Tag: creditor

UNDISCHARGED BANKRUPT: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date December 2, 2019

If you would prefer to hear an audio version of this undischarged bankrupt Brandon’s Blog, please scroll down to the bottom and click on the podcast

Undischarged bankrupt introduction

I recently read a Manitoba court decision issued in late October about the position taken by a judgment creditor in an undischarged bankrupt’s hearing. The creditor holding the judgment realized that the bankrupt’s discharge would discharge that debt. So, they tried to convince the court that their debt fit into one of the limited classes of debt that is not discharged by the bankrupt discharge.

That court case reminded me that is not so unusual. Many times a creditor who holds a judgment against the undischarged bankrupt tries to bootstrap their position. One of the leading cases cited by the Manitoba court is a 2018 decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The purpose of this Brandon’s Blog is to describe the bankruptcy discharge process, the position taken by the judgment creditor and what the Court has to say about that.

How bankruptcies work in Canada

The Canadian bankruptcy legislation is open for an insolvent and not viable company, or the insolvent, honest but unfortunate person can obtain relief. Subject to trust claimants’ rights and secured creditors, the company or person is assigning all of their unencumbered assets to the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) (Trustee). In return, the bankrupt person can have all of their debts discharged, subject to certain exceptions.

The bankruptcy discharge is amongst the primary advantages of relief under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). The discharge is vital to the bankruptcy procedure. Debtors, after bankruptcy, can wipe the slate tidy as well as begin over. This is a central concept under the BIA law. That is the essence of the bankruptcy discharge meaning.

A bankruptcy discharge is when the bankrupt is released under Canadian bankruptcy law from his or her financial debts as part of the bankruptcy discharge procedure. Some people think that it is the declaring for bankruptcy that releases the insolvent from obligation. This is not the case, it is the discharge that releases a bankrupt from debt.

A bankruptcy discharge provides the discharge of all unsecured debts, except for:

support payments to a previous partner or children;
penalties or fines enforced by the Court;
financial debts arising from fraud or fraudulent breach of trust;
student loans if less than seven years have actually passed since the bankrupt stopped being a part-time or full-time student.

Can an undischarged bankrupt leave the country?

If you are an undischarged bankrupt, you can travel. There are no restrictions on you leaving or returning to Canada if you are travelling for work or on vacation. Just make sure that your travel plans do not interfere with your legal obligation and your duties in your personal bankruptcy case, including:

attending a meeting of creditors (if one is required);
showing up for your mandatory counselling sessions;
submitting your monthly income reports to the Trustee;
remitting any surplus income payments you are required to make;
providing your financial information to the Trustee so that your pre and post-bankruptcy income tax returns can be filed;
being able to respond to any inquiries from your Trustee; and
attending in Court for your bankruptcy discharge hearing in an opposed discharge application.
undischarged bankrupt

Undischarged bankrupt: What is an undischarged debt?

When a bankrupt is discharged from bankruptcy, the individual is released from the legal obligation to repay their different types of debt that is unsecured and existed on the day that the bankruptcy was filed, except for the following types of original debt:

Alimony or support payments to a previous spouse or for the children;
Fines or monetary penalties imposed by the Court;
Financial obligations arising from fraud, misappropriation or defalcation; or
Student loans if less than seven years have actually passed since the person stopped being a full or part-time student.

So other than for the small category of debts that are not discharged, once the bankrupt is discharged from their bankruptcy, they do not have to make payments on debts that existed at the date of bankruptcy.

Undischarged bankrupt: Trustee opposed the discharge

A first-time bankrupt, who does not need to pay surplus income, is entitled to an automatic discharge after 9 months. This assumes that they have lived up to all of their obligations as an undischarged bankrupt and fully cooperated with the LIT. If this first-time bankrupt is subject to surplus income, then they must pay it for 21 months before they are entitled to a discharge. Longer timelines apply for a second or more time bankrupt.

If the Trustee has evidence that the bankrupt has not been forthright and fully cooperative, or has actually committed one or more bankruptcy offences, then the Trustee has a duty to oppose the bankrupt’s discharge.

Notice of opposition to discharge

Similarly, any unsecured creditor can oppose the bankrupt’s discharge. The grounds of opposition would likewise be evidence of lack of honesty or that one or more offences have been committed. The process for a creditor opposing the discharge of the bankrupt is by filing a notice of opposition to discharge.

