Lawrence & Associates remains open during the coronavirus emergency declaration. Although all our personnel are working from home, we are able to do all client meetings, court hearings, depositions, and mediations by phone or videoconferencing. This includes free, confidential consultations for new clients. Click here to watch our video on how we help clients during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Unfortunately someone in another country by the name of Thomas Lawrence is claiming to be the CEO of Lawrence & Associates on Facebook. According to Facebook’s Community Standards, there is nothing wrong with this person claiming to be our CEO, but it is hurting our firm’s online presence.
From the reviews and harsh messages, we have gathered the following information: Apparently Thomas Lawrence is political in India and is proposing something that has upset a lot of people in the country. Since his Facebook profile says that he is the CEO of our business, a lot of people in India that disagree with what he is doing have left Lawrence & Associates’ Facebook business page over 50 one-star reviews with remarks like: “We hate those who are working against the development of trivandrum..our capital city…proud to be a trivian..” and “Pathetic…As they are a lobby against the Capital of God’s own Country , Trivandrum.”Obviously this has nothing to do with our business here in Fort Mitchell, Kentucky, but Facebook does not see anything wrong with the reviews and is ignoring our request to take them down.
We are asking you, our past and present clients (people who have actually used our services) to please take the time to leave your own review about Lawrence & Associates on our Facebook page in order to drown out these awful reviews that have nothing to do with our company.
They have found our Google page and are leaving bad reviews on Google Maps for us as well. The majority of the bad reviews are on Facebook, but If you could please leave a review for us on both sites that would be great.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Links to Facebook Reviews & Google Reviews are below:
On December 1, 2017, a series of new Federal and EDKY bankruptcy rules went into effect. Most of these changes are procedural and will not have a direct impact on a clients’ eligibility or decision to file one chapter of bankruptcy over another. However, these changes must be carefully considered and implemented by counsel to ensure clients’ plans are confirmable and successful.
The changes will be applicable to all cases filed on or after December 1, 2017 but shall also be applied to pending cases where appropriate. While vague, the governing rule means that most likely, none of the amended rules regarding deadlines will apply to cases filed prior to December 1, 2017, but the use of new forms and service of process should be implemented into any case immediately.
The new rules that will have the largest impact on greatest number of debtors include:
Rule 3002: The Bar Date
The bar date for non-governmental units, including secured and unsecured creditors, is now reduced to 70 days from the date of the petition. Debtors’ counsel has a duty to ensure that secured proofs of claim are filed in order to protect their secured assets and therefore this much shorter deadline should be monitored closely.
Rule 3007: Objection of Claims
Under the new rules, Debtors’ counsel must follow substantially different guidelines in order to object to a filed claim. The Objection itself must be accompanied by a Notice of Objection to Claim which conforms to Official Form 420B. The objection must be mailed to the person and address listed on the proof of claim.
Rule 3012: Valuation of Claims
Requests for valuation of secured claims may be made by motion, in a claim objection, or in a Chapter 13 plan unless the creditor is a governmental unit. If the creditor is a governmental unit, the request for valuation can only be made by motion following the bar date or claim or through a claim objection. To comply with this Rule, Debtor’s counsel must careful monitor claims and the new, shorter bar date. If any claim is valued in the plan and the creditor fails to file an objection, confirmation will make such valuation binding. Most importantly, Rule 3012 now requires such creditors to be served in such a manner under Rule 7004; this applies to service of the Chapter 13 plan, a Motion for valuation, or a claim objection requesting valuation.
Form 3015-4(b): Adequate Protection
Previously, Adequate Protection payments could be established through the Chapter 13 Plan. Now, a Debtor must file and serve and order for adequate protection with the plan using Local Form 3015-4(b). However, filing an Agreed Order with a creditor after the initial filing can also serve this purpose.
New Local Forms:
There are now established Local Forms (Local Forms 4001-3-1 and 4001-3-2) for a motion and order to obtain credit to purchase a vehicle post-confirmation.
Additionally, avoidance of judicial and non-PMSI liens can now be accomplished through the Chapter 13 plan or by Motion. Local Forms 4003-2(a) and 4003-2(c) are orders that can be recorded with the county clerk to conveniently compel the release of such liens.
The December 1, 2017 changes to the Bankruptcy code, and specifically, Chapter 13 procedures, require debtors’ counsel to careful monitor filed claims and shorter timelines. With the correct routines and procedures put in place in everyday practice, these changes can be implemented easily and prove extremely beneficial to consumer debtors.
Posted on Tuesday, February 27th, 2018 at 11:13 am
The following post is part of our Law Student Blog Writing Project, and is authored by Thomas Rovito, who is pursuing his Juris Doctorate at the Ohio State University.
One of the few things more frightening than end of term finals for students is crushing loan debt after undertaking an educational degree. But fear not. There are several bankruptcy discharge options for federal student loans, which may be altered by the type of bankruptcy, such as Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, or if the student has a specific level of disability.
It is important at the forefront to look at the underlying statistics behind student loan debt discharge through bankruptcy for a realistic assessment. According to empirical research from the American Bankruptcy Law Journal, while “only 0.1 percent of student loan debtors who have filed for bankruptcy attempt to discharge their student loans,” the sample recorded in the journal also noted 39 percent discharged some of their student loan debt. But what legal mechanisms create these underlying statistics?
The first decision is whether to file bankruptcy under Chapter 7 (Liquidation) or Chapter 13 (Reorganization). As most government funded or guaranteed educational loans are non-dischargeable upon filing for bankruptcy, this status places an additional onus on the debtor to commence an adversary proceeding against the loan holder in bankruptcy court. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).
The standard to discharge a debt is to display “undue hardship” before the bankruptcy court under the Brunner test. See Brunner v. New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 831 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1987). This test, which has been accepted by most circuit courts, analyzes the facts of the case under the totality of the circumstances through three prongs: first, that payments on the student loan debt would cause the debtor to fall below a minimal standard of living, second, that persistent special circumstances prevent the debtor from paying off the loan, and third, that the debtor made good faith efforts to pay off the loan before filing for bankruptcy. As this test is relatively elastic, the outcome of the analysis will depend on the particular bankruptcy judge hearing the case and the underlying facts presented by debtor. If the bankruptcy court issues a discharge for the student loan debt, the discharge may be either partial or total; the court also has the authority to modify the interest rate for the student loan. If the bankruptcy court refuses to issue a discharge, the debtor may try to switch to a different repayment plan more consistent with the revenue and expenditures of the debtor.
One persistent special circumstance that materially impacts the bankruptcy discharge is a total and permanent disability discharge (TPD). TPD applies to William D. Ford Federal Direct Loans, Federal Family Education Loan Program Loans, and Federal Perkins Loan Program Loans. A debtor may prove disability to the U.S. Department of Education in one of three ways: veterans may submit paperwork from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs articulating unemployability from a service-related disability, recipients of Social Security Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income may submit paperwork from the Social Security Administration, or the debtor’s physician can submit paperwork that attests that the debtor is totally and permanently disabled. To view the TPD certification process, please consult https://www.disabilitydischarge.com/. If the U.S. Department of Education (through the Nelnet Total and Permanent Disability Servicer) finds a TPD, then they will instruct the loan collector to cease collection activities and return any payments after the finding of disability; on the other hand, if the U.S. Department of education does not find a TPD, then they will allow the loan collect to resume collection activities.
