The unfortunate reality is that for individuals who follow this route, they most likely would have been better off if they had considered bankruptcy before withdrawing from their retirement accounts.  That is because most retirement accounts in Indiana such as 401(k) and PERF accounts are usually completely exempt in bankruptcy.  When something is exempt in bankruptcy, that means that it cannot be taken by creditors.  In other words, a bankruptcy would allow the debt to be eliminated, but people would still have their exempt retirement accounts after the bankruptcy is over.  Thus, had the individuals filed bankruptcy prior to draining their retirement accounts instead of afterward, then the same debt would have been discharged; the only difference is that they would have still been able to hold onto their retirement account.

Individuals needlessly exhausting their 401(k), PERF, and other protected retirement accounts is something I commonly see.  Indiana exemption laws protect them with good reason.  Congress nowadays frequently talks about our country’s huge debt needing to be paid by future generations.  The Indiana exemption law for retirement accounts recognizes that draining retirement accounts now would only create a bigger problem down the road; it is one of the few instances where law is structured to help with this problem.  In my opinion, there is no benefit to society in draining retirement accounts now to pay what is most likely private creditors who’ve made bad business choices in extending credit to certain individuals, only for those individuals to have no means of paying essential needs upon actual retirement, which would then be expected or needed to be covered by a pool of public funds.  My rule of thumb:  if there’s a tax penalty for withdrawing the funds, forget about them and pretend like they don’t exist until you actually retire.  In the meantime, individuals need to be responsible and realistic about their financial condition, and consider talking to a bankruptcy attorney a bit earlier, at least to realize what the bankruptcy option really means to them.

First, the scammer will visit a local church or other public forum, and get permission to speak.  The scammer will then lure the audience in, telling them that he can help them lower their mortgage payments with the new government program.

Next, once the scammer has lured a homeowner in, he will then obtain all the information about the homeowner and the home loan that is necessary to pull off the scam.  At that point, he will tell the homeowner to pay him directly, rather than the mortgage company, at a reduced monthly rate.  The scammer promises that he will solve the homeowner’s problems, and that the homeowner will not have to hear from the mortgage company anymore.

In the meantime, the scammer will use the loan information and the homeowner’s identification (that he readily collected from the homeowner) in order to contact the lender and update contact information so that the scammer, rather than the homeowner, is receiving all communication from the mortgage company.

While the scammer is collecting money from the homeowner, the homeowner is under the impression that those payments are going to the mortgage company.  Of course, the scammer is in actuality pocketing this money, and not attempting any modification with the mortgage company.  However, because all communications are now being sent to the scammer rather than the homeowner, the homeowner believes that everything is fine since the mortgage company has seemingly not sent any correspondence.

Because a bankruptcy halts foreclosure actions, the scammer, using the homeowner’s stolen identity, will file bankruptcy in the homeowner’s name.  The homeowner will not have any clue that this has happened.  The scammer will never appear at the courthouse as required in a bankruptcy, so the bankruptcy will get dismissed.  However, by filing the bankruptcy, the scammer has bought time, and thus is able to continue collecting from the homeowner for a longer period of time.  The scammer will continue to file bankruptcies in the homeowner’s name, and they will continue to get dismissed, until somebody catches on.  Predictably, by then, the scammer will use his best efforts to disappear.

The United States Trustee is investigating around 180 such cases at the moment, over 30 of which are in the Indiana region.  Particularly troubling is that in many such instances, the homeowners were not even behind on their mortgages at the time they were approached by the scammer, but were living month-to-month and were hoping for some relief.  By the time the scammer pulled his tricks, however, they were too far behind to save their house.

With this said, it is important that homeowners be skeptical of anyone coming to them claiming to be able to help.  Instead, if homeowners are looking for help, they should seek it out at established businesses or with their mortgage lender themselves.  If they feel that they may have been part of a similar scheme, they should immediately contact the authorities and their mortgage lender.