In either a Trustee or creditor opposed discharge, the bankrupt’s application for discharge must be heard in Bankruptcy Court. For more on the discharge process, you can read about it in one of my previous Brandon’s Blogs.

The judgement creditor

Often, a judgment creditor thinks they have a higher position in the pecking order than other unsecured creditors because they have a judgment. They may have even registered the judgement against the title to real estate owned wholly or partially by the defendant. Unfortunately, upon the bankruptcy of a person, all enforcement proceedings on a judgment must stop.

The judgment for a debt, in bankruptcy, is merely a piece of paper that proves you have unsecured debt. Nothing else. Anyone who understands the litigation process knows that there is a big difference between getting a judgment and collecting on it.

Judgement creditors may take a keener interest in the bankruptcy proceedings, including opposing the discharge from bankruptcy. The reasons for this are twofold:

The judgment creditor has already spent time in court, money on legal fees and still has not collected their debt, so they are more invested in this person’s bankruptcy than someone who did not go the court route.
They are hoping that they can somehow fit their money judgment only into a position where they can claim that the debt is one not released by an order of discharge.

It is this second reason that this Manitoba court case, and the Court of Appeal for Ontario decision relied upon by the Manitoba court, revolves around.

Undischarged bankrupt: Can more evidence be introduced by a judgment creditor at the discharge hearing?

Most judgements that I see in a debt settlement program under the BIA or bankruptcy tend to fall into the same category. A service or good was supplied and not paid for. A contract was entered into and was breached. That is just normal business. There is no fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, defalcation, fraudulent misrepresentation or fraudulent breach of trust.

It is simply someone owes money and didn’t pay. The plaintiff entered all of the evidence they thought was important, the defendant either defended or allowed for default judgment to be obtained because they did not defend. Regardless, the court ordered the defendant to pay the money.

The judgement creditor was unpaid and then one day received the Trustee’s notice of bankruptcy in the mail. The judgment creditor was incensed. The creditor took an active interest in the bankruptcy proceedings and maybe even served as a bankruptcy inspector. The bankrupt person is now entitled to apply for his or her discharge from bankruptcy.

The judgment creditor is unhappy because they now know that they are receiving either nothing or a small dividend from the Trustee compared to the debt to be written off. So they now oppose the bankrupt’s discharge and try to get new evidence submitted to the Bankruptcy Court to somehow prove that their judgment is a claim that is not extinguished by the person’s bankruptcy discharge.

This is what the Court of Appeal decision was all about. Can you introduce new evidence at a bankruptcy discharge hearing?

The case I am referring to, Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company v. Rodriguez, 2018 ONCA 171 (CanLII). The appeals court said that the answer is no. You can read the entire decision here if you like. The Court of Appeal essentially said that the Court is allowed to look at:

the judgment
the proof that would certainly have been entered as evidence at the time in the pleadings
as well as that evidence which has been led in the bankruptcy discharge hearing

to analyze whether the judgment debt falls within an exclusion to the general discharge rules. The Court also said that in a bankruptcy discharge hearing, the application judge was limited to looking at the judgment, the pleadings, the statement of claim and any statement of defence, to determine whether the judgment fell into the class of those debts not released by a discharge from bankruptcy. New evidence is not allowed.

This finding has been followed and further clarified. It is now apparent that the only purpose of a bankrupt’s application for discharge is to consider the bankrupt’s application. It is not a forum to attempt to advance new or amended claims.

Undischarged bankrupt summary

I hope you enjoyed this Brandon’s Blog on the undischarged bankrupt. Are you in need of financial restructuring? The financial restructuring process is complex. The Ira Smith Team understands how to do a complex restructuring. However, more importantly, we understand the needs of the entrepreneur or the person who has too much personal debt. You are worried because you are facing significant financial challenges.

It is not your fault that you are in this situation. You have been only shown the old ways that do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team uses new modern ways to get you out of your debt troubles while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief freedom.

The stress placed upon you is huge. We understand your pain points. We look at your entire situation and devise a strategy that is as unique as you and your problems; financial and emotional. We know that we can help you the way we take the load off of your shoulders and devise a debt settlement plan.

We know that people facing financial problems need a realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” approach with the Ira Smith Team. That is why we can develop a restructuring process as unique as the financial problems and pain you are facing. If any of this sounds familiar to you and you are serious about finding a solution, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. team today.

Call us now for a free consultation. We will get you or your company back on the road to healthy stress-free operations and recover from the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

undischarged bankrupt

Brandon Blog Post

WHAT IS A CREDITOR IN BUSINESS LAW NOT TO DO?

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date June 12, 2019

What is a creditor introduction

The purpose of this Brandon’s Blog is to tell you a true story that all business people can learn from. Especially those wishing to provide consulting services to stakeholders in an insolvency proceeding. Let’s start simply by answering what is a creditor.

A creditor is a person or company that has advanced credit and is owed the payment by a different person or company. The debtor is the party that owes the money and a creditor is a person or company that wishes to be paid.

Vaughan Crossings Inc.

In January 2017, my Firm became the court-appointed receiver of the real property of Vaughan Crossings Inc. (VCI). VCI owned real property comprised of 5.5 acres of commercial development land located at the northwest corner of Dufferin and Centre Streets in the City of Vaughan. The first mortgagee made the application to Court for our appointment. The second mortgagee was a fund made up of many small investors.

Upon our appointment, we learned that the second mortgagee stakeholders had retained a business consultant to advise and assist these investors to try to obtain value out of the receivership from their investment. We dealt with the business consultant throughout the receivership.

It became clear to everyone that there was insufficient value for the second mortgagee group to recoup any funds through the sale of the property. So, the business consultant put together a group which included those who had registered a lien against the property for non-payment and the second mortgagee group.

The business consultant was not paid in cash by the second mortgagee group for his work. His fee and costs were also part of the buying group. They ended up paying above market value in all cash. I was not involved in their financing discussions so, I don’t know how they were able to get the required financing.

The sale was completed and we were discharged as the court-appointed receiver. Now it gets even more interesting.

The business consultant

The second mortgagee group of VCI was put together by a promoter. It turns out that promoter had other properties that they financed by way of the second mortgage the same way. My Firm was not involved in those other properties. However, it appears the same business consultant was involved in at least one other property.

It also appears that the business consultant experienced the same problem in that other property that he did in VCI; no cash to be paid from. In fact, as it turns out, he didn’t even have a retainer to act on behalf of the second mortgage investors in those other properties. That didn’t stop him from trying to work that property and chase his VCI dollars!

The court case

That issue was decided in the court case, The Superintendent of Financial Services v. Textbook Student Suites (525 Princess Street) Trustee Corporation, 2018 ONSC 7392 (CanLII). The consultant’s primary claim is against the Investors’ Committee. He asserts to be entitled to costs for solutions that he executed for the board. He claimed against the Investors’ Committee that because of the work he did in advising them, his charges need to be safeguarded by a court-ordered charge against the properties.

He claims that as a “bankruptcy expert” that his solutions were for the advantage of the stakeholders. Therefore, he ought to be paid his charges in advance of any kind of distributions to lenders.

He also said that his job also helped the lenders in their recuperation of the funds owing to them. He did not provide the court with any case law to support his position. Rather, he was relying on the inherent jurisdiction of the court to order such security.

The analysis

Of course, there was not a written agreement between the consultant and the Investor’s Committee signed by both parties. The Judge stated that the legislation is well-settled that in identifying whether the parties had a binding agreement, the court will take into consideration whether they reached agreement on every one of the material terms. One term that can be material is whether an arrangement requires to be in writing or whether an oral contract will be enough.

As it turns out, there were several drafts of the consultant’s engagement letter discussed with the Chair of the Investors’ Committee. However, the Investor’s Committee found the engagement letter to be too vague. They told the consultant this and asked him to provide a more detailed engagement letter of the activities he would undertake, the time estimate for each phase of his work and what his hourly rate would be for those services. The consultant did not provide a more formal engagement letter and as a result, one was never signed.

Rather, the court found that the consultant continued working. At the same time, he was exchanging emails with the Investors’ Committee. The Committee learned that at this same time, the consultant was trying to strike a deal with the second mortgagee stakeholder in my VCI file. Now the Investors’ Committee felt that the consultant may have a conflict, and did not seek an engagement letter to sign. At the same time, the consultant advised the Investors’ Committee that his retainer, was subject to their legal counsel obtaining a court-ordered charge for his fee and costs ahead of any distribution to be paid to the second mortgage investors.

This email turned out to be the downfall of the consultant in this court case. The court found that by this email, the consultant knew that he did not have that priority, yet was continuing his work. No court application was ever made to obtain that court-ordered charge. The consultant tried advancing all sorts of other arguments as to why he should now be granted the priority claim, but none were persuasive, or even correct!

The Judge ruled against the consultant. So, not only did the consultant not get paid for his work, but he also had costs awarded against him for losing this court battle.

So what is a creditor not to do?

What you should not do is:

Not start working if you do not have a properly written retainer to provide the consulting services.
Even if you have the properly written retainer, know how you are going to be paid and that the party you are contracting with has the ability to pay.

This is especially true in an insolvency situation. In a receivership or bankruptcy administration, there are many claimants against the assets. Many times the creditor claims are competing. So anyone wishing to provide goods or services to a stakeholder in an insolvency administration better make sure there is a clear contract and know who is going to be actually paying. This consultant found out the hard way that a court is not going to protect you for your mistakes later on, no matter how reasonable you believe it is.

What is a creditor?

Is your business in financial distress because you cannot collect your billings? Do you not have adequate funds to pay your creditors as their bills to you come due?

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people looking for financial restructuring, a debt settlement plan and to AVOID bankruptcy.

As a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee), we are the only professionals accredited, acknowledged and supervised by the federal government to provide insolvency advice and to implement approaches to help you remain out of personal bankruptcy while eliminating your debts. A restructuring proposal is a government approved debt settlement plan to do that. We will help you decide on what is best for you between a restructuring proposal vs bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so you can eliminate the stress, anxiety, and pain from your life that your financial problems have caused. With the one-of-a-kind roadmap, we develop just for you, we will immediately return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life.

You can have a no-cost analysis so we can help you fix your troubles. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will allow you to go back to a new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.

Tags Bankruptcy, bankruptcy trustee, business consultant, Business law, consultant, court, court appointed, court appointed receiver, creditor, debtor, Ira Smith Trustee, licensed insolvency trustee, receiver, what is a creditor, what is a creditor in business law

Brandon Blog Post

CURRENT INSOLVENCY ASSIGNMENTS: A WARNING TO ALL CREDITORS TO STAY IN THE PRESENT TO PRESERVE YOUR RIGHTS

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date April 26, 2017

Current insolvency assignments: Introduction

One of our current insolvency assignments teaches creditors a valuable lesson if they wish to take part in a debtor’s restructuring proposal. Every licensed insolvency trustee maintains a website listing their current insolvency assignments that are noteworthy or of public interest. Today I want to tell you about a recent case of ours. It is not of public interest, but it is noteworthy, especially for trustees and lawyers practicing in the insolvency area. Notwithstanding the large volume of receivership and bankruptcy case-law, the issue we came across was novel and never decided in Court before.

Current insolvency assignments: Mr. and Mrs. R

Mr. R was the sole shareholder of a company that serviced the construction industry. Both Mr. and Mrs. R were both Officers and Directors of the company. The company became insolvent, could not continue and ceased operating. Mr. and Mrs. R., in addition to their personal debts, which were significant, were now also faced with extensive claims against them in their capacity as Directors.

Current insolvency assignments: Consultation with Mr. and Mrs. R

Mr. and Mrs. R’s litigation lawyer referred them to us. We advised them that they should not declare bankruptcy, but rather attempt to avoid bankruptcy and restructure by filing a joint proposal under Part III Division I of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). Their had a complicated situation and they required an immediate stay of proceedings to deal with all the lawsuits against them.

Therefore, we first filed a joint Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal (NOI) on June 8, 2016. This first step provided Mr. and Mrs. R with a first 30-day grace period, where no creditor could begin or continue legal proceedings or enforcement against them while we were working with them to finish developing their restructuring proposal.

Current insolvency assignments: A certain creditor’s reaction

As Trustee, we served the NOI on all known creditors by ordinary mail, as we are required to under the BIA. We served one creditor, Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) at two addresses: i) legal counsel for RBC; and ii) BH, an agent for RBC that we regularly deal with. At the time of mailing out the NOI, we did not know if this agent would be on the file, but we provided them with notice out of to be extra cautious. We mailed the NOI on June 9, 2016.

The NOI sent to the creditors, including RBC, did not contain any proposal whatsoever, because it had not been written yet! This is standard for the filing of an NOI before the proposal.

In response to the NOI, by letter dated June 20, 2016, we received, from another agent for RBC that we had never dealt with before and who was not on our original mailing list, two proofs of claim, each in the amount of $438,434.31; one proof for each of Mr. and Mrs. R, individually.

This agent also sent a voting letter. It asked the Trustee to count RBC’s vote “with respect to the proposal” of Mr. and Mrs. R “against acceptance of the proposal made as of the 08th day of June, 2016.”

Current insolvency assignments: The Trustee’s reaction

On June 22, we wrote to the agent advising that the Trustee’s position was that because no proposal was yet in existence, the RBC “vote” was invalid and that RBC would have to offer a proper voting letter once it received the proposal. This was also sent to RBC’s counsel. The Trustee received no response to this communication.

Current insolvency assignments: The joint proposal of Mr. and Mrs. R

The debtors, Mr. and Mrs. R, filed a proposal July 7. We served the proposal on all creditors. The Trustee served RBC three ways to: i) RBC’s counsel; ii) RBC’s agent BH; and iii) the agent who wrote us the June 22 letter with enclosures. Our package included not only the proposal but notice of the first meeting of creditors and forms for proof of claim and a voting letter.

We received nothing further from RBC. The meeting proceeded on July 27. RBC did not attend. One creditor, with a claim of $278,561.29, attended and voted for the joint proposal. The joint proposal was deemed to have been accepted. Consistent with our position, as Trustee, we did not count the RBC June 22 “vote”.

(2017), 2017 ONSC 4234, 2017 CarswellOnt 12497, Rizzo, Re

Current insolvency assignments: Off to Court for approval

After the acceptance of a proposal by the requisite majority of the creditors, a licensed insolvency trustee must make application to Court, for approval of the proposal. The proposal is not binding until there is a valid and subsisting approval order of the Court.

Our motion for approval of the joint restructuring proposal of the debtors, Mr. and Mrs. R, was heard on August 9, 2016. RBC opposed. RBC opposed on the basis that its vote against the joint proposal was not counted. RBC’s vote, if counted, would have defeated the proposal and Mr. and Mrs. R would be bankrupt.

Our lawyer made various submissions, including, that the “vote” of RBC:

was not valid;
that RBC was advised of this and did nothing to file a valid vote; and
RBC failed to attend the meeting of creditors.

As indicated above, only one creditor voted; it voted in favour of the joint proposal.

RBC claimed its vote was valid and ought to have been counted. The Court did not go so far as to say a creditor could never lodge a valid vote against a proposal before receiving it. In this case, the Court agreed with us and found the vote was not valid. The Court went on to say that the Trustee was correct in not counting it.

Current insolvency assignments: What the Court said

The threshold question was whether the Trustee was right to reject RBC’s purported “vote.” Section 53 of the BIA permits a creditor to assent or dissent “from a proposal” before a meeting. Section 54 says the creditors may accept or refuse “the proposal” at the meeting. However, the statutory scheme for creditor voting assumes there is a proposal.

The Court found that:

the agent’s purported “vote” was on its face defective;
there was no proposal of June 8;
RBC or its agent had never seen the joint proposal when it voted;
the Trustee was right to reject an obviously defective “vote”;
the Trustee made its position abundantly clear to RBC’s agents; and
RBC had every opportunity to cure the defect and it failed to do so.

Current insolvency assignments: What the Court ordered

The Court found that:

the Trustee was correct in rejecting the June 22 “vote”; and
RBC was not denied due process.

The Court granted our motion for approval of the joint proposal and awarded us our costs.

Current insolvency assignments: What does this mean?

What this means is very simple. Make sure that in anything you do, you understand what the rules are, don’t take your eye off the ball and never fall asleep at the switch. If this creditor’s agent and legal counsel had merely reacted to the mailing of the joint proposal and cast a proper vote, we never would have ended up in this situation.

There was nothing wrong with the proof of claim (although it was filed unnecessarily in duplicate). All RBC’s agent or lawyer had to do when it received the joint proposal mailing, was take 2 minutes to complete a new voting letter and send it in to the Trustee. If they had done this simple step, assuming they voted against the joint proposal, Mr. and Mrs. R would now be bankrupts. Instead, they are making their proposal payments to the Trustee to restructure themselves and avoided bankruptcy.

Mr. and Mrs. R have each secured full-time employment, and are making more money than in the last few years of running their company.

Current insolvency assignments: What to do because of too much debt

Being a Director of a corporation can be risky business. If the corporation is insolvent and continues to carry on business, and you continue to act as a Director, it can land you in a personal financial mess.

Are you experiencing financial distress because of acting as a Director or otherwise? Is your business struggling and you can’t seem to find a way out?

If you’re struggling with debt for any reason Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. can help. We’re experts in dealing with debt. Give us a call today and take the first step towards conquering debt Starting Over, Starting Now.

2016 CarswellOnt 21774, 2016 ONSC 8192, IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF MARCO RIZZO AND ANGELA RIZZO

Tags Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, BIA, corporation, court, creditor, current insolvency assignments, debtor, debtors, director, insolvency, Ira Smith Trustee, joint proposal, licensed insolvency trustee, noi, notice of intention to make a proposal, proposal, trustee

Brandon Blog Post

INSOLVENT ESTATES CANADA 3 QUESTIONS WE ALWAYS ARE ASKED

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date September 28, 2016

INSOLVENT ESTATES CANADA

Insolvent estates Canada: Introduction

We previously discussed the aspect of death and insolvency in two blog posts:

When it comes to insolvent estates Canada, among the various questions asked of us, these three questions are always asked:

What are the duties of an executor/personal representative when the estate has more liabilities than assets?
Can the executor(s) pay bills before the creditors actually file a claim?
Do executors or beneficiaries have to pay creditors out of their own pocket if the estate is insolvent?

We prepared the above video to answer these 3 questions. Below is a more detailed discussion of the last 2 questions.

Insolvent estates Canada: The loss of life of a debtor occurs; who’s responsible for the money owed?

Although some creditors may try to collect from the spouse or other relatives, money owed doesn’t transfer because of marriage or death. If the debt is “joint”, the survivor has taken on the obligation directly and is liable on the account.

Debts are normally paid out of the assets of the property of the deceased before distributions to heirs (before paying heirs, the deceased’s debts must be paid). If the estate is insolvent (the assets of the estate are not enough to pay the amounts owed), then the order of charge is commonly prescribed by way of provincial rules.

If warranted, the executors could apply to Court for an order letting them assign the deceased’s estate into bankruptcy. In that situation, then the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (“BIA”), the federal legislation, will prescribe the order of payment.

If insurance was bought to pay off a specific debt such as a bank issued mortgage or loan, then upon the death of the individual the insurance company will repay the bank and the debt will not exist in the deceased’s estate.

What are your alternatives and your responsibilities, as an executor upon the death of a debtor?

If the estate is insolvent, before or after paying the testamentary costs, you have alternatives:

Pay the money owed out of your personal resources.
Allow the estate to go bankrupt.

Emotionally you may wish to pay the money owed because you believe in your heart that it is the proper thing to do and you don’t wish to dishonour the memory of your loved one with a string of bad debts and bankruptcy. But before you decide, you need to know that there is no liability for an executor or heir to take on the debts of the deceased.

Even though there may be a stigma connected to bankruptcy, the reality is that you are not responsible for the money owed, so why should you assume this burden and in all likelihood put your family in financial jeopardy?

Bankrupting the estate makes economic sense. An executor can sidestep the minefield of issues involved in administering the deceased’s insolvent estate by bankrupting it.

What should executors and heirs be aware of?

If you and/or another family member is the executor, be aware:

The executors have a legal responsibility for all acts completed, and for all acts not accomplished that they should have.
Notwithstanding everyone’s best efforts, they may unknowingly be inviting proceedings from lenders or heirs for difficult issues. This happens when family members, who are well-intentioned but not skilled at monetary, insolvency or legal issues, are executors because she or he is named, however actually has no know-how in this region.
By putting the property into bankruptcy, which requires the previous approval of the bankruptcy court, the executors are relieving themselves of personal legal responsibility because the estate will now be administered under the BIA and all creditors by the Licensed Insolvency Trustee.
The executor will relieve him or herself of coping with collection calls.
As long as there are sufficient funds in the estate to pay the funeral costs, that can be paid out first in the case of a bankruptcy of the deceased’s estate because of S.136. (1)(a) of the BIA states:

Priority of claims

“136 (1) Subject to the rights of secured creditors, the proceeds realized from the property of a bankrupt shall be applied in priority of payment as follows:

(a) in the case of a deceased bankrupt, the reasonable funeral and testamentary expenses incurred by the legal representative or, in the Province of Quebec, the successors or heirs of the deceased bankrupt;”

It is the first debt with a preferred status that can be paid.