In the event a debtor obtains a TPD discharge, then they can no longer qualify for a Direct Loan, Perkins Loan, or TEACH Grant, unless the debtor “obtain[s] a certification from a physician that you are able to engage in substantial gainful activity,” and the debtor fills out a form “acknowledging that the new loan or TEACH Grant service obligation cannot be discharged in the future on the basis of any injury or illness present at the time the new loan or TEACH Grant is made, unless your condition substantially deteriorates so that you are again totally and permanently disabled.”
In addition, if the debtor was granted a TPD discharge through the filing of Social Security Administration paperwork or by the debtor’s physician (rather than through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs), the debtor will be subject to a three year monitoring period from the U.S. Department of Education, in which the former debtor must respond to inquiries from the U.S. Department of Education or provide notice to the U.S. Department of Education regarding earning thresholds, changes in address, and changes in status. If the former debtor fails to comply with these monitoring requirements, the debtor’s former student loan may be subject to reinstatement.
However, going through the TPD discharge process without also receiving a bankruptcy discharge on a student loan debt can raise tax implications. The U.S. Department of Education will send notice of any discharge of more than $600.00 to the Internal Revenue Service. The U.S. Department of Education will then send an IRS Form 1099-C to the former debtor recording the total amount of the discharge, which is considered as income for federal taxes (and for some states). However, the student loan bankruptcy process will not raise secondary taxation concerns, since a bankrupt debt cannot result in taxation for the forgiveness of a loan. By definition, bankrupt debts are not forgiven.
Thus, bankruptcy through Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 provides one possible avenue for discharging student loan debt through an adversary proceeding in which the bankruptcy court will likely apply the totality of the circumstances. In addition, a finding of Total and Permanent Disability also provides another avenue for student loan debt relief. It is also important to consider non-bankruptcy alternatives for student loan debt relief, such as repayment options, deferments, forbearance, forgiveness, cancellation, consolidation, or rehabilitation, which may preserve the debtor’s credit rating.
For more information, consult one of the experienced attorneys at Lawrence & Associates when choosing your path forward on discharging student loan debt. We’re Working Hard for the Working Class, and we want to help you!
Posted on Thursday, February 22nd, 2018 at 2:38 pm
Bankruptcy Trustees come in several flavors. The Covington Division of Kentucky’s federal bankruptcy courts alone have three Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees, one Chapter 13 bankruptcy trustee, a United States Trustee, and occasional special trustees that might be appointed to oversee especially complex cases or cases in which other trustees might have a conflict of interest. Covington’s bankruptcy court covers all of Northern Kentucky*, but does not cover Cincinnati, Ohio, or the counties around Lexington or Louisville. There are a lot of bankruptcy trustees out there!
For this article’s purposes, we are concerned only with the Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy trustees in the Covington Division. Knowing how these trustees are paid, and how they are incentivized, can greatly affect whether you decide to file a Chapter 7 or a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
Chapter 7 Trustees Get Paid Either Very Little, or a Whole Lot
When a Chapter 7 filed, the Covington Division charges a $335.00 fee as of January 2018. All Northern Kentucky based Chapter 7 Trustees make a flat fee of $75.00 from that filing fee. Chapter 7 bankruptcies are divided into two kinds of cases: “no asset” bankruptcies, and “asset” bankruptcies. In a no asset Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the debtor’s personal property is protected by property exemptions that protect those assets from seizure by the Trustee. This means the debtor’s property is safe, and the Trustee is stuck with only a $75.00 fee for all his or her work.
Chapter 7 bankruptcies with assets are where the question of fees gets interesting. While the filing fee and the flat fee described above remain the same, the Trustee can also get paid a percentage of any assets seized from the debtor. Hearing about assets getting seized sounds scary, but remember that a good bankruptcy attorney will be able to tell you before you file that no assets will get seized. The Trustee’s allowed compensation on seized assets is set forth in federal law, and the Trustee is paid in a stair step method as follows:
The Trustee is paid 25% up to the first $5,000;
The Trustee is then paid 10% on any amount in excess of $5,000 but not in excess of $50,000;
The Trustee is then paid 5% on any amount in excess of $50,000 but not in excess of $1,000,000, and;
The Trustee is then paid “reasonable compensation” not to exceed 3% on any amount in excess of $1,000,000.
Let’s assume the debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy has two cars, but can only protect one using the property exemptions. The Trustee will take possession of the other car, and sell it. If the car sells for $20,000.00, the Trustee will get paid 25% of the first $5,000.00 (which is $1,250.00), and then 10% of the next $15,000.00 (which is $1,500.00). That adds up to $2,750.00 of fee for the Trustee, and the remainder of the car’s sale price goes to the bankruptcy’s unsecured creditors.
Notice that the fee schedule for Chapter 7 Trustees has no maximum on the amount that a Trustee can earn. Therefore, anyone with a large, seize-able asset might wind up paying a Chapter 7 Trustee very richly indeed. The types of things that can be considered a seize-able asset might surprise you. We’ve written before about how a personal injury lawsuit can be considered a bankruptcy’s asset, and how a large verdict or settlement designed to compensate a badly injured person can wind up being partially drained by the Trustee’s fee. Chapter 7 Trustees used to be held to a “reasonableness standard” – i.e. any fee they take had to be reasonable, even if the fee schedule mathematically produced a higher result. However, at least Covington based Chapter 7 Trustee has argued that he should no longer be required to take only reasonable fees. If that view holds out, a Trustee’s fees could run into the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
For most people reading this article, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy will cost $335.00 in fees, and that is it. The Trustee will be paid out of that. But make sure – absolutely sure – that your attorney has confirmed no assets can be seized, or you could wind up paying the Trustee a lot of extra money out of your own pocket.
Chapter 13 Trustees Are Paid Out of the Monthly Payments into the Bankruptcy
Chapter 13 Trustees are also paid according to federal law, and unlike Chapter 7 Trustees, their fees are far more consistent. Every Chapter 13 bankruptcy is an “asset” bankruptcy, because the main reasons people file Chapter 13 bankruptcies is to stop foreclosures, stop repossessions, or because they have high income. Therefore, you don’t see the wide variation in fees earned that you see for Chapter 7 Trustees.
A Chapter 13 Trustee’s fee is a percentage on all payments made into the Chapter 13 plan, and that percentage is set by the U.S. Attorney General’s office. The Trustee cannot deviate from that percentage, and is therefore incentivized to make sure the payments into the plan are the maximum allowed by law. Conversely, a good Chapter 13 bankruptcy attorney will attempt to make a Chapter 13 plan payment the minimum required by law.
