Subprime loans were cash out, not purchase

Although not directly related to current bankruptcy practice, I thought this was interesting.

I came across an article in the New York Times, published on November 14, 2014, with the following interesting paragraph:

One of the most abjectly false narratives about the financial crisis is that risky mortgages proliferated so that people who couldn’t afford homes could nonetheless buy them. Modern subprime lending was not about homeownership. Instead, the 1990s crop of subprime mortgage makers allowed people with bad credit to borrow against the equity in their existing homes. According to a joint HUD-Treasury report published in 2000, by 1999, a staggering 82 percent of subprime mortgages were refinancings, and in nearly 60 percent of those cases, the borrower pulled out cash, adding to his debt burden. The report noted that “relatively few subprime mortgages are used to purchase a house.”

The full article can be accessed at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/opinion/a-house-is-not-a-credit-card.html?_r=0

Inherited IRA not automatically exempt

We commonly say that an IRA is exempt in a bankruptcy, up to $1,000,000.00 of value.  However the US Supreme Court has ruled that this general statement is not correct in the case of an inherited IRA. The citation is:  Clark v. Rameker, 134 S. Ct. 2242, 189 L. Ed. 2d 157 (2014).  In that case the Court said:  “[t]he text and purpose of the Bankruptcy Code make clear that funds held in inherited IRAs are not ‘retirement funds’ within the meaning of §522(b)(3)(C)’s bankruptcy exemption."

The facts of the case are that Mrs. Clark's mother set up an IRA in 2000 and named her daughter as the beneficiary of the IRA.  The mother died shortly thereafter, and the account passed to her daughter.  About nine years after that the daughter filed chapter 7 bankruptcy.  The account was worth about $300,000.00 at that time.

Mrs. Heffron-Clark claimed the IRA as exempt under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 522(b)(3). The trustee objected to the claimed exemption, arguing that the money in an inherited IRA is not "retirement funds" and therefore not exempt.

The Supreme Court opinion first noted that "Inherited IRAs do not operate like ordinary IRAs. Unlike with a traditional or Roth IRA, an individual may withdraw funds from an inherited IRA at any time, without paying a tax penalty."

The Court then said:  "Three legal characteristics of inherited IRAs lead us to conclude that funds held in such accounts are not objectively set aside for the purpose of retirement. First, the holder of an inherited IRA may never invest additional money in the account.... Second, holders of inherited IRAs are required to withdraw money from such accounts, no matter how many years they may be from retirement....Finally, the holder of an inherited IRA may withdraw the entire balance of the account at any time — and for any purpose — without penalty."

Ruling against Mrs. Clark, Justice Sotomayor said:  "For if an individual is allowed to exempt an inherited IRA from her bankruptcy estate, nothing about the inherited IRA's legal characteristics would prevent (or even discourage) the individual from using the entire balance of the account on a vacation home or sports car immediately after her bankruptcy proceedings are complete. Allowing that kind of exemption would convert the Bankruptcy Code's purposes of preserving debtors' ability to meet their basic needs and ensuring that they have a "fresh start,"Rousey, 544 U. S., at 325, into a "free pass," Schwab, 560 U. S., at 791"

Fortunately, this is a pretty limited decision, for most people will set up their own IRA, not inherit one.  However, I mention it as it is yet another example in which there is an important exception to the general rule.