Proving Mental Anguish Damages

If a bankruptcy filer prevails in a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act or in an adversary proceeding for a violation of the automatic stay or discharge injunction the most likely damages sought will be for mental anguish. After all a debtor expects to get a fresh start from their bankruptcy and when creditors continue to harass them after they have been granted a discharge, it is quite traumatic. So, it is important for bankruptcy filers, who are victims of abusive creditors, to keep a diary of the mental anguish they suffer on account of the unlawful actions of these creditors. This will allow the victim to testify in deposition or at trial fully and completely as to the suffering they have endured. And simply being upset or angry won’t cut it. To prove serious mental anguish damages a plaintiff must show physical symptoms like headache, insomnia, depression, nervousness, marital strife, or lack of concentration that effects their job or enjoyment of life. It isn’t necessary to have expert medical testimony to prove mental anguish but to convince a judge or jury that they have suffered serious mental anguish will require convincing testimony, so the more details, including dates, times and circumstances that can be provided the better.

 

Visit us on Facebook Manchee & Manchee PC.

Why Don't Lenders Foreclose In a Timely Manner?

One of the great mysteries of the mortgage industry is why lenders take so long to foreclose when a debt is discharged in bankruptcy. You would think the moment the automatic stay was lifted the lender would want to dispose of its collateral as quickly as possible and move on, but the reality is that lenders often take months if not years to follow through with a foreclosure.

Bankruptcy attorneys speculate a lot about the cause of such delays and some of the most popular theories are (1) inability to deliver good title due to title problems caused by the frequent buying and selling mortgage loans, (2) investors not wanting to take a loss when the market value of the collateral is less than the balance on the loan, (3) there are more delinquent loans than the lenders and servers can effectively handle, (4) they hope that the mortgagor can be induced to cure the default and reaffirm the obligation, and/or (5) they are somehow profiting by not foreclosing.

I have ran into several situations where the lender could not prove they owned a loan. In fact our firm is involved in a case like that right now, but even after a two year battle in district court to validate the lender’s title to the loan, a year has gone by and still no foreclosure. The idea that a bad real estate market made lenders reluctant to foreclose seems logical on its face, but now that the real estate market has turned around in Texas I still don’t see lenders speeding up their foreclosures. It is true that the number of delinquent home loans are at record levels and that the lenders and servicers are just overwhelmed. This seems like a reasonable explanation except that in the three years since the real estate market cratered, you would think the major lenders and servicers would have got their act together and start moving their foreclosures along faster, but I haven’t seen that happening. That leaves us with the final two possibilities which I believe explain what is happening.

First, lenders and servicers are delaying foreclosure to give them more time to lure or trick their customers in bankruptcy into paying the discharged debt. And, secondly, the servicers are delaying because they are somehow making money by holding onto the property. But, whatever the reason, these delays in foreclosing are causing grievous injury to debtors whose debts have been discharged and sorely want to get the fresh start they were promised, but can’t do it with the liability exposure of a vacant house still in their name hanging over their heads.  

Visit our website. Manchee & Manchee, PC
 

Creditors Often Fail to Pass on Bankruptcy Notices to Collection Agencies

Today I'm working on a petition against a Colorado collection agency that called our client six times afrer receiving the account from the orignal creditor who was listed in their chapter 13 bankruptcy. This is a blatant violation of the automatic stay and/or discharge injjunction. In this instance the case was later converted to chapter 7 so it was a discharge violation. Then, to make matters worse, the collection agency assigns the case to an attorney for collection, yet another violation.

How does something like this happen? Is it intentional or simply negligence? The excuse we almost always get from collection agencies is that they had no knowledge of the bankruptcy because the creditor who sold or assigned the account didn't tell them about it. Unfortunately for the collection agencies, ignorance of the bankruptcy is no excuse. When they try to collect a debt that is no longer collectable they violate the Texas Unfair Debt Collection Act and if they report it to a credit bureau they can be guilty of liable as well. It is irrelevant whether they knew about the bankruptcy or not.

What is fairly clear is that when the original creditor gets the conversion and discharge notices it will not pass on those notices to the current holder of the debt. I think this is a matter of logistics. The original creditors simply have too many accounts that have been assigned for collection or sold and have no mechanism in place to forward notices from the bankruptcy court.

So, the consumer loses and has to suffer through the mental anguish that always results from taking nasty phone calls and/or receiving collection letters from attorneys long after the debt is discharged. Lucky there is a remedy to the consumer.