’s California bankruptcy. A judgment lien can be avoided by the debtor in Chapter 7 bankruptcy only to the extent that lien “impairs” the debtor’s homestead exemption.

As Bay Area homes have declined in value, we have represented fewer and fewer Chapter 7 clients who actually have any equity in a homestead to protect. Hence, if the Chapter 7 bankruptcy client owns a home against which a judicial lien has been recorded prior to filing bankruptcy, but that home is underwater with no equity, then we cannot remove the lien in the Chapter 7 case. Upon receiving his discharge, the Chapter 7 client will be relieved of personal liability for the debt, but the judicial lien will remain as an encumbrance on his home. In other words, he will never be able to sell or otherwise transfer the property without satisfying the lien. In such a case, if the debtor were unable to file bankruptcy before the creditor obtained a judgment in the underlying civil lawsuit, it would have been preferable had this person at least filed an Answer in California superior court to delay as long as possible the entry of default in that case until whatever conditions that had prevented filing his bankruptcy petition were no longer present.

In advising a client whether or not to file an Answer to a new lawsuit in civil court before filing bankruptcy, we must determine the identity of all parties being sued. If the debtor is being sued individually, together with this California corporation or LLC, for example, a personal Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing will offer the individual the immediate protection of the Automatic Stay, stopping the lawsuit in its tracks as to that individual. But the co-defendant corporation or LLC will not receive any protection at all unless it files its own bankruptcy petition. If it is not in a position to do so immediately, then it should file an Answer in the civil suit.

Finally, it is always crucial to remember that not all debts may be discharged in bankruptcy. If a complaint states causes of action for one or more types of actual or constructive fraud, misrepresentation, and similar torts, and if the plaintiff obtains a judgment on those causes of action, such a judgment may render the debt forever non-dischargeable under one of the exceptions to discharge found in Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code in any subsequent bankruptcy. A debtor should never allow a plaintiff to obtain by default a judgment including civil causes of action for fraud. Instead, unless she can file bankruptcy before the plaintiff can obtain a default judgment, she should always file an Answer and make the plaintiff prove his case.

Timing a bankruptcy filing, particularly when there is a recent civil suit pending against the debtor, requires consideration of many factors relating to bankruptcy and California law. Always consult an experienced California bankruptcy attorney as early as possible if you’re served with a summons and complaint.

One of the most common myths surrounding bankruptcy is the idea that one cannot file Chapter 7 bankruptcy if he has a home, a car, any savings, or any assets at all. Or, put another way, that if he does file Chapter 7, he will lose all of these assets to the bankruptcy trustee. Well, I’m here to tell you that it just isn’t so. Everyone filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy in California is entitled to claim assets up to certain values as exempt from seizure by the bankruptcy trustee. In California, we have two sets of such exemptions available in Chapter 7 bankruptcy—the “704″ or “homestead” exemptions and the “703″ or “wild card” exemptions. Ever since home values in the Bay Area began their precipitous decline, however, we rarely need to claim the homestead exemptions because our Chapter 7 clients rarely have any home equity left to protect. So, in this post I’ll focus on the California wild card exemptions.

Before I delve into the wild card exemptions, though, let’s take a moment first to acknowledge that in addition to each of the wild card exemptions discussed below, California bankruptcy debtors can also claim as exempt any qualified retirement savings they may have. These include all 401(k) and pension savings as well as all Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Additionally, as I’ve written before in this blog, 529 college savings plans enjoy the same protection in Chapter 7 bankruptcy as do IRAs.

The wild card exemptions are listed in California Code of Civil Procedure 703.140, and the current dollar amounts are adjusted once every three years and published by the Judicial Council of California. What we refer to as the “wild card” exemption is actually the combination of the exemptions provided in CCP sec. 703.140(b)(1) and (b)(5), or the aggregate of the debtor’s interest in any real or personal property. The current wild card totals $23,250, and is set to adjust again on April 1, 2013.

The beauty of the wild card is that it can be “sprinkled around” or “sliced and diced” to cover different items and types of assets. For example, suppose the Chapter 7 debtor has a car with a present Kelly Blue Book value of $10,000. The vehicle exemption available under 703.140(b)(2) is a mere $3,525, and the debtor needs her car. What to do? We can simply use $6,475 from the wild card, combining this withe the vehicle exemption to protect the entire value of the car. Now the debtor still has $16,775 of unused wild card exemption remaining to protect an other assets she may have, including liquid cash.

Apart from the wild card and the vehicle exemptions described above, every California Chapter 7 bankruptcy using the 703.140(b) exemptions can also avail himself of a jewelry exemption ($1,425), an exemption for professional books and “tools of the trade” ($2,200), an exemption for the cash surrender value of a “whole life” insurance contract ($11,800), as well as all of his personal household furnishings, goods, clothing, books and the like (up to $550 per item). Again, any unused portion of the wild card itself ($23,250) can be added to any of these specifically categorized exemptions.

As we can see, the myth that by filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you will lose all your belongings, is simply untrue. While I wouldn’t characterize the California wild card exemptions as generous, they are sufficient to protect all or nearly all of the average Chapter 7 bankruptcy client’s assets. As should also be apparent, however, the proper claiming of the appropriate exemptions in Chapter 7 is complex, and you should retain an experienced debtors’ attorney if you are considering filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy.