A petition mill is a fraud in which the perpetrator poses as a financial advisor, sometimes as a credit counselor or paralegal, filing hastily-prepared bankruptcy documents in the name of victims who come to the advisor as clients. The bankruptcy filing is often both incomplete and inappropriate for the victim's condition; and, often, the victim does not even realize that a bankruptcy has been filed. Victims are people in financial trouble who believe they are becoming clients of a professional operation. The fraudster promises to make the foreclosures, evictions, repossessions, high interest rates on loans, and other debt problems go away. The victim pays a large initial fee for the fraudster's services, and the fraudster usually has the victim sign blank documents. Sometimes the victim is also told to make their usual payments directly to the fraudulent advisor instead of the real creditors, or to transfer their real estate to the fraudster. The payments are stolen by the fraudster instead of being used to pay victims' debts, and real estate is often deeded in fractional shares to other victims unknowingly under bankruptcy, complicating ownership to make foreclosures even more difficult by having multiple (fraudulent) bankruptcies involved in the property.
How you doing, my name is Samir Bermudez. I'm here with Rafael Gomez today, I've known him for over 20 years, he's handled over three cases for me, has won every single case for me. Very
dependable, reliable, on point. I highly recommend them. Give them a call.
In other petition mill schemes, the fraudster simply creates summary bankruptcy filings for the victim. The victim is then told to file pro se in court and deny that anyone helped prepare the documents. According to the United States Trustee Manual, volume 5, chapter 5, the following are warning signs of a petition mill scheme:
Pro se bankruptcy petition where the debtor says no one assisted him/her, but the debtor is clearly unfamiliar with the bankruptcy system
Pro se petition filed despite the debtor denying filing bankruptcy
Debtor failing to attend the section 341 meeting, where creditors and the United States Trustee first meet with the debtor
"Face sheet" (suspiciously small) filing with a single creditor listed, usually the mortgagee or the landlord
Hello everyone my name is Frank, I'm back in my lawyer's office, I returned for a new case because he won my last case last time. I definitely recommend Mr. Gomez to all of you. He'll win your case as well. Give him a call.
MONEY ISLAND MARINA, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROGER MAURO and LOIS MAURO, their heirs, devisees, and personal representatives, and his, her, their, or any of their successors in right, title, and interest, Defendants-Respondents.
In this appeal, plaintiff Money Island Marina, LLC (MIM) argues that the findings made by the trial judge in dismissing its claims at the conclusion of a bench trial were either based on erroneous legal rulings or were contrary to the weight of the evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.
The issues posed in this civil action are limited and discrete. MIM, a limited liability company ostensibly controlled by Tony Novak (Novak),[1] seeks a declaration, by way of this quiet title action, that defendant Lois Mauro's mortgage on the property should be invalidated or have no further impact on its ownership rights. MIM argues, however, that the case should be considered in light of other circumstances, some of which have been resolved in other proceedings. That is, MIM contends that defendant Roger Mauro (Mauro) assaulted Novak by vehicle in 2006 and that this circumstance, and the resulting personal injury action he commenced, should have been more fully considered in the disposition of this quiet title action. We described the vehicular assault allegations in earlier opinions in a criminal matter commenced against Mauro.[2] In or about 2008, Novak brought a personal injury action against Mauro.[3]
My name is George Scott Madrid. I'm right here with Rafael Gomez, I known since 1975. He's a lawyer even he win a lot of cases and if you want to call him and I recommend it, he's very good and whatever he do is very good on.
Of greater relevance to the matter at hand is the fact that in 1995, Mauro purchased a marina in Downe Township and then, on December 12, 2008, sold the marina to Joseph Acosta for $425,000, receiving more than $100,000 in cash and a purchase money mortgage to secure repayment of a note payable to Mauro from Acosta of the principal amount of $313,000.
Acosta filed a Chapter 7bankruptcy proceeding on February 28, 2011, and, on April 2, 2012, Mauro assigned the Acosta mortgage to his mother, defendant Lois Mauro (Lois). Lois, as assignee of the mortgage, filed a proof of claim in the Acosta bankruptcymatter on October 16, 2012.
At a hearing in bankruptcycourt on November 13, 2012, Novak bid $12,000 to purchase the marina. When the bankruptcy judge asked Novak if he understood the marina is "subject to the mortgage that's on the property," Novak responded, "Yes." An order entered by the bankruptcy court on November 26, 2012, confirmed the sale of the marina to Novak "or his assignee" for $12,000 "subject to all liens, mortgages and encumbrances on the real estate." The next day, the bankruptcy trustee executed a quitclaim deed in MIM's favor; the deed acknowledged that the grantor had made "no promises as to ownership or title, but simply transfers whatever interest the [g]rantor [i.e., the trustee] has to the [g]rantee [i.e., MIM]." This recitation is in accord with what it means to convey a property interest by quitclaim deed. See N.J.S.A. 46:5-3. The quitclaim deed was recorded on December 12, 2012. On May 16, 2013, the bankruptcy court granted the trustee's motion to expunge Lois's proof of claim in light of the fact that the mortgage remained attached to the property transferred to MIM.
Hi my name is Maxia Mercardo, I'm a client of Rafael Gomez. I worked with him over a year ago and him and his personnel was very easy to talk to, very easy going it was efficient and fast and I would recommend his services to anybody.