The Chapter 13 Trustee for the Covington division of Kentucky’s bankruptcy courts is the Chapter 13 Trustee for the entire eastern half of the state. As of January 2018, that Trustee is will only approve Chapter 13 plans if the plan payments calculate an 8% payment to the Trustee on all payments into the plan. While we cannot say for certain that the Trustee actually takes the 8% fee, that is the best guideline we have as to the percentage taken by the Trustee.
Therefore, if a Chapter 13 Plan requires 36 months of payments in the amount of $400.00 each month, that is a total of $14,400.00 in payments over three years. Of that $14,400.00, we can expect the Chapter 13 Trustee to take a fee of about $1,152.00, with the remainder going to various creditors. Again, the amount of the monthly plan payment is subject to a lot of factors, and a good attorney often finds it necessary to look at everything from your mortgages to your credit card statements to find the exact amount. But once that amount is set, so too is the Chapter 13 Trustee’s fee.
If you have any other questions about this topic, please call our Fort Mitchell, Kentucky office at 859-371-5997. We are one of the largest bankruptcy filers in Northern Kentucky and we have helped over 3,000 clients. We’re Working Hard for the Working Class, and we want to help you!
*Northern Kentucky includes the following counties: Boone, Kenton, Campbell, Gallatin, Grant, Pendleton, Bracken, Mason, and Robertson. Each of these counties reports to the federal court in Covington.
Posted on Tuesday, February 13th, 2018 at 11:48 am
The following post is part of our Law Student Blog Writing Project, and is authored by Thomas Rovito, who is pursuing his Juris Doctorate at the Ohio State University.
The bankruptcy process is designed to provide debtors with relief from their creditors through a structured legal process. As such, the law provides recourse for debtors from creditor harassment upon petitioning for bankruptcy. Some frequently asked questions regarding creditor harassment and the bankruptcy legal process, which this blog post will answer in turn, include:
Why do creditors have to stop harassing me?
What is an automatic stay?
What happens if a creditor does not obey automatic stay?
What is an adversary action?
When does a discharging junction kick in?
First, creditors may never illegally harass debtors. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the debtor’s State Attorney General’s Office, provides baseline protections for all debtors from illegal creditor harassment. The FDCPA defines illegal creditor harassment as “any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt,” such as threats of violence, obscene language, publishing a list of debtors, advertising the sale of a debt to coerce payment, engaging in repeated telephone conversations with the intent to annoy, abuse, or harass, and placing telephone calls without revealing the creditor’s identity under 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. In addition, creditors are prohibited from using “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt” under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, and from using “unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt” under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. Therefore, the FDCPA provides a baseline of protections for debtors.
Second, once a debtor files for bankruptcy, the debtor is entitled to expanded protections from creditors through an automatic stay. An automatic stay is “[a]n injunction that automatically stops lawsuits, foreclosures, garnishments, and all collection activity against the debtor the moment a bankruptcy petition is filed.” See 11 U.S.C. § 362. This section specifically includes “any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor” in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6). Thus, the automatic stay provides a raised level of protection after a debtor files for bankruptcy.
Third, a creditor may face legal recourse if the creditor does not obey an automatic stay after receiving notice upon the filing of bankruptcy. If a creditor willfully violates a provision of a stay, then the creditor may be liable for actual damages, costs, attorney’s fees, and “in appropriate circumstances,” even large-sum punitive damages through 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1). In addition, the bankruptcy court is empowered to impose contempt sanctions against the creditor under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). In the Covington division of the Eastern District of Kentucky Bankruptcy court system, creditors have been sanctioned (i.e. fined) steeply for violating the automatic stay. Ultimately, bankruptcy law provides potent legal recourses to deter creditors from violating an automatic stay.
Fourth, an adversary action, or proceeding, is a “lawsuit arising in or related to a bankruptcy case that is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” An illustrative, but not exclusive, list of adversary proceedings is included in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7001. An adversary proceeding is relevant here, because once a creditor obtains notice of the debtor’s bankruptcy petition, the creditor may file a complaint to object to the discharge of a debt, which triggers the adversary proceeding. A discharge may be denied under 11 U.S.C. 727(a) for a host of reasons, such as:
[A] failure to provide requested tax documents; failure to complete a course on personal financial management; transfer or concealment of property with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors; destruction or concealment of books or records; perjury and other fraudulent acts; failure to account for the loss of assets; violation of a court order or an earlier discharge in an earlier case commenced within certain time frames . . . before the date the petition was filed.
If the adversary proceeding results in trial, the objecting party has the burden of proof. Thus, a creditor may challenge the discharge of a debt through an adversary action spun-off from the bankruptcy process.
Fifth, a discharging junction triggers differently for Chapter 7 (Liquidation) Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 (Adjustment of Debts of an Individual with Regular Income) Bankruptcy. In a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case, “the court usually grants the discharge promptly on expiration of the time fixed for filing a complaint objecting to discharge and the time fixed for filing a motion to dismiss the case for substantial abuse (60 days following the first date set for the 341 meeting).” This often happens in about 120 days after the debtor files the initial petition for bankruptcy. On the other hand, a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy discharge occurs “as soon as practicable after the debtor completes all payments under the plan,” which may take three to five years. But what if a creditor pesters a debtor in a collection effort for a discharged debt? The debtor may “file a motion with the court, reporting the action and asking that the case be reopened to address the matter,” which courts “often” grant, because the discharge “constitutes a permanent statutory injunction prohibiting creditors from taking any action, including the filing of a lawsuit, designed to collect a discharged debt.” If the creditor violated this injunction, it may be subject to civil contempt resulting in a fine. Ultimately, the legal system provides recourse from creditor harassment after the close of bankruptcy proceedings.
Some Kentucky residents at a certain unfortunate period in their lives may find themselves in a position in which they must consider the option of going into bankruptcy. If these people happen to be homeowners, then it often may be the case that they can no longer afford their primary residence, and thus find themselves facing foreclosure as well. If you or a loved one are in this position, then you may want to know all the options available to you, specifically whether it would be beneficial for you to file for bankruptcy to stop foreclosure.
Bankruptcy and Foreclosure
Black’s Law dictionary defines Bankruptcy as being in the condition of not having enough money to pay back what one owes. When you purchase a home through a mortgage, you possess a lien. A lien is a legal right for the lender to maintain possession of the property until the mortgagee pays the entire debt. If you find yourself in a state of bankruptcy and are no longer able to repay the debt you owe on a mortgaged property, the lender (the bank in many cases) may take possession of the property. The action of repossession by the lender, by means of a legal proceeding to terminate the mortgagor’s interest in the property, is known as a foreclosure. The purpose of the proceeding is so that the lender can recover the balance of the loan from the borrower by forcing the sale of the property. The purpose of the forced sale is to recuperate the balance owed to the lender.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky and the State of Ohio are two of the twenty-two states which require the lender to gain permission from the courts in order to proceed with a foreclosure action. Foreclosure, by this means is known as judicial foreclosure. In Kentucky the respondent has 20 days to reply to the foreclosures notice. In Ohio the borrower has 28 days to respond to the summons and complaint. Failing to respond, or responding late, may result in a default judgment against the borrower. If your home is worth more than the balance that you owe on your mortgage, then your home is considered to have equity. Your home equity among other things will determine whether you should file for either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
The U.S. bankruptcy code court outlines five types of bankruptcy. The two types that are most relevant to this topic are Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The courts refer to Chapter 13 bankruptcy as the wage earners plan. The wage earners plan enables individuals to settle their debts in full or in partial. One of the advantages is that an individual who files for Chapter 13 may save their properties from foreclosure. As of the time of this writing, an individual is eligible for Chapter 13 so as long as his or her unsecured debts are less than $394,725 and their secured debts are less than $1,184,200. Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in contrast is essentially a petition for the liquidation of the individual’s assets, or a sale of the assets of the debtor in order to fulfill his or her obligations to creditors. The option of Chapter 7 is available to individuals, partnerships, corporations or business entities.
Three to Five-Year Installment Plan
Under Chapter 13, the debtor may pay his creditors in installment plans that can range from three to five years. The length of the payment plan is determined by the debtor’s monthly income in relation to the median income of their state of residence. For instance, if the debtor makes more than the state median then the plan is generally for five years. During this five-year installment plan the federal law forbids creditors from starting or continuing collection efforts.
Kentucky State and Federal Income Tax Discharge, Interest, and Penalties
Another benefit of filing for bankruptcy is that it can assist the petitioner with income tax debts. After filing for Chapter 13, the debtor can discharge any of his income tax debt if he or she meets two deadline conditions: 1) More than three years have passed since the tax return for the tax was due; and 2) more than two years have passed since the tax return was filed with the IRS and or the state. Under Chapter 13, however, you are shielded from the IRS and State during the period in which you are paying off the tax debt. Additionally if your salary is below the state median and you file for chapter 13 bankruptcy, in most cases your income on all unsecured debt is dischargeable. In some cases, penalties and interest can be erased as well. Kentucky petitioners find that the most advantageous of the provisions they are granted is the automatic stay. An automatic stay is when the enforcement of a debt, judgement, lien or claim against you is temporarily suspended.
[One of the advantages of debt cancellation through Chapter 13 is that the petitioner is not required to file an IRS form 1099c, also known as a cancellation of debt form. If a debt is forgiven, the 1099c form requires the debtor to report the forgiven debt as income. This income is in turn then taxable by the IRS. The reason that the forgiven debt is reportable as income is because it is a prior loan obligation that you are no longer obligated to pay.
However, a debt that is erased by bankruptcy is not forgiven. Rather, the operation of law cancels the debtor’s legal liability to pay for the debt. The debt still exists, and the creditor would still like to be paid. But the bankruptcy court’s discharge prevents the creditor from making any attempts to collect. Since the debt is not forgiven, and in fact still exists, there nothing that the IRS can tax. Bankruptcy is perhaps the only methods of erasing a debt that works this way, so the tax advantage is unique.]*
A specialized attorney will best assist you in determining your particular circumstances so do not hesitate to contact one as soon as possible.
Lawrence & Associates has been helping Northern Kentucky residents save their homes for more than ten years, and we are now one of the largest bankruptcy firms in the state! Give us a call to schedule a FREE consultation with an attorney, by phone or in-person! We’re Working Hard for the Working Class, and we want to help you!
*Note to the reader: The law student that assisted with writing this article did not provide this section at the time this article went to press. Therefore, the bracketed section has been filled in by management.
Posted on Thursday, February 1st, 2018 at 10:05 am
Divorce can be an unfortunate situation for a married couple in endless ways and will almost always have a detrimental effect on the parties’ financial situations. Frequently, one or both individuals seeks relief from United States Bankruptcy Court for a Chapter 7 case after the conclusion of the divorce. Although the immediate stressors of the marriage and divorce lessen, the financial strain can be worse. By considering a joint Chapter 7 bankruptcy prior to the divorce, a couple can receive unexpected benefits that offer at least some small relief to an otherwise difficult situation.
The following pros and cons should be considered by individuals who find themselves facing financial hardships and potential divorce.
Cost and Time
With most attorneys, the cost of filing a bankruptcy is the same for an individual or married couple. By filing the bankruptcy jointly, a divorcing couple cuts the cost in half as well as the time and preparation involved. There will be one filing fee, one fee for attorney work time, one set of documents, one court hearing, etc.
Cooperation. Filing a joint Chapter 7 will require the divorcing couple to work together to ensure their attorney has all the necessary documents and will require that they attend at least a couple meetings and court hearings together.
Probably one of greatest benefits to filing a Chapter 7 case prior to divorcing is that all debt liability is wiped away for both Debtors on all applicable debts. Should the parties file after the conclusion of the divorce, the property settlement will typically trump a subsequent bankruptcy and could leave one of the individuals liable for the ex-spouse’s debts. For example, if the family court orders the husband to pay the wife’s credit card debt, he cannot avoid doing so by filing a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy after the fact. If the couple files a joint bankruptcy prior to the divorce, neither party has any such debt.
If one spouse chooses to file an individual bankruptcy prior to the divorce, the other spouse could be left liable for all the debt. This could be financially devastating and ultimately push that spouse to a bankruptcy anyway.
Filing a joint bankruptcy prior to divorce allows a couple to double the exemption limits. In a bankruptcy, a couple can have a certain amount of value in assets. Equity in a car or house can sometimes exceed the allowed exemption. By filing jointly and using a double exemption, the couple can better protect their assets through the bankruptcy.
The couple will ultimately still have to agree on the division of any such equity in their subsequent property settlement!
Filing a bankruptcy prior to the divorce will protect each individual’s divorce attorney from being listed as a creditor subject to discharge in a subsequent case. This is a pro for both attorneys and Debtors. Divorce attorneys are given the reassurance that they will be compensated for the work they do and Debtors will benefit from an attorney who is more willing to offer lower retainer fees and payment plans.
In applicable situations, family law attorneys would be wise to refer their clients to a local bankruptcy attorney for a consultation prior to the initiation of the divorce proceedings. Taking such action can offer tremendous benefits to the couple, can simplify the divorce case, and can provide protection for future legal work on the divorce case.
In contrast, individuals considering a Chapter 13 bankruptcy should seek to finalize their divorce first. A Chapter 13 typically lasts 3 – 5 years and is based heavily on household income, expenses, and secured debts that need to be paid. Couples who are in a Chapter 13 together prior to divorcing typically incur additional attorney fees to bifurcate the original case and put them in their own Chapter 13 cases.
Taxation is something few think about during most of the year, absent the occasional article in the paper or segment on the news concerning the potential for tax reform. However, during the latter portion of the year, particularly between the New Year Holiday and April 15, otherwise known as “Tax Day,” taxes are a topic that come to the forefront of most working Americans’ minds. Although most do not look forward to the prospect of “filing taxes,” many can expect a refund for the amount they have overpaid through the year. For those in the midst of bankruptcy, or considering filing for bankruptcy, a natural concern that arises is what may happen to their tax refund. Although everyone’s circumstances vary, and those that find themselves in this position should seek out legal counsel, this blog post aims to provide a general answer to that question.
