A third of drivers struggle to afford excess on insurance

As most drivers are only too well aware, the cost of operating and maintaining a vehicle has soared over recent years, with more and more drivers finding themselves struggling to meet the rising costs associated with driving. This includes everything from higher maintenance costs and soaring insurance costs to rocketing petrol prices. This is putting real financial strain on the many people who rely on their vehicles to get to work, ferry kids around, and for other purposes.

With regards to car insurance costs, many drivers look at a variety of ways to try and reduce the cost of their car insurance plan, one of which is to opt for a higher level of excess. With vehicle insurance the higher the excess level you choose the lower the premiums are likely to be. However, this means that in the event of a claim the amount of excess that you have selected is the amount that you will have to pay from your own pocket.

One recent report has urged consumers not to increase the excess levels in order to push vehicle insurance premiums down unless they are sure that they can cover the excess in the event of a claim. The report, which has been released by the insurance giant AXA, claims that almost one third of drivers in the UK are actually unable to actually afford the excess level that they choose when it comes to making a claim. This has led to many being left with vehicles that cannot be repaired and become unroadworthy.

An official from the insurance giant stated: “We appreciate that premiums have risen a lot in the last couple of years and we can understand consumers looking at ways of saving a bit of money. But if this means that they can’t afford their excess, it is a completely false economy.”

Trailer Bridge and creditors agree on reorganization plan

This week, Trailer Bridge and its creditors were able to reach an agreement on a debt reorganization and repayment plan.  The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November with $82.5 million in unpaid bonds.

Trailer Bridge is a shipping company based in Jacksonville.  It continues to send 4 ships to the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico twice a week, and has not had to lay off employees during their bankruptcy.

According to the court documents, the agreement states that Trailer Bridge’s note holders will own 91 percent of the company.  In addition, Trailer Bridge will pay its creditors a pro-rated amount of $65 million.

To learn more about restructuring debt under Chapter 11 bankruptcy, contact the West Palm Beach Chapter 11 bankruptcy attorneys of Eric N. Klein & Associates, P.A. by calling 561-353-2800 today.

Chicago Bankruptcy Prevents Foreclosure, Even if You Make Major Mortgage Mistakes

When some people consider bankruptcy, they think about going through a process where debts are forgiven and the prospect of having to give up some or all of their property and other assets.

But there is a form of bankruptcy in Chicago that could help people who want to keep their homes, cars and other possessions.

Under Chapter 13 bankruptcy in Chicago, consumers are allowed to have some of their debts forgiven. But they must set up a payment plan that typically lasts between three and five years to pay back some of the debt.

Once the plan is completed, the balance of the debt owed is wiped clean. Chicago bankruptcy lawyers have seen many consumers helped by this form of bankruptcy, as they are able to stay in their house and still have their debts cleared. In many cases, Chapter 7 filers can stay in their homes and keep their debts, too. Each case is different.

One major benefit of bankruptcy in Chicago is that filing immediately stops a foreclosure. This is particularly important when considering our current real estate market both in the Chicago metro area and statewide. Prices are down and foreclosures are up and the values of homes have dropped considerably.

Whether you have missed one mortgage payment, five payments or your house is scheduled to be sold at auction immediately, bankruptcy can help. Simply filing for bankruptcy will immediately stop your house from being taken away.

Once you go through the bankruptcy process, you may be able to regain possession of the house after all is said and done. Chapter 13 bankruptcy can be helpful in certain situations, even if you make some mistakes with your mortgage.

Here are some tips from a U.S. News & World Report article that may help you avoid major mistakes with your house:

Check your credit: Not checking your credit can lead to high interest rates or strip you of the chance to get a mortgage at all if your credit score is below standard. Save yourself time and disappointment ahead of time.

Stick to one loan: Avoid taking out another line of credit while seeking a mortgage loan. This, too, can affect your credit score.

Look at the total house payment: Principal, interest, taxes and insurance goes into your payment. Look at all aspects.

Payment history: Make sure you have a history of making payments on time.

Employment history: Job hopping can hinder your mortgage rate.

Preparation is key: Make sure you get pre-approved before you apply so that you know you will qualify for a mortgage loan.

Shop around: Don’t just take the first rate you get approved for. Look at different lenders to find the best option for your situation.

Too good to be true?: Get the best rate, but don’t chase any deals that seem great.

