These Student Loans Are Not Covered By DeVos’s Extension Of Relief

Adam S. Minsky, Esq.

On Friday, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos announced an extension of the moratorium on student loan payments, interest, and collections to January, 31, 2021.

This additional month provides critical relief to millions of student loan borrowers struggling with repayment and averts an imminent “cliff” on December 31, when the relief was originally scheduled to expire. It gives Congress additional time to potentially extend the relief further into 2021 as part of larger stimulus negotiations. And it provides President-Elect Biden, who would be sworn in on January 20, with the opportunity to enact further relief through executive action if necessary.

But not all student loans are covered by DeVos’s extension. Here’s why.

The current moratorium on student loan payments, interest, and collections is a result of the CARES Act — bipartisan legislation that was enacted in March to provide economic relief in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. But the language in the CARES Act limited student loan relief only to government-held federal student loans. This includes federal Direct loans, and a small number of other types of federal loans that were acquired by, or assigned to, the U.S. Department of Education.

(201)646-3333 | BANRUPTCY LAWYERS IN NEW JERSEY | REPOSSESSION - CAR PAYMENTS - AUTO LOAN - BILLS - YouTube

My name is Jose Sanchez and Rafael Gomez been my lawyer for over 10 years and he always gets me out of trouble. I recommend this lawyer to anybody, he's a very good lawyer.

But a large volume of student loans were excluded from the CARES Act’s provisions. Three main categories of loans are excluded:

• Loans administered by the Family Federal Education Loan (FFEL) program. FFEL loans are federal loans originated by a private lender, but ultimately backed or guaranteed by the federal government. The FFEL program was discontinued in 2010, but there was still many borrowers who are repaying FFEL-program loans.
• Perkins loans are federal loans originated by colleges and universities. They are neither Direct nor FFEL loans, and are not protected by the CARES Act.
• Private student loans are purely private with no federal backing, and are issued and administered by banks and other commercial lending entities.

Because DeVos limited the extension of student loan relief to the existing moratorium under the CARES Act, the relief was not expanded to cover these other loan programs.

There is roughly $300 billion in outstanding student loans that are ultimately left out of the relief, according to the Student Borrower Protection Center. Of that, around there is $160 billion in privately-owned FFEL loans, $5 billion in Perkins loans, and $133 billion in private student loans.

(201)646-3333 | SPECIALIST BANKRUPCY ATORNEY | New Jersey, New York, Newark, Hackensack, Paterson .. - YouTube

Hi guys my name is Vanessa Reynoso I hired mr. Gomez as one of my lawyer for me, to help me out and I could have been more happier with his help so I recommend you guys if you guys need any help to hire him, because he'll get you out of a bad situation.

Congressional Democrats have been pushing to expand the CARES Act protections to cover FFEL loans and Perkins loans. Progressive lawmakers have also pushed for broad private student loan forgiveness, as well. The HEROES Act, which passed the House of Representatives on a largely party line vote in May, would have provided for up to $10,000 in private student loan forgiveness for borrowers in economic distress. But so far, these efforts have run into opposition in the Republican-controlled Senate.

A bipartisan group of senators unveiled a new, $900 billion stimulus bill last week designed to revive efforts to reach a compromise on broad economic relief before the end of the year. Included in this proposal is $4 billion dedicated to student loan relief. While this allocation of federal funds could be sufficient to cover an additional extension of the student loan moratorium further into 2021, specific details regarding student debt relief have yet to be disclosed, and it is not yet clear whether the current relief could be expanded to include the other types of student loans.

 

DeVos Extends Student Loan Relief Into 2021: What You Need To Know

Adam S. Minsky, Esq.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has extended an existing moratorium on student loan payments, interest, and collections into 2021. The U.S. Department of Education announced the update in a press release on Friday. Here’s the latest.

For much of 2020, millions of student loan borrowers have not had to repay their federal student loans because of emergency pandemic relief under the CARES Act. This legislation suspended all payments and interest on government-held federal student loans. It also stopped all collections efforts — such was wage garnishments and offsets of Social Security benefits — for borrowers in default on their student loans. The student loan moratorium was originally supposed to end in September, but President Trump subsequently extended that relief to December 31.

Congressional Democrats have been pushing to further extend student loan relief well into 2021 as part of larger stimulus negotiations. House Democrats passed legislation that would push the student loan moratorium’s expiration to September 2021. But the Democratic-controlled House and Republican-led Senate have been at an impasse for months. President Trump suggested over the summer that his administration could further extend the moratorium through executive action, but he had not made any recent public comments to affirm this.

BANKUPTCY LAWYERS NEAR HACKENSACK(07601) - (201) 646-3333 | [2020] - YouTube

I'm Duncan and I can recommend anyone besides Rafael Gomez as an attorney. He helped me through my accident case and won me a very generous settlement. Very professional, very nice guy. Can recommend anyone else.

The Department of Education just announced an extension of the student loan moratorium to January, 31, 2021. Citing its authority under the HEROES Act of 2003, the Department said, “Federal student loan borrowers will not be expected to make payments through January of next year, though they will continue to be able to do so and benefit from the 0% interest rate as they pay down principal. Non-payments will continue to count toward the number of payments required under an income-driven repayment plan, a loan rehabilitation agreement, or the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.”

The additional month of relief for borrowers would avert an imminent “cliff” on December 31 — a potentially disruptive gap after the current relief expires, but before President-Elect Biden is sworn in on January 20, 2021. The resulting uncertainty has led student loan borrowers to scramble to budget for payments, apply for income-driven repayment plans, and consider whether to request hardship deferments or forbearances if they cannot afford their regular payments. Servicers would have started generating reminder notices for student loan bills as early as next week.

“The coronavirus pandemic has presented challenges for many students and borrowers, and this temporary pause in payments will help those who have been impacted," said Secretary DeVos. "The added time also allows Congress to do its job and determine what measures it believes are necessary and appropriate.”

A bipartisan group of senators unveiled a new, $900 billion stimulus bill this week designed to revive efforts to reach a compromise on broad economic relief before the end of the year. Included in this proposal is $4 billion dedicated to student loan relief. While this allocation of federal funds could be sufficient to cover an additional extension of the student loan moratorium further into 2021, specific details regarding student debt relief related to this stimulus proposal have yet to be disclosed.

BANKRUPTCY LAWYERS NEAR PARAMUS (07653) - (201) 646-3333 | [2020] - YouTube

I recommend Rafael Gomez, he's been my lawyer for over 20 years. He's gotten me out of a lot of problems that I've had since I was a young kid. Not only has he become my lawyer but he's become a very good friend of families. I would recommend him not only because he can win your case but could also make you feel part of the family and ease your pains to whatever dilemma you're having calling right now.

Furthermore, after President-Elect Biden is sworn into office on January 20, 2021, he could use executive action to enact additional student loan relief, as well. Consumer rights advocates and progressive Democrats in Congress are pushing Biden to use executive action to enact sweeping student loan relief, including an extended moratorium on payments as well as broad student loan forgiveness. Biden has indicated a willingness to enact some policy changes through aggressive executive action if necessary, but has been largely silent on his position regarding cancelling student debt via executive authority. He has expressed a preference for Congress to take action.

Bipartisan Stimulus Bill Would Extend Student Loan And Unemployment Relief For Millions

 

New Details: Bipartisan Stimulus Bill Would Extend Student Loan And Unemployment Relief For Millions

Adam S. Minsky, Esq.

Momentum is building for passage of a new stimulus package, and new information released today about a proposed stimulus bill confirms that it includes a further extension of student loan and unemployment relief.

For much of 2020, millions of student loan borrowers have not had to repay their federal student loans because of emergency pandemic relief under the CARES Act. This legislation suspended all payments and interest on government-held federal student loans. It also stopped all collections efforts — such was wage garnishments and offsets of Social Security benefits — for borrowers in default on their student loans. The student loan moratorium was originally supposed to end in September, but President Trump subsequently extended that relief to December 31.

Last Friday, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos further extended the moratorium by one month, to January 31, 2021. The additional month of relief for borrowers would avert an imminent “cliff” on December 31 — a potentially disruptive gap after the current relief expires, but before President-Elect Biden is sworn in on January 20, 2021. This could have led to confusion for student loan borrowers, and administrative processing delays by servicers.

(201)646-3333| SPECIALISTS BANKRUPCY ATTORNY | SECAUCUS - JERSEY CITY - KEARNY - WEEHAWKEN - HOBOKEN - YouTube

I am Peter Van Allen, I've been a lawyer in Bergen County for over 20 years I know Rafael Gomez since 1984. I find him to be a very good attorney, he represents his clients well and I would highly recommend him.

Democrats have been pushing to further extend existing student loan relief well into 2021 as part of larger stimulus negotiations. House Democrats passed legislation earlier this year that would push the student loan moratorium’s expiration to September 2021. But the Democratic-controlled House and Republican-led Senate have been at an impasse for months.

The new, $908 billion bipartisan compromise package aims to bridge the gap between Senate Republicans’ previous $500 billion stimulus proposal, and a $2 trillion proposal by House Democrats. According to a summary of the compromise bill released today, the current moratorium on student loan payments, interest, and collections would be further extended to April 30, 2021. However, that relief would not be expanded to include around $300 billion in student loans not covered by the existing moratorium, such as commercially-held FFEL loans, Perkins loans, and private student loans. The current relief only covers government-held federal student loans.

Still, the bill, if passed, would provide desperately needed relief to millions of student loan borrowers. According to a recent nationwide survey of 60,000 student loan borrowers completed by Student Debt Crisis and Savi, 77% of student loan borrowers do not feel financially secure enough to resume payments in early 2021. More than half of surveyed borrowers rate their current financial wellness as poor or very poor since the COVID-19 pandemic began in March; only 21% rated their financial wellness as poor or very poor prior to the pandemic. More than a third of healthcare workers with student loan debt who responded to the survey have experienced reduced work hours caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“People are deeply concerned about the continuing impact of COVID-19, and their student debt burden is creating uncertainty about the future. The data shows that borrowers are not even close to ready to begin making payments again when relief ends on January 31st. Healthcare workers, educators, and people of color are even less certain of their financial security.” said Natalia Abrams, Executive Director of Student Debt Crisis. “Student debt relief policies are rapidly changing and borrowers want elected officials to know the difficulties they face.”

(201)646-3333 | ATTORNEY IN HACKENSACK NEW JERSEY | BANKRUPTCY - FORECLOSURE - MORTGAGE - LAWSUITS - YouTube

Good day, this is Ian Hirsch, I am an attorney at law, I practice in Hackensack New Jersey, I've been practicing actually over 40 years now. I met Mr Gomez had to be about 15 years ago, we both do pretty much the same type of work. I see him on his feet many many times, he's an excellent attorney, knows the rules of evidence very well, he's very very progressive, he speaks spanish fluently and I do recommend him highly having personally observed his abilities.

The proposal also includes an extension of federal unemployment benefits at $300 per week for 16 weeks. This is less than the $600 weekly benefit amount that Democrats had originally wanted, but with current benefits expiring, supporters of the proposal view it as a reasonable compromise. Also included in the bill is rental relief, and additional funding for small businesses via the Paycheck Protection Program.

It is unclear at this juncture whether the compromise bill has sufficient support to pass the GOP-controlled Senate, but momentum is building. If passed by the Senate, the bill would then have to be passed by the House, controlled by Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has expressed support for the bill. President Trump would then have to sign it; the White House has not yet indicated whether he would do so.