Can One’s Tax Refund Be Protected During Bankruptcy, Or Is It Subject To Seizure?
When an individual files for bankruptcy in Northern Kentucky, the vast majority of that person’s assets (the “non-exempt” assets) become part of what is referred to as the “bankruptcy estate.” The “bankruptcy estate” is defined by the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in 11 U.S.C. § 541. Section 541 defines the estate in sweeping terms, and, under most circumstances, one’s tax refund will be considered part of the bankruptcy estate. Whether one’s tax refund becomes part of the bankruptcy estate depends on a variety of factors, including the timing of the filing of bankruptcy, the year in which the income for which the refund is given was earned, and under what Chapter of bankruptcy one files, as well as how one chooses to utilize their “exemptions.”
The best way by which to illustrate the above is by way of example. Hypothetically, if a “debtor” were to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January of 2017, and were to subsequently receive a refund for the 2016 tax year, then that money will become part of the bankruptcy estate. Many may find this result somewhat confusing, since the tax refund is received after filing for bankruptcy. The underlying reasoning is grounded upon the period of time in which the money was earned and paid to the IRS; since the money was earned, and taxes on that income were to paid to the IRS, prior to bankruptcy, then the money one receives in the form of a tax refund as the result of any overpayment in taxes is viewed as though it was received throughout the previous tax year, as opposed to after filing for bankruptcy. As one source puts it, the way in which the law views this scenario is somewhat analogous to a savings account – the money overpaid in taxes for the 2016 tax year is “saved” by the IRS, just as one would place funds in savings, and the subsequent tax refund is similar to a “withdrawal.” Thus, under this hypothetical situation, although the debtor does not, in reality, receive the funds until after filing for bankruptcy, the money was earned and taxes paid prior to the filing, and will therefore likely be swept into the bankruptcy estate.
Another example arises when one files for bankruptcy and receives a tax refund for the same year. The following facts are illustrious of this hypothetical scenario: debtor files for bankruptcy in June of 2017, and subsequently receives a tax refund for the 2017 tax year in April of 2018. The question arises: does the tax refund get swept into the bankruptcy estate, as was the result under the immediately preceding set of facts? The answer is “yes” and “no.”
Here, the tax refund will be divided into two separate and distinct groups, the first being that portion of the refund attributable to income earned prior to filing for bankruptcy, and the second being that portion attributable to money made after the filing. The first group (that portion of the tax refund that is based on income earned before filing) is subject to being swept into the bankruptcy estate, while the second group (that portion of the tax refund that is based on income earned subsequent to filing) will likely escape the clutches of the estate. In other words, the amount of the tax refund that is calculated based on income earned prior to June of 2017 will become part of the estate, while the amount attributable to income earned subsequent to June of 2017 may be protected.
Another example provides some clarity with respect to a third, commonly seen situation. Assume debtor files for bankruptcy in December of 2016, and later receives a tax refund for the 2017 tax year. The concern that immediately comes to mind is whether the 2017 tax refund will be protected, or whether it will be subject to seizure. Here, the debtor will most likely get to retain the full amount of the tax refund, because all the income upon which the taxes were assessed was earned subsequent to filing for bankruptcy. In other words, the entire amount of taxes overpaid for the 2017 tax year were paid after filing for bankruptcy, and would thus generally escape being swept into the bankruptcy estate.
A final wrinkle that may be a concern for some is what happens to their tax refund in the context of a Chapter 13, as opposed to a Chapter 7, bankruptcy. The answer is largely grounded in the legal ramifications associated with filing for one type of bankruptcy over the other. When a debtor files bankruptcy under Chapter 7, the bankruptcy trustee takes possession of all of the debtor’s non-exempt property and/or assets, liquidates them (hence the term often used to refer to Chapter 7 bankruptcies, “Chapter 7 Liquidation”), and distributes the cash to the debtor’s creditors. Generally speaking, after the liquidation and subsequent distribution occurs, the debtor is “discharged” of all debts incurred prior to the bankruptcy filing. Under Chapter 13, on the other hand, a debtor repays their debts through utilization of their income, and may retain some of their assets. The period of time in which a debtor makes payments toward their debts is often referred to as a “repayment plan,” and typically lasts three to five years. Once the repayment plan is completed, the debtor’s debts are “discharged.” However, the critical difference between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies in the context of retention of one’s tax refunds is centered around what is called “disposable income.” To put it in very general, broad terms, under a Chapter 13 plan, one’s “necessary and reasonable” expenses (i.e., generally, those expenses required to live, including, but not necessarily limited to, food, clothing, shelter, etc.) are subtracted from their regular income, and the resulting figure is known as the debtor’s “disposable income.” Most often, when a debtor files a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and files a repayment plan with the court, tax refunds are not considered in the debtor’s income, and is thus not utilized in calculating the debtor’s necessary and reasonable expenses and disposable income. Thus, when a Chapter 13 debtor receives a tax refund, the amount received is most often considered “disposable income,” since the repayment plan accounts for the debtor’s regular income, regular expenses, etc., but does not factor in the additional funds a debtor will receive when given a tax refund. To put it more simply, the tax refund is, in a way, considered “extra money,” money that the debtor does not need to pay for their “necessary and reasonable” expenses; therefore, it is considered “disposable income,” and will be used to pay the debtor’s debts during the course of the repayment plan. Generally speaking, unless there is some “necessary and reasonable” expense that has not been taken into account by the repayment plan, then the chances of a debtor retaining their tax refund throughout the repayment plan period in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is slim.
Are There Other Ways One Can Protect Their Tax Refund In The Midst Of Bankruptcy? Can Tax Refunds Be Utilized For The Payment Of Legal Fees Rendered In Filing Bankruptcy?
Although options are varied, many facing bankruptcy may think of paying legal fees through utilization of one’s tax refund as a means of protecting their refund during bankruptcy. For those considering such an option, it should be noted that others have pursued the same means of protecting their tax refund in the past. To determine the feasibility of this option, the following case law will be discussed.
In In re Hunter, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas was faced with the question of whether the assignment of a debtor’s tax refunds to their attorney as a method by which to pay legal fees would be protected, or swept into the bankruptcy estate. The particular circumstances are as follows: the debtors executed an assignment, operation of which allowed for their attorney to receive the pre-petition portion of their tax refunds as a flat-fee retainer in exchange for legal services rendered in filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustees moved the court for an order forcing the pre-petition portion of the debtors’ tax refunds into the bankruptcy estate.