Lock your rate: Fixed-rate mortgages are important because those that adjust can cause major problems.

Read your loan documents: Take the time to look at closing documents and don’t just assume everything works for you. Ask questions.

Massachusetts High Court Rules Debtor May Not Claim Homestead Exemption for Home Held in Trust – Boyle v. Weiss

Vincent Howard and our team of Norco foreclosure defense attorneys frequently handle bankruptcies in which the homestead exemption is a major factor. The homestead exemption allows a significant portion of the home’s value to be exempted from bankruptcy, which in turn prevents filers from losing their homes under many circumstances. In fact, since the housing bubble burst a few years ago, bankruptcy has been an important strategic tool for homeowners who are determined to keep their homes (though it’s not smart or possible in every circumstance). So we were interested to see an unusual decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in a case where the beneficiary of a trust was attempting to claim a homestead exemption. In Boyle v. Weiss, the court ultimately found no exemption where the filer did not control the trust or own more than 50 percent.

The debtor is Roberta Boyle, who lives in the disputed homestead in Lowell, Mass. The home was conveyed to a trust in 1990, and Roberta Boyle holds 50 percent of the beneficial interest of the trust; the other 50 percent is held by her father, Robert Boyle. Roberta is a tenant to the trust. In 2010, she filed a declaration of homestead in the property, then filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, claiming an exemption for her beneficial interest in the trust. The bankruptcy trustee objected, saying Massachusetts law does not allow a beneficiary to acquire a homestead estate. The bankruptcy court certified a question to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts: “May the holder of a beneficial interest in a trust which holds title to real estate and attendant dwelling in which such beneficiary resides acquire an estate of homestead in said land and building under [Massachusetts law]?”

The high court ultimately said no, declining to allow Boyle the homestead exemption. Boyle argued that caselaw requires the homestead statute to be interpreted liberally, and she is both an owner and a tenant on the property. However, the court said, Boyle is not an owner within the meaning of the homestead statute because that statute allows only for ownership by a sole owner, joint tenant, tenant in common or tenant by the entirety. The trustee could serve her notice to quit within 14 to 30 days. Furthermore, the terms of the trust do not make Boyle even an indirect owner, because she doesn’t have a controlling interest, the court found. She also argued that if not an owner, she still possesses the property “by lease or otherwise,” as state law provides — but this argument was also rejected as incompatible with an 1863 ruling (and a later 1990s ruling). In a footnote, the court noted that Boyle’s homestead registration was invalid in any case, since the trustee would have to register the homestead.

Led by partner Vincent Howard, our Garden Grove foreclosure defense lawyers help clients unravel tricky legal ownership issues like this all the time. Most people don’t put their homes in a trust, of course, but this may be done by older people who are trying to avoid the probate process, or in other situations where they want to be clear on how assets should be transferred. This strategy can complicate what might otherwise be a simple part of a bankruptcy, because the owner of the trust must be the one involved in the bankruptcy. For debtors like Boyle, this situation is also less than perfect because it denies them a large bankruptcy exemption. That’s why Vincent Howard and our Downey foreclosure defense attorneys prefer to discuss complications and legal strategies from the beginning of a case.

Bankruptcy Class Action Settlement Update

In 2009, a class action lawsuit brought in California challenged credit-reporting bureaus TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian with improperly reporting debts that had been discharged in bankruptcy. The defendants (that is, the credit-reporting bureaus) eventually came to a settlement with the plaintiffs (the people responsible for bringing the suit), to the tune of $45 million.

The court approved the settlement by issuing an Order Granting Final Approval, but on August 12, 2011, the defendants filed a brief challenging that order, in regards to attorney fees and costs of the case. The result of this appeal won’t be known until at least later this year: the deadline for Appellants to file relevant briefs with the court is January 23, 2012, and Appellees have until February 24, 2012.

Will You Get Settlement Money?

The lawsuit was brought because Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion improperly reported debts that had been discharged in bankruptcy on consumers’ credit reports. Rather than noting that these debts were “discharged through bankruptcy,” the credit bureaus noted that they were “120 days late” or that they had been charged off by the credit issuer.

Incorrectly reporting the status of a debt is illegal (which is why the lawsuit was filed), but it also caused a lot of grief for the people affected. When a debt is still reported as active, debt collectors may try to collect on that debt.