 

Major Bankruptcy Reform Bill Would Permit Student Loan Discharges And Make Other Dramatic Changes

Adam S. Minsky, Esq.

Today, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), along with several House Democrats, introduced the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2020. This is the first major consumer bankruptcy reform legislation to be introduced into Congress since the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. If passed, the bill would fundamentally change the entire bankruptcy system — particularly for student loan borrowers.

The current bankruptcy code treats student loan debt differently from most other forms of consumer debt, such as credit cards and medical bills. Borrowers must generally prove that they have an “undue hardship” in order to discharge their student loan debt in bankruptcy. These restrictions initially only applied to federal student loans, but were subsequently expanded to cover private student loans following the passage of a 2005 bankruptcy reform bill.

(201)646-3333 | SPECIALIST IN BANRUPTCY | HACKENSACK - SECAUCUS - PATERSON - CLIFTON - LYNDHURST -NJ - YouTube

My name is Shmall Litsman and I'm very very happy with the outcome today for the court. I was facing losing my license for a year because of an insurance problem and problem with the plates on my car and I contacted Rafael and he delivered very very nicely, very very happy and I recommend everybody to use them. Take care

The “undue hardship” standard applied to student loan debt is not adequately defined in statute, so bankruptcy judges have established various tests (which vary by jurisdiction) to determine discharge eligibility. In order to show that they meet this standard, borrowers must initiate an “adversary proceeding,” which is essentially a lawsuit within the bankruptcy case that is brought against the borrower’s student loan lenders. Through the adversary proceeding, the borrower must present evidence showing that they meet the undue hardship standard, while the student lenders present opposing evidence. The adversary proceeding can be a long and invasive process for borrowers, and can get quite expensive for those who retain a private attorney. Student loan lenders may also have significantly more resources than borrowers, which can give them an edge in the litigation. As a result, many student loan borrowers are unsuccessful in proving undue hardship, and many others don’t even try.

The new bankruptcy reform bill would make a simple, but far-reaching, change to the bankruptcy code by simply eliminating the section of the code that exempts student loan debt from discharge. If enacted, student loans would be treated no differently from other forms of consumer debt, and could be discharged without an adversary proceeding, and without having to prove an “undue hardship.”

Among other things, the bill would also radically reform the bankruptcy system by replacing Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies with a single, unified bankruptcy process. It would create a uniform federal homestead exemption, rather than a patchwork of state exemptions. It would permit the discharge of certain government fees and fines. It would exempt sources of income and assets linked to alimony, child support income, the child tax credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. And it would crack down on predatory practices by lenders and creditors.

(201)646-3333| CREDITOR CALLS AND BANKRUPTCY ATTORNY | NEW JERSEY-HACKENSACK-KEARNY-CLIFTON-HARRISON - YouTube

Hi my name is Javier Navas I'm in Rafael Gomez offices, I had a few months ago an issue legal that I needed help, a big help, and he came along and he helped me very well a lot, this issue was an easy issue but with his help he made it very smooth and the transition to accomplish

everything else was excellent, so I definitely recommend him for every thing that you need in legal matter and of course try to give him a call and go to his website and check him out and I will definitely recommend he's pretty good into what he does. Thank you.

“Our Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act simplifies and modernizes the consumer bankruptcy system to help people struggling with debt – starting by creating a single system for all consumers, streamlining the filing process, and reducing filing fees,” said Senator Warren. “I’ve sat in bankruptcy courtrooms and heard the stories of people who worked hard, had big dreams, and whose lives took a terrible turn. Bankruptcy is supposed to be a last resort to help people pull themselves back up. We must fix bankruptcy to give people a fighting chance.”

The bill has little chance of passing the Republican-controlled senate during the lame-duck session. But its chances could improve depending on the outcome of the January runoff elections in Georgia, which will determine which party controls the Senate after Joe Biden assumes the presidency on January 20.