In support of their motion, the trustees made three primary arguments. The first argument the trustees set forth was predicated on 11 U.S.C. § 544(a), which, generally, provides for the avoidance of “any transfer of property of the debtor or any obligation incurred” under certain circumstances. Those particular circumstances in this case, and from the point of view of the trustees, was that the debtors could not “assign what [was] an essentially undivided and unliquidated expectant interest based upon a notional ‘accrual’ date.” Secondly, the trustees argued that the “debtors [were] required to marshal away from that part of the refund to which the estate [was] entitled.” Finally, the trustees were of the view that assign that portion of their tax refund attributable to pre-petition earnings “‘burden[ed]’ the creditors by effectively forcing them to pay the debtor’s attorneys’ fees and that this burdensome effect render[ed] the assignments fraudulent transfers done for the purpose of hindering or delaying the debtors’ creditors.” The debtors, on the other hand, made one simple argument: “an assignment of pre-petition tax refunds for payment of a flat fee is no different than a debtor paying an attorney a flat fee in cash; the result in either event is that the payment does not become property of the estate,” they argued.
The court largely agreed with the debtors. The court looked to statutory and case law in reaching its conclusion, drawing upon 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1), United States Trustee v. Lamie, In re Wagers, and In re Carson. Drawing upon all the previously identified law, the court determined that a “flat-fee retainer assigned for work done incident to filing a chapter 7 does not become property of the estate”; rather, “the assignment of an anticipated tax refund as part of or all of a flat-fee retainer is enforceable against the estate, at least to the extent of the amount of the flat fee.” The court finally concluded: “the benefits . . . to the debtors and to their creditors of having chapter 7 debtors well represented to outweigh the relatively small detriment that these assignments may work on the creditors. The assignments of these debtors’ expectancy interests in their tax refunds, limited as they are by the amount of the flat fees owed and by the amount of the refund that would be determined attributable to the estate are valid and enforceable. They do not significantly differ from a cash retainer payment that depletes the debtor’s resources before she files a case. So long as the fees are not fraudulent or excessive, there is no basis for the Trustees to recover them.”
It is important to keep in mind that different courts are held and bound to differing rules of law, depending on the jurisdiction. Although the results reached in In re Hunter may seem encouraging, the results reached there are not necessarily applicable in other jurisdictions. As always, it is important to speak to counsel regarding one’s own personal circumstances before coming to any determinations on how best to proceed.
Editor’s note: In the Covington Division of the Eastern District of Kentucky Federal Court, where all Northern Kentucky bankruptcies are heard, the Court and Trustees regularly allow debtors to use their tax refunds to pay for the bankruptcy attorney’s fees.
Depending on a variety of factors, some of which have been discussed above, a debtor facing the possibility of filing bankruptcy may have some options when it comes to possible retention of their anticipated tax refunds. However, there are a wide array of considerations that must be kept in mind when discussing bankruptcy. Although this post has focused primarily on what many consider to be the most common types of individual, consumer bankruptcies (that is, Chapter 7 and Chapter 13), one may consider Chapter 11 under certain circumstances, as well. Another consideration that was not addressed here involves whether one even qualifies for Chapter 7, or would be pushed into a Chapter 13. Such a determination is based on many factors, one of which is referred to in the bankruptcy arena as the “Means Test.” These considerations are briefly mentioned here to illustrate that the general overview provided above is by no means exhaustive or authoritative, to simply demonstrate that everyone’s circumstances vary, and, depending upon those circumstances, one option may be more appealing than another. Ultimately, however, certain debtors may feel somewhat more comfortable traversing the obstacles of bankruptcy with the knowledge that they may be able to, in one way or another, protect an anticipated tax refund.
If you’re considering using your tax refund to file a bankruptcy, call Lawrence & Associates! We’ve been helping people in Northern Kentucky keep their tax refunds for more than a decade. We’re Working Hard for the Working Class, and we want to help you!
The following post is part of our Law Student Blog Writing Project, and is authored by Thomas Rovito, who is pursuing his Juris Doctorate at the Ohio State University.
How Holiday Credit Card Debt Could Impact Your Kentucky Bankruptcy
The consumer advocate news outlet NerdWallet estimates that the average American will spend $660 for holiday gift transactions. Two other statistics to note include that the number of Americans in credit card debt after the holiday season has been increasing, from 48% of shoppers in 2015 to 56% of shoppers in 2016, and that 27% of Americans did not have a holiday shopping budget in 2016; of those who did have a budget, 24% exceeded it. These statistics beg the question on what would happen if a shopper stocks up on Christmas presents using his credit card, and then subsequently files for bankruptcy. Will those retail store creditors turn into the Grinch and seek the return of gifts from family and friends, or would something else happen?
The answer is in the Bankruptcy Code. But before jumping headlong into the primary source material, secondary sources can provide guidance on this topic. For instance, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts has provided an overview of Bankruptcy Basics to introduce lay people to the topic. The Ohio State Bar Association and the Kentucky Bar Association both have pamphlets on bankruptcy. In addition, third-party sites, such as Findlaw and Nolo, have easy-to-use resources.
While the Bankruptcy Code is full of legal terms of art and abstract legal concepts, they can be broken down to individual and applicable ideas. For instance, there are six different forms of bankruptcy, but in most cases only Chapter 7Liquidation or Chapter 13Adjustment of Debts of an Individual with Regular Income would apply to individual consumers with credit card debt. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which is means-tested to prevent abuse, a trustee liquidates the debtor’s assets for cash to pay creditors, unless the specific piece of property is exempt, to give the debtor a fresh start. In Chapter 13 bankruptcy, a debtor may retain valuable assets, such as his home or vehicle, and structure payments to creditors in accordance with his income. Chapter 7 bankruptcy is typically quicker, taking about four months to obtain discharge, to Chapter 13’s duration of three to five years. All Northern Kentucky bankruptcies are filed in federal court in Covington, Kentucky.
The objective of the debtor should be to obtain a discharge, which “releases the debtor from personal liability for certain specified types of debts.” But not all debts are created equal. There is also a material difference between secured debt (“[d]ebt backed by a mortgage, pledge of collateral, or other lien; debt for which the creditor has the right to pursue specific pledged property upon default,”) and unsecured debt (“debt for which a creditor holds no special assurance of payment, such as a mortgage or lien; a debt for which credit was extended based solely upon the creditor’s assessment of the debtor’s future ability to pay”). For more information on this distinction, please refer to 11 U.S.C. § 506. While most credit card debt is unsecured, it is important to note that some credit card companies and department store cards retain a security interest, or purchase money security interest, within their contracting agreement with the consumer, often in the fine print of the bottom of the credit card agreement. This security interest would act like collateral on outstanding transactions, and would give the credit card company or department store the right to repossess the property if it was not paid in full. While most credit card debt is unsecured, larger luxury purchases such as televisions, are likely covered by a security interest, and can be repossessed.
So how do these concepts apply to a consumer who builds up debt during the holidays? First, the consumer should look at the distinction between secured and unsecured debt. If the consumer has secured debt, or debt with collateral, then potential creditors could attach the property (like a home, car, or improvements on a vehicle) in the event of default. On the other hand, If the consumer has unsecured debt, which is the category of most consumer credit card purchases, then the creditor cannot attach the assets in event of default; however, the creditor may use a debt collector to compel payment, report the failure to credit agencies–reducing the debtor’s credit score and increasing the cost of future loans, or go to court to garnish the wages of the debtor. In addition, the ultimate disposition of the debtor’s credit card issues would also depend on whether the credit card company or department store retained a security interest in the property; if so, there is the possibility the property could be repossessed.