The health care reform debate has been a current hot topic for the Obama Administration.  It will be interesting to see its effects on bankruptcy filings.  Based on the current bankruptcy filings related to medical debts, bankruptcy can be thought of roughly as a form of secondary insurance, or sometimes a primary insurance, for those incurring mounting hospital bills.  For these individuals, bankruptcy may be the only way to ensure that they will not drown financially from their health care needs.  The proposed health care reform promises lower costs and better availability of treatment for millions of Americans.  Meanwhile, a bankruptcy may help individuals lower/eliminate health care costs, but it does nothing in regards to availability of treatment.  In fact, due to the negative externalities it generates, it arguably is detrimental to available treatment for many Americans.  Thus, health care reform can provide a great additional benefit in this respect.  However, the larger debate in many people’s minds is whether the Constitution would suggest an implied fundamental right to reasonable health needs, or whether this dubbed “socialized medicine” stretches beyond what our system of capitalism should provide.  Whatever happens, there is no doubt that bankruptcy is a well-established tool for those most impacted by uncontrollable medical debts.

Overall, having bankruptcy in our system of laws is arguably a good thing.  Federal laws permitting people to file bankruptcy have existed since America’s early history.  The availability of bankruptcy is partly to credit for the entrepreneurial spirit and past successes of America’s economy.  For instance, without the bottom line option of bankruptcy, the personal financial risks of entrepreneurs would increase dramatically, discouraging them from bringing their ideas to the market because the risk of failure could leave them forever indebted.  Although incorporating a business is one method for limiting an entrepreneur’s personal liability in a business venture, the reality is that most lenders require a young corporation’s owners to personally guarantee any loans of the corporation, thus limiting the usefulness of a corporate shield on the extension of credit.  It is bankruptcy then that helps reduce the risk of an entrepreneur’s survival, and in turn ultimately is a large factor in promoting the beneficial competitive forces in our economy which produce innovative products and discourages monopolization.

In essence, the existence of bankruptcy has structured our economy in such a way that helps create a fair trade-off between lenders and consumers.  On one hand, lenders know that extending credit to a consumer will be profitable, but sinking them in debt runs the risk of the consumer being forced to consider bankruptcy.  As a result, the existence of bankruptcy helps prevent the over-extension of credit by unscrupulous lenders, or at least forces them to share in the consequences of doing so.  In fact, some speculate that the new bankruptcy laws passed in 2005, which made some sweeping changes to the bankruptcy system, are partially to blame for the economic downfall which sharply emerged in 2008—the reason being that creditors began extending even riskier credit with the false belief that consumers would have difficulty qualifying for bankruptcy under the 2005 changes.  On the other hand, consumers can be encouraged to stimulate the economy by making purchases without the fear that one honest but regretful purchase will leave them indebted beyond their means for their entire lives.  Without this option, our economy would likely move much more slowly.

It is important to keep in mind that most debts that are eliminated in a bankruptcy are the result of lenders voluntarily offering credit cards or loaning money to a consumer in the hopes of eventually making a profit from them.  Lenders are aware, and in fact expect, that a certain amount of the credit cards and loans will default and that a certain amount of them will become part of a bankruptcy.  Yet, these lenders still determine that it is more profitable to offer the credit cards or loans than to not offer them at all.  In a good market, this can be viewed as a sound business strategy, but in a bad market, this business model appears to be little more than a gamble.  When lenders gamble with the extension of credit, of course they should expect that many of these consumers will wind up forced with the option of bankruptcy.

Other debts are not always voluntarily entered into by the creditor, most notably medical bills.  Instead, these debts ultimately get externalized to society as a whole.  This in turn causes those who can afford to pay for their hospital bills to be charged more, almost always by means of increased health insurance costs.  Even without bankruptcy, many non-insured medical debts would never be paid.  Obviously, the controversy of health care costs is a heated and complex issue in this country.  However, as our laws have long permitted medical bills to be discharged in bankruptcy, it is clear that our nation has determined that society is better off at the end of the day by permitting people to get a fresh start away from these overwhelming debts rather than the alternative possibility.