BANKRUPTCY ARTICLE - ATTORNEY IN NJ (201) 646-3333

 

Bankruptcy Judge Wipes Out Over $430,000 In Student Loans For Borrower With String Of Bad Luck

Adam S. Minsky, Esq.

In a rare ruling, a bankruptcy court in California has allowed a borrower to discharge over $430,000 in student loans.

The bankruptcy code treats student loan debt differently from most other forms of consumer debt, such as credit cards and medical bills. Borrowers must generally prove that they have an “undue hardship” in order to discharge their student loan debt in bankruptcy. These restrictions initially only applied to federal student loans, but were subsequently expanded to cover private student loans following the passage of a 2005 bankruptcy reform bill.

The “undue hardship” standard applied to student loan debt is not adequately defined in statute, so bankruptcy judges have established various tests (which vary by jurisdiction) to determine discharge eligibility. The most common of these tests is the Brunner test.

(201)646-3333 | BANKRUPTCY LAW OFFICE PASSAIC COUNTY | HASKELL - HEWITT - LITTLE FALLS - HAWTHORNE - YouTube

Hi my name is Debilita Jesus and I'm here to recommend Rafael Gomez as your attorney. He's a great attorney, he's responsible, professional and very efficient. He's conscientious of his clients as well. The staff is also fantastic especially, Jackie and Tatiana who are very professional and handle their clients with care and love.

In order to try to prove that they meet the undue hardship standard, borrowers must initiate an “adversary proceeding,” which is essentially a lawsuit within the bankruptcy case that is brought against the borrower’s student loan lenders. Through the adversary proceeding, the borrower must present evidence showing that they meet the undue hardship standard, while the student lenders present opposing evidence. The adversary proceeding can be a long and invasive process for borrowers, and can get quite expensive for those who retain a private attorney. Student loan lenders may also have significantly more resources than borrowers, which can give them an edge in the litigation. As a result, many student loan borrowers are unsuccessful in proving undue hardship, and many others don’t even try.

But a bankruptcy judge in California ruled earlier this month that a student loan borrower with a string of bad luck met this difficult standard.

The borrower in the case had taken on substantial student loan debt to go to medical school (hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt is not uncommon for graduates of medical degree programs, given anticipated high earnings). However, the borrower was unable to match for residency after completing his medical degree. He was forced to take a variety of low-paying jobs, and earned less than $35,000 per year between 2010 and 2017. In at least one year, he earned only $3,000. The borrower claimed he had applied for thousand of additional jobs during this timeframe, but was unsuccessful.

The borrower filed for bankruptcy, and went through an adversary proceeding to try to prove that he met the undue hardship standard. The court ultimately ruled in his favor.

In support of its ruling, the bankruptcy court noted that the borrower’s expenses consistently exceeded his income, despite his consistent efforts to secure higher paying work. The court also noted his lack of a reserve of funds, the fact that his future employment prospects depended on incurring the additional expense of retraining, and his willingness to take any type of employment he could find during the preceding decade. The court further found that his overall financial circumstances were unlikely to substantially change in the future, based on the evidence presented.

(201)646-3333 | BANKRUPCY LAW FIRM IN NEW JERSEY | BERGEN - PASSAIC - HUDSON - ESSEX COUNTIES - YouTube

Hi my name is Maribel Blackwood I would like to thank Rafael Gomez and his staff for such an excellent job on my case and would like to recommend him and his secretary Jaffe who is friendly and very professional. Thank you

The bankruptcy court concluded that the borrower’s overall student loan debt should be reduced from $440,000 to $8,291.67, and allowed the borrower to pay off the small remaining balance at the rate of $41.87 per month.