There is a matter of timing for debts to be considered dischargeable. Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(C), “debts owed to a single creditor and aggregating more than $675 for luxury goods or services incurred by an individual debtor on or within 90 days before the order for relief under this title are presumed to be nondischargeable.” In plain English, this means that debts to a single company that add up to more than $675 for goods not necessary for the support of the debtor (for example, food, water, shelter), are presumed to allow the creditor to collect against the debtor. Thus, if you exceed more than $675 in holiday credit card debt on luxuries, and not essentials, it may impact future bankruptcy proceedings.
In addition, it is important to note that the bankruptcy court may deny discharge in a case if there are fraudulent conveyances, or an attempt to shift assets from the debtor to third-parties for the purpose of avoiding paying creditors. To learn more about this topic, please see 11 U.S.C. § 727; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4005. In addition, the trustee of the estate or a creditor may petition the bankruptcy court to revoke a discharge “if the discharge was obtained through fraud by the debtor.” See 11 U.S.C. § 727(d).
Ultimately, a decision to file for bankruptcy is serious, as it may place your assets in jeopardy and drastically impact your credit rating. On the other hand, if it is structured correctly, bankruptcy can provide you with relief from creditors, especially after the holidays with consumer credit card debt, while preserving your most precious assets, such as your home or car. It is important to note the distinction between secured debt (secured by collateral) and unsecured debt (that is not secured by collateral) before engaging in holiday transactions, in addition to determining whether your credit card company retains any security interest in your transactions by reading the fine print of the credit card agreement. This information, when coupled with sound budgeting, fiscal discipline, and adequate financial disclosure, can make the difference between jingle bells or jingle blues this holiday season.
Lawrence & Associates has offices in West Chester, Ohio and Fort Mitchell, Kentucky. We’re Working Hard for the Working Class, and we want to help you!
There are a lot of reasons to file a bankruptcy, and there are even more reasons to not want your spouse involved. From our Northern Kentucky office, Lawrence & Associates has filed thousands of bankruptcies and seen hundreds of scenarios where it would benefit the people in debt to have only one spouse file for bankruptcy. While we’ve discussed the effect on a non-filing husband or wife when their spouse needs to file bankruptcy before, there are many angles to this question that appear in multiple blog posts rather than all in the same place. This post will consolidate that information.
How Do You Decide Whether Both Husband and Wife Need to File Bankruptcy Together?
The most important consideration here is determining which debts are driving you toward bankruptcy, and whose name the debts are in. Debts that were obtained in both spouses’ names will make each spouse jointly and severally liable for payment of that debt. For example, if you are behind on your credit card payments and afraid of getting sued, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is one way to get out from under that high interest rate debt. But who signed the credit card agreement and whose name is the account in? If only the husband or only the wife signed, then only that spouse will need to file bankruptcy. But if both spouses signed the agreement or have cards in their names, then both spouses MUST file bankruptcy to wipe out the debt. If only one spouse files, then the credit card company can still sue the non-filing spouse.
If you don’t know whether you might be liable for your husband or wife’s debt, the answer depends on where you live. We covered Kentucky’s equitable division rules previously in this blog, but only at the state level. At the county level, even in an area as small as Northern Kentucky’s seven counties, there is wide variation depending on the judges involved. Boone and Gallatin Counties have one family law judge; Kenton and Campbell counties each have their own family law judge; Pendleton and Robertson Counties share a family law judge with other counties outside the Northern Kentucky area, and; Grant, Bracken, and Mason Counties don’t have a family law judge at all! This wide variation creates a great deal of variability, but usually both spouses will be liable for debt even if only one spouse took out the debt. However, Lawrence & Associates’ attorneys are skilled at finding exceptions to the general rule, so ask before you assume this will apply to you.
Map of Boone, Kenton, Campbell, Gallatin, Grant, Pendleton, Mason, Bracken, and Robertson Counties in Northern Kentucky
One thing to bear in mind is that leaving one spouse’s name off of the bankruptcy will not affect what kind of bankruptcy you can file. High income earners must file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, because federal law will not allow anyone to file a Chapter 7 if they are making more than median income for their state. However, that median income is the income of the household, not the person filing. So, for example, assume a Northern Kentucky family makes above median income because the wife is a highly paid doctor, while the husband is disabled. Even if only the husband has debt and only the husband needs to file bankruptcy, the husband will be forced into a Chapter 13 bankruptcy because the wife’s income raises the total household income above median. Leaving the doctor off the bankruptcy will protect her credit, but will not change the husband’s bankruptcy from a 13 to a 7.
Will Filing Bankruptcy Affect My Spouse’s Credit?
In general, credit is linked to a social security number, and only the bankruptcy filer’s social security number appears on the bankruptcy filing. Each person has a separate credit file for credit reporting purposes. Your debts, if the debts are truly yours alone, are not supposed to show in your spouse’s credit report. Similarly, your bankruptcy should not show in your spouse’s file if you have no joint debts.
Will My Spouse Have to Come to Court or Be Involved?
Your spouse will certainly know a bankruptcy has been filed – the court and your attorney will mail things to your home – but your spouse should not have to attend any hearings or meetings with an attorney in the vast majority of cases.
Will Anyone Notify My Spouse’s Employer?
It is illegal for a creditor to notify your employer or your spouse’s employer, or any family members, landlords, etc. in an attempt to collect a debt. Further, the bankruptcy court only sends notices to people listed on the bankruptcy, including the debtors, the creditors, and any co-signers. As long as your husband’s or wife’s employer doesn’t fall into those categories, there is no reason the employer should find out about the bankruptcy.
One exception to this rule would occur if you choose to have your Chapter 13 bankruptcy payment (which goes to the Chapter 13 Trustee) pulled directly from your spouse’s paycheck. A paycheck garnishment is the most common way to make this payment, and the filing spouse sometimes between jobs, or has some other circumstance that makes pulling the payment from the non-filing husband or wife’s paycheck the most attractive option.
If you have any other questions about this topic, please call our Fort Mitchell, Kentucky office at 859-371-5997. We are one of the largest bankruptcy filers in Northern Kentucky and helped over 3,000 clients. We’re Working Hard for the Working Class, and we want to help you!
A man was injured when a piece of construction equipment collided with his vehicle and crushed him.
A man was working on a motor vehicle when a truck struck the vehicle. The man was pinned between the two vehicles, and his hips and legs were broken.
A man was changing a tire on an Ohio road when he was negligently struck by another vehicle, resulting in life threatening injuries.
A woman was killed while driving due to spillage left on the road.
A man developed a rare nerve condition due to his employment, which made it impossible for him to use one arm.
A man was a passenger in a rental car when it spun out of control and killed him.
A barge worker (Jones Act Seaman) was climbing down a ladder from an empty to a loaded barge when the improperly secured ladder collapsed. The worker’s head injury which caused...