The result was that people who had filed for bankruptcy and gone through the entire bankruptcy process precisely to eliminate their debts and stop getting hassled by debt collectors were having to deal with debt collectors anyway (along with the stress of trying to sort out why their credit reports were incorrect).

You are eligible to collect some of the settlement if…

• You are a member of the “class” represented by this class action case. To be a part of the class, you must have received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge AND had a credit report issued by one of the defendants (i.e. the three credit reporting bureaus) between March 15, 2002 and May 11, 2009 with incorrectly reported discharged debts.
• You must have submitted a claim form with relevant information no later than November 30, 2009.

If you missed the deadline, however, don’t worry too much. Even though the settlement amount seems large, it will be spread out over so many individuals that it likely won’t result to more than a few dollars per person.

If, however, you’re interested in exploring other legal options regarding errors on your credit report, you may want to consult with a lawyer about the recourse available to you.

When Small Change is Hardly Chump Change

Since budgeting counseling is an important part of my financial planning practice, I get a kick out of finding easy ways to save money. So, when I read that there was an update on the Department of Labor’s progress toward their 401(k) fee disclosure laws, I was curious.  After all, with better disclosure  more transparency, and increased competition, it should be easier for every 401(k) participant to save on the fees that they pay for the administration and management of their accounts.

So far, Wall Street has claimed that disclosure is too complicated, and managed to defer the implementation of the new disclosures until April 2012. The question is whether the implementation will be delayed even longer.  The Department of Labor says not, even though they missed their own deadline to provide explanation of the rules.  It’s hard to be sympathetic.  I like this quote from Mercer Bullard, an associate professor of law at the University of Mississippi: “This is a reflection of the broker-dealers choosing to operate in an environment where they charge everyone differently for identical services.  The industry created the complexity and now they are complaining about having to disclose it.

Not every broker or 401(k) custodian is out to gouge the public. Some firms already make low-cost index funds available in addition to the higher-cost actively managed funds..  To its credit, Putnam is already disclosing their fees. Personally, I hope that being more transparent and offering lower-cost index funds will become a competitive advantage for the security firms and for the companies that choose 401(k) providers. In one study of 600 employers, 67% have already taken steps to force their 401(k) managers to improve offerings to their employees.

What do the new disclosure laws mean to you, the 401(k) participant? If you put  $10,000 per year in to your 401(k) for 30 years, a savings of .5% could save you $90,000!

The new laws are supposed to be implemented in June, but I dont think you should wait. There may be more attractive options available to you right now.  And if the prospect of re-allocating your 401(k) sends shudders down your back, remember you don’t have to do it alone.  As an independent hourly financial planner, Im here to help you to design a portfolio that includes a 401(k) that works as hard as you do.  And maybe, there are also investment management fee savings to be had.  Call soon, because $90,000 is definitely not chump change.

Rising Icelandic house prices hold a lesson for bankrupt Greece and Portugal

The cost of property has long been cheaper in France than in the UK – but the gap is closing.

A European house price league table this week revealed last year’s losers – Ireland, Spain and Cyprus – and the winners – Germany, France and Norway.

Most startling, however, was 2011s outright winner – Iceland, where prices surged 8%. There could be a lesson in this.

Get a Quick 90 Days Payday Advance

For people who are in desperate need of some quick cash but have bust schedules and can’t find time to visit a bank and go through time consuming loaning formalities, 90 day cash loan is an easy and best way out.

Among so many different types of payday loans available in the market, 90 day advance enables the borrower to take a higher amount and pay a part of it with each paycheck for 90 days. This facility is convenient and popular among those people who want to take out a higher some of money but not have enough monthly earnings to pay off all of it at one time.

Usually lenders quite easily sanction advance up to $1500 but this can vary. The interest charges also depend upon the loaning regulations regarding payday loans in your state and the lenders terms and conditions. Commonly, individuals can get a $1500 loan on a interest cost of $20 to $30 but there are many online lenders that offer a cash advance at lower fee. You can get the best 90 day loan deal by investing some time on researching online for the appropriate loan provider.

The repayment of short payday loans is easy, fast and hassle-free. You can either pay the entire amount at one go or pay it in installments. There isn’t much effort on part of the borrower. When the repayment date arrives, the lender automatically deducts the settled amount from the borrower’s checking account without asking him to fulfill any paperwork requirements.