Notably, in issuing its decision, the court rejected an argument by the U.S. Department of Education that the borrower should be denied relief because he failed to take advantage of income-driven repayment programs, which can provide affordable payments and eventual loan forgiveness for federal student loan borrowers, even for borrowers with large balances. The court rejected this argument given that the large balance itself was impacting his credit and limiting his employment prospects. The court also noted that there could be significant tax consequences associated with eventual loan forgiveness under an income-driven repayment plan, and this factored into the decision, as well.

The case, Koeut v. U.S. Department of Education, in the Southern District of California, is the latest in a series of cases throughout the country that have allowed borrowers to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy, despite the difficult procedure and challenging standard that they must meet in court.

There are efforts underway, however, to reform the bankruptcy code to more easily permit student loan discharges. Last week, Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate unveiled the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2020. The bill, if enacted, would change the bankruptcy code by simply eliminating the section of the code that exempts student loan debt from discharge. Student loans would be treated no differently from other forms of consumer debt, and could be discharged without an adversary proceeding, and without having to prove an “undue hardship.” The bill also would enact other significant reforms, including restructuring bankruptcy procedures, enhancing consumer protections against creditors, and expanding the dischargeability of certain other debts.

The bill has little chance of passing the Republican-controlled Senate during the lame-duck session. But its chances could improve depending on the outcome of the January runoff elections in Georgia, which will determine which party controls the Senate after Joe Biden assumes the presidency on January 20.

(201)646-3333| BANKRUTCY LAWYER | LAWSUITS - HARASSING CALLS -CREDIT COLLECTION -COLLECTION AGENCIES - YouTube

Hello my name is Damien Aguilar I've known Mr Rafael Gomez for about two years, he's very knowledgeable, he's very professional and very courteous, he has a nice way about him and I recommend him as an attorney.

WAGE GARNISHMENT ARTICLE - BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEY IN BERGEN COUNTY NJ (201) 646-3333

 

K.L., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
L.L., Defendant-Respondent.No. A-1252-18T1.Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Submitted December 3, 2019.Decided January 23, 2020.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County, Docket No. FM-03-0459-16.

David Thornton Garnes, attorney for appellant.

L.L., respondent pro se.

Before Judges Gilson and Rose.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

(201)646-3333| LAWYER FOR STUDANT LOAN PAYMENTS|BANKRUPTCY - NEW JERSEY - HACKENSACK - BERGEN COUNTY - YouTube

I want to recommend Rafael Gomez for helping me a lot with my legal case, him and his staff were very welcoming and friendly to me, they made sure that I understood everything that was going on and they helped me get through it all, so that's why I recommend him to you.

PER CURIAM.

In this post-divorce-judgment matter, plaintiff, the father, appeals from an October 5, 2018 order that granted various relief, primarily concerning the health insurance and expenses of the parties' children. Plaintiff has identified no facts or law that warrant our intervention. Accordingly, we affirm.^[1]

The parties were married in 2000 and divorced in 2015. They have three children, including a daughter who is a diabetic. Plaintiff has failed to provide us with a complete record. The limited record reflects that the parties have filed other post-judgment motions. Some of the orders on those prior motions are relevant to issues plaintiff seeks to raise, but he did not provide us with those orders.

We can discern that in 2018, defendant, the mother, filed a motion to require plaintiff to (1) reimburse her for his share of medical expenses; (2) drop the children from his medical insurance so that the children would be covered by her insurance; and (3) pay for future medical supplies. Plaintiff cross-moved to (1) modify an April 20, 2018 order; (2) allow him to pay child support directly rather than through wage garnishment; (3) have the parties share equally the expense of medical supplies and insulin; and (4) be awarded attorney's fees.^[2]

On October 5, 2018, the family court heard arguments on the motion and cross-motion, explained the reasons for its rulings, and entered an order. Relevant to this appeal, the court (1) granted defendant's request that she provide medical insurance coverage for the children and that plaintiff drop the children from his coverage; (2) ordered plaintiff to reimburse defendant for past and future medical expenses in the amount of seventy-three percent of those expenses; (3) denied plaintiff's request to end wage garnishment; (4) denied plaintiff's request for attorney's fees; and (5) ordered plaintiff to comply with a prior order entered in a then pending Title 9 matter.