“Mr. Tripp did a great Job on my case. Made me feel at ease and made everything easy. I would definitely recommend Peter Tripp.”
“Overall...she knows what's she is doing attentive on time and she will fight for you without judging or being pushy.”
“Mrs. Rodriguez was great, this was my first time ever seeking legal assistance with anything and she was very helpful for the whole process, she explained everything that was needed...”
“Danielle handled my case with care and compassion she knew that I was in over my head. She talked to me and made me feel at ease. She is a...”
“She is awesome, if I have a question she is on it. She takes the time to explain everything to me until I completely understand. She's very nice, polite, and...”
Bessie - Warsaw, KY
“Very clearly defined what was going to happen and then took control of the situation and got things done. Had been fighting things for over a year before her”
Michael - Crittenden, KY
“Lawrence & Associates handled my case professionally with detailed explanations of the process. Every question I had was answered to my satisfaction. Their knowledgeable staff guided me through a difficult...”
Glen - Union, KY
“I worked with Marisa after a coworker recommended her. I have worked with with a few attorneys due to some on-going issues with an ex-spouse. Marisa was much better to...”
Charles - Cincinnati, Ohio
“She (Marisa Dyson) went above and beyond for my family after we got scammed out of $1,000 even though it was a small claim she treated our case like it...”
Janyce - Blue Ash, Ohio
“My family retained Marisa to represent our father in an Ohio Worker's Compensation fraud case. Every other attorney laughed at him and said it was hopeless. Marisa put her heart...”
Danielle - Lebannon, Ohio
“I previously submitted a rating for Ms. Rodriguez a few months ago. She represented me and my family very well in a personal injury matter arising from a car accident....”
Heather - Highland Heights, Kentucky
“Having Danielle go to bat for me was a decision I'll never regret. She's a thorough sharp shooter who does what she says she's going to do. Danielle has excellent...”
Julie - Florence, Kentucky
“I recommend Pete as an attorney to anyone who's been injured because he took care of me personally when it came to helping me with getting my medical benefits through...”
Chris - Cold Spring, Kentucky
“Danielle Rodriguez worked very hard to help me with my insurance company after I was hit by a non-insured, non-licensed driver who hit my car. She explained that is why...”
Denise - Fort Mitchell, Kentucky
“Mr Tripp was very helpful with all the questions I had about my workers compensation claim. He seemed very knowledgeable and really explained things in a way that I could...”
Becky - West Chester, Ohio
“I highly recommend Justin Lawrence and his office. I have sought guidance from Justin in personal injury cases multiple times over the years and have referred countless individuals to him...”
Aaron H - Union, Kentucky
“Without hesitation, I would recommend Ms. Rodriguez to anyone seeking high-quality legal representation. You can trust her to work hard on your behalf. She was knowledgeable, thorough, responsive, and kept...”
Heather - Newport, Kentucky
“I just used Mr.Tripp to settle a workman's comp claim and he was phenomenal. He was very professional. He told me up front what to expect an what he expected...”
Ernest - Covington, Kentucky
“My experience with my attorney, P. Tripp, was excellent. My case was settled with an outcome beyond my expectations. He was very informative with future happenings and knew what to...”
J. Good - Newport, Kentucky
“The professionalism along with genuine care for a client could not be beat. I walked in with my problem and walked out with no worry. I highly recommend this group...”
Becky R - Covington, Kentucky
“I was fortunate to have Peter Tripp as my attorney. If I ever need a lawyer again, (I hope I never do) I will call him. Mr. Tripp was very...”
Larry S. - Highland Heights, Kentucky
“Mr.Tripp was very honest, up front and a genuine guy. He did not promise me anything but he said he would work hard to get every penny that I deserved...”
John - Walton, Kentucky
“I was referred to Peter Tripp by my personal attorney and he successfully and fairly settled my worker's compensation claim. My former employer became much more cooperative once Pete began...”
Danny - Fort Thomas, Kentucky
“Justin recently assisted me with a Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing. Needless to say this is a very traumatic experience for one to go through. Justin's advice, knowledge, responsiveness, and compassion...”
Ralph - Cincinnati, Ohio
“I thought Justin was very professional and took care of my case as quickly as possible. He was knowledgeable on the procedures and what information he didn't know he researched...”
Jennifer - West Chester, Ohio
“Justin has been excellent throughout my case. He was very reassuring from the beginning. Justin has worked hard at my difficult case and has made every effort to keep me...”
Rebecca - Blue Ash, Ohio
“I have a work injury and was having trouble getting my injury taken care of through Workers Compensation. Lawrence & Associates worked on my case from day one and I...”
Jackie S - Dry Ridge, Kentucky
“I was struggling with debt and had to file bankruptcy. I looked at several lawyers and felt Justin Lawrence was the most trustworthy and inspired confidence. His rate was reasonable...”
Jose - Florence, Kentucky
“After my car accident I spent weeks trying to deal with insurance companies with no satisfaction. I contacted Justin Lawrence and his firm. Justin explained step by step how the...”
Rodeny N - California, Kentucky
“Justin Lawrence and his staff were very down to earth and personable. They made my wife and I very comfortable and turned a very uneasy situation into not such a...”
Chad P - Florence, Kentucky
“Our home of 25 years was in foreclosure and we were devastated. We didn’t know what to do. Someone told us about Justin Lawrence. He began to work on getting...”
Janice F - Warsaw, Kentucky
“Not only did Justin Lawrence do a great job on handling my case, he is a great guy as well. A very good lawyer!”
Timothy M - Warsaw, Kentucky
“I contacted Justin Lawrence and his firm when my uncle needed help getting social security. Mr. Lawrence and his staff were professional and kind, always asking how my uncle was...”
Emily B - Warsaw, Kentucky
“Great Attorney and staff – fabulous to work with!”
Shannon S - Seymour, Indiana
“The service provided by Mr. Lawrence and his firm was rendered professionally, timely, and with complete concern towards my situation. I would use their services again.”
Patricia P - Falmouth, Kentucky
“I am happy with Justin Lawrence’s hard work on my case. I send out a big thank-you to his staff also.”
Jacklyn E - Verona, Kentucky
“Justin L. Lawrence and his firm assisted me with some probate court issues and he had all the legal documents in order for my court date. He represented me in...”
Julie B - Ft. Thomas, Kentucky
“Justin Lawrence is a very good attorney and his staff is very nice. Justin is very knowledgeable about the law”
Rhonda M. - Warsaw, Kentucky
“I recently contacted Justin Lawrence for legal assistance, and his firm not only presented itself in the utmost professional manner, but the understanding of their clients well surpassed expectations. I...”
David S - Burlington, Kentucky
“I find Justin Lawrence to be a most competent attorney. Everyone at Lawrence & Associates is very accessible and I would highly recommend Justin and his team.”
Sonny R - Glencoe, Kentucky
“I went to Lawrence & Associates with a problem and within 1 week Justin Lawrence had some money coming to me that was rightfully mine. And soon after that he...”