What should I do if I am an executor and I find that the liabilities are greater than the assets?

If you are an executor of a will and you find out that the estate is insolvent, after speaking with the estate lawyer, contact Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. as soon as possible. We will evaluate the situation and give you sound financial advice on how best protect yourself as executor and the heirs, so that you will be able to go ahead Starting Over, Starting Now.

THIS VLOG WAS INSPIRED IN PART BY OUR eBOOK – PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY CANADA: Not because you are a dummy, because you need to get your life back on track

Tags Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, BIA, creditor, Debt, executor, heir, insolvent estates canada, Ira Smith Trustee, licensed insolvency trustee, priority

Brandon Blog Post

BAD CREDIT LOANS GUARANTEED APPROVAL

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date May 29, 2014

If you are searching for bad credit loans guaranteed approval, then you already know that one of the more frightening feelings common in the modern world is falling into debt and not knowing how to get out. Debt has a way of sneaking up and overwhelming us before we realize what is going on.

Many people have not had the training in personal financial management needed to stay out of debt, and they are in need of guidance from someone who has this expertise for resolving their financial problems. Unfortunately, people in this situation often get into more trouble by looking for bad credit loans guaranteed approval by a new creditor rather than finding the help they really need from a bankruptcy trustee.

Bad Credit Loans Guaranteed Approval

If you find yourself typing the above search term into your search engine, you may well be looking at one of the danger signs that you are in need of professional help in dealing with your debts. Other signs that debt is out of hand include:

not having any savings;
taking personal loans from family or friends;
missing payments on credit cards, mortgage, or rent;
using your credit card for buying groceries and other necessities;
relying on credit cards to get from one payday to the next;
not knowing the total amount you owe; and
not being able to manage living paycheque to paycheque.

The worry and stress created by these pressures makes finding a way out of the situation even harder. Uncontrolled debt can take a big toll on family life and reduce, or eliminate, the resources for relaxation and leisure, leaving the person with no time to even look for the light at the end of the tunnel. I can assure you from all of the cases we have handled, a bad credit loans guaranteed approval company is not a solution to your overall debt problem.

As the debt mounts, the prospect of looking at the whole picture becomes even more overwhelming. However, looking objectively at your whole situation is the most important first step for resolving the crisis, and this is exactly what you can gain by using the assistance and perspective of a professional licensed bankruptcy trustee. I can look at your situation clearly as a third party, and I will not charge you for that consultation. So all you have to lose, is your debt!

Avoiding Bad Credit Loans Guaranteed Approval

If you have found yourself seeking more bad credit loans, consider turning in a new direction that can lead you out of debt forever. Take a deep breath, step back for a moment and have a consultation with a licensed bankruptcy trustee who can help you in facing the full dimensions of your problem and then devise a plan that moves you toward a debt free life.

We have written several blogs about the high amounts charged by bad credit loans guaranteed approval companies and how they take advantage of people at their weakest moment, and you may wish to read some of them. They include: BAD CREDIT LOANS TORONTO: LEGIT COMPANIES DON’T GUARANTEE THEM, PAYDAY LOANS ARE NOT THE ANSWER TO YOUR FINANCIAL PROBLEMS, and THE CASH STORE ONTARIO: THIS PAYDAY LOAN OUTFIT NEEDED HELP AND CALLED A TRUSTEE! If you read these blogs, you will see why we say that a bad credit loans guaranteed approval company is not the way to solve your financial problems.

If debt has overwhelmed your life and you are still looking for more, that is a definite warning sign that it is time for professional financial help. Contact Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. immediately. We will evaluate your situation and provide you with a solid plan for moving forward so that Starting Over, Starting Now you can live a debt free life.