On appeal, plaintiff contends that the family court erred or abused its discretion in (1) ordering him to cease medical insurance coverage for the children; (2) ordering him to reimburse plaintiff for past medical expenses; (3) ordering him to reimburse plaintiff for future medical expenses in the amount of seventy-three percent of those expenses; (4) ordering him to continue to pay child support through wage garnishment; (5) denying his request for attorney's fees; and (6) ordering him to comply with a prior order entered in the Title 9 matter.

Having reviewed plaintiff's contentions in light of the record and law, we find that none of his arguments has sufficient merit to warrant a detailed discussion in a written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Thus, we make only brief comments on the arguments.

The record establishes that the family court considered the relevant issues and adequately explained the reasons for each of its rulings. Plaintiff cites to Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250, 265 (2005), arguing that the family court failed to consider the parties' income when making determinations regarding reimbursement and child support. The record, however, shows that the family court considered the parties' respective incomes when making its decisions. Moreover, plaintiff has pointed to no facts that the court did not consider; instead, plaintiff simply disagrees with the factual findings made by the family court.

In summary, the family court pointed out that (1) in a prior order, it had allowed plaintiff to continue medical insurance coverage for the children, but he had failed to pay the medical expenses; (2) the final judgment of divorce and a prior order provided that the parties were to share medical expenses with plaintiff paying seventy-three percent and defendant paying twenty-seven percent; (3) plaintiff failed to show any change of circumstances warranting modification of those prior orders; (4) plaintiff was in arrears on child support and, therefore, wage garnishment was appropriate; (5) plaintiff made no showing supporting an award of attorney's fees; and (6) plaintiff had not filed a motion for reconsideration of the order in the Title 9 matter and presented no facts or law to support his request to disregard that order. We discern no error or abuse of discretion in any of those rulings.

(201)646-3333| CHAPTER 13 LAW FIRM IN HACKENSACK NEW JERSEY | BERGEN COUNTY - HUDSON COUNTY - ESSEX. - YouTube

Hello my name is Franz Cezar and I was represented by Mr Gomez with my divorce case and I have to tell you people, he did a wonderful job. I'm telling you that from the bottom of my heart, he's a wonderful man, he's very good and I recommended him to you people and to my haitian people too. He is working for you, you should have him to work for you too, he did the wonderful guys please Mr Gomez is a very good man.

Affirmed.

[1] To protect privacy interests, we use the parties' initials in the caption and refer to them as plaintiff and defendant in the opinion.

[2] Plaintiff also moved to deny defendant's motion, but that is not a cross-motion; rather, it is opposition to defendant's motion.

WAGE GARNISHMENT ARTICLE - BANKRUPTCY LAWYER IN NJ (201) 646-3333

 

WAGE GARNISHMENT ARTICLE

MICHAEL BANDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KARING WITH KINDNESS, INC. and KATHLEEN KENNY, Defendants-Respondents.Docket No. A-0335-15T1.Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued December 6, 2016.Decided December 29, 2016.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. L-1770-14.

Michael Bandler, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Francis J. Ballak argued the cause for respondents (Goldenberg, Mackler, Sayegh, Mintz, Pfeffer, Bonchi & Gill, P.A., attorneys; Mr. Ballak and Elliott J. Almanza, on the brief.)

Before Judges Fisher and Ostrer.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

| BANRUPCY LAWYER | (201)646-3333| New Jersey, New York, Newark, Hackensack, Paterson, 07606 07601 - YouTube

My name is Alexia Portomini, my uncle is a police officer and he recommended Rafael Gomez and he was awesome, he got my case dismissed. Thank you

PER CURIAM.

