Illyssa Iona Fogel

Illyssa Fogel

The review by these clients is extremely misleading and often false. These clients were referred to me as potential chapter 11 candidates in late August 2009. At that time, they owned several pieces of property, including a second condominium, the financing on which they had wanted to modify, if possible, and thereby retain the property. They also had debt related to a business in which they had invested that that had failed because of the actions of their partner. Throughout the months of September through December of 2009, my office and I worked on gathering the voluminous information required for the bankruptcy filing. The clients were unable to easily gather and provide the vast amount of information necessary to effectuate the filing because of the business debts and because they had not been running the business and, therefore, did not have that information readily available to them. My assistant and I spent more than 25 hours, including more than 50 email exchanges, from late August of 2009 through the first week of January of 2010 gathering the required information and then entering it into our bankruptcy program. The bankruptcy filing was effectuated on January 13, 2010. Not long after the case was filed, the lender on the van used by the business, and in the hands of the partner, filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court seeking the ability to foreclose on the van because no payments had been made on it for some time. On April 27, 2010, the Court entered its order granting relief from the automatic stay pertaining to the van used in the business and retained by the clients' partner, but for which the clients were likely obligated. The clients had not opposed the motion for relief by the secured creditor, GMAC, because they did not have or want it and wanted to assist in recovering the vehicle in order to possibly reduce their obligation to GMAC, if any. The clients then became unable to make the payments on the second condominium they owned, and on June 8, 2010, the Court entered its order granting the motion for relief from the automatic stay as it pertained to the condo. The order granting relief indicates that the creditor would consider working with the clients to possibly effectuate a forbearance agreement or the modification of the loan. In June of 2010, the clients, through me, filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court asking that their case be dismissed. Following is a paragraph from their declaration filed in support of the motion outlining their request and why they sought dismissal of the case: "We desire at this time to dismiss our Chapter 11 Reorganization proceeding as the stay is no longer in effect as to the particular piece of property that we had wanted to attempt to retain, that is, our second condominium. Also, our financial circumstances have changed in that we both have been recently required to undergo certain medical care. We believe that the most cost-efficient manner to proceed is to dismiss the Chapter 11. If we remain in a Chapter 11, we will continue to incur administrative fees and costs associated with our Chapter 11 proceeding, without being able to realize the primary benefit from having filed and remaining in the Chapter 11. Moreover, we wish to be able to work with the lender on our second condominium for either a forbearance agreement or a loan modification, and we also believe we can make payment arrangements outside the Chapter 11 with any of the unsecured creditors who may approach us for payment. Accordingly, we believe it is in the best interests of our estate and our creditors to dismiss the Chapter 11 and examine our options outside the bankruptcy arena." The Order Dismissing Case, at the clients' request, was entered on August 2, 2010.