In an earlier suit in 2012, plaintiff Michael Bandler obtained a default judgment against Evelyn Melillo for $54,159.13; plaintiff later secured an order, entered in that action on October 21, 2012, that directed "execution issue against the earnings of [Melillo] from [her] employer," Karing With Kindness, Inc. That order was served on Karing With Kindness, Inc.: by plaintiff's then attorney in October 2012; by a private process server in April 2013; and by plaintiff by email in May 2013. The employer withheld nothing from Melillo's wages.

In May 2014, plaintiff commenced this action against Karing With Kindness, Inc., and its principal, defendant Kathleen Kenny (collectively, defendants), seeking damages based on their failure to withhold a portion of Melillo's wages pursuant to the terms of the October 21, 2012 order.^[1]

Defendants moved for summary judgment based on their contention that plaintiff failed to comply with the proper procedures for obtaining a wage garnishment; specifically, defendants argued that plaintiff failed to comply with N.J.S.A. 2A:17-51^[2] and applicable court rules^[3] by failing to have the sheriff serve defendants with the process necessary to generate a wage garnishment.

In granting summary judgment, the motion judge agreed with defendants and held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the October 21, 2012 wage execution order was ever delivered to a sheriff or other qualifying court officer, that a writ of execution was ever issued, or that a writ of execution was served upon defendants by a sheriff or other qualifying court officer.

In appealing, plaintiff argues that defendants "failed to meet their initial summary judgment burden" and that he "raised issues of material facts." We find insufficient merit in plaintiff's arguments to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

For good reason, the acceptable practice — made mandatory by the statute and court rules cited above — is for the sheriff to serve an employer with all appropriate pleadings in order for a judgment creditor to obtain the garnishment of wages owed to a judgment debtor. There is no dispute that, by failing to include the sheriff in his efforts, plaintiff failed to take the appropriate steps; it is irrelevant that plaintiff or his agents may have served the employer with the October 21, 2012 court order or that the employer or its agents — defendants here — had actual knowledge of the order.

We lastly observe that plaintiff would have us view the matter narrowly. His argument is that the only question raised by way of defendants' summary judgment motion — and, therefore, in his view, the only question that should have been decided by the motion judge — was whether the wage garnishment order was served on defendants. He argues that the trial judge should not have decided whether a writ of execution issued and was served by the sheriff. We disagree. The record reveals that, even if defendants' motion papers should be viewed as so limited, the motion judge provided plaintiffs with a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate a writ of execution was issued to and served by the sheriff.^[4] When plaintiff failed to come forward on the adjourned return date with evidence to support such a requirement, the motion judge properly granted summary judgment.

(201)646-3333 | BANRUPTCY LAW FIRM | EXEMPTIONS - MORTGAGE - CREDIT CARDS - CONSOLIDATE - BILLS - YouTube

My name is Michael. I'm a client of Rafael Gomez , we just came at the court , the case was perfct and successful and I recommend to anybody.

Affirmed.

[1] In another action, plaintiff unsuccessfully sought relief from Melillo's ex-husband based on his alleged failure to provide information about Melillo's assets. Bandler v. Melillo, 443 N.J. Super. 203, 206 (App. Div. 2015).

[2] This statute describes the wage-garnishment process and declares that levy does not occur unless and until a writ of execution is served upon the employer by the sheriff or other officer.

[3] Rule 4:4-3(b) provides that "[u]nless the court otherwise orders, all writs and process to enforce a judgment or order shall be served by the sheriff." And Rule 4:59-1(a) and (e) require that writs of execution be directed to the sheriff, who shall be the sole party responsible for levying on the judgment debtor's property.

[4] Oral argument on the motion was first heard on April 27, 2015. The judge continued the matter until June 26, 2015, so as to provide plaintiff an opportunity to demonstrate a writ of execution had issued. The matter was again adjourned to August 21, 2015; at that time, without evidence a writ of execution issued or was served by the sheriff, the motion judge granted summary judgment.