On February 14, 2013, MIM, as the assignee of the marina purchased by Novak through the bankruptcy court, filed this quiet title action. A few months later, Novak's personal injury action against Mauro settled; Novak received $5000, and Mauro obtained a general, unconditional release of Novak's claims. Lois commenced an action seeking to foreclose her mortgage on the marina.
MIM's quiet title action and Lois's foreclosure action were both the subject of a single bench trial conducted over the course of two days. The trial judge rightfully expressed in her written opinion that "[t]here is something very odd about this litigation and the manner in which the parties have pursued or defended against claims." For example, MIM claimed that Novak's settlement of the personal injury action somehow provided MIM with ownership of the marina free of the mortgage; however, as the judge observed, the release that memorialized the settlement contains no such condition or agreement, and the judge found no other evidence to support MIM's contention.[4] And, while Novak may have thought, as the judge stated, that he had "outwitt[ed] the Mauros by outbidding them at the bankruptcy hearing" for the marina, the bankruptcy record clearly demonstrates that the interest in the marina which Novak purchased was taken subject to Lois's mortgage. The judge's findings also demonstrate that Roger's assignment of the mortgage to Lois was supported by adequate consideration; she noted that Mauro's financial circumstances had long been troubled by Acosta's failure to make the monthly payments required by the note and mortgage, as well as his many other legal matters, including those involving Novak, resulting in Lois providing Mauro with $200,000 for his support, for which she was compensated by assignment of the mortgage. The judge's findings, based upon what is both clearly demonstrated by the various documents and transcripts emanating from the bankruptcy proceeding and the personal injury settlement, as well as by the judge's careful assessment of the credibility of the many witnesses, are entitled to our deference. Rova Farms Resort Co. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974); Stephenson v. Spiegle, 429 N.J. Super. 378, 382 (App. Div. 2013).
Accordingly, with these few comments, we affirm the dismissal of the quiet title action substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Anne McDonnell in her well-reasoned written decision.[5]
Affirmed.
[1] To add to some of the confusion about the underlying circumstances, the actual owner of MIM has not been adequately disclosed. At his deposition, Novak asserted he is MIM's "authorized representative," but he denied knowledge about the identity of the owners, saying: "[w]e are trying to figure it out. We do have a dispute and I do not know." Upon further questioning, he identified one of the disputed owners as his stepson and disclosed without clarity that other members "have since abandoned" ownership or otherwise "disavow[ed] and resign[ed]."
[2] On February 21, 2013, we reversed the trial court's dismissal of the criminal prosecution, finding no violation of Mauro's speedy trial rights. State v. Mauro, No. A-4950-11 (App. Div. Feb. 21, 2013). The Supreme Court later remanded for our reconsideration in light of State v. Cahill, 213 N.J. 253 (2013), but we again came to the same conclusion. State v. Mauro, No. A-4950-11 (App. Div. June 10, 2014).
[3] The date the personal injury complaint was filed is not disclosed in the record on appeal. The filing date, however, is not particularly relevant; we assume the complaint was filed in 2008 because of its docket number.
[4] Indeed, Mauro was no longer the owner of the mortgage; it had been assigned to Lois well before Novak and Mauro settled the personal injury action. The mortgagewas not something available to Mauro to negotiate with.
[5] By way of the same written decision, the judge determined that the answer and counterclaim filed by Novak and MIM in Lois's foreclosure action were non-contesting. Consequently, the judge referred the matter to the Office of Foreclosure for entry of final judgment, subject to any dispute about the amount of the judgment or MIM's right to a fair market credit or other equitable relief. MIM does not present an argument here regarding the judge'sdisposition of the foreclosure issues; indeed, MIM correctly recognizes that, until entry of final judgment in the foreclosure action, it has no right to file a notice of appeal in that regard.
My name is Glenn Haley. I've been practicing law in the state of New Jersey for over 15 years. I have known Rafael Gomez for the last several years and always found him to be professional and knowledgeable. I would highly recommend using Rafael Gomez for any of your legal needs.
A discharge in United Statesbankruptcylaw, when referring to a debtor's discharge, is a statutory injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action (or the employment of process, or an act) to collect, recover or offset a debt as a personal liability of the debtor. The discharge is one of the primary benefits afforded by relief under the Bankruptcy Code and is essential to the "fresh start" of debtors following bankruptcy that is a central principle under federal bankruptcylaw. A discharge of debts is granted to debtors but can be denied or revoked by the court based on certain misconduct of debtors, including fraudulent actions or failure of a debtor to disclose all assets during a bankruptcycase.
My name is George Scott Madrid. I'm right here with Rafael Gomez, I known since 1975. He's a lawyer even he win a lot of cases and if you want to call him and I recommend it, he's very
good and whatever he do is very good on.
The benefit of the discharge injunction is narrower than (but similar to) the benefit afforded by the automatic stay in bankruptcy. In the United States, there are generally seven kinds of debtor discharges in bankruptcy, found in the following statutes:
11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1)(A) (relating to discharges resulting from confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization);
11 U.S.C. § 1228(a) (relating to certain family farmer or fisherman cases);
11 U.S.C. § 1228(b) (relating to certain family farmer or fisherman cases);
11 U.S.C. § 1328(a) (relating to certain cases involving adjustment of debts of an individual with regular income);
11 U.S.C. § 1328(b) (relating to certain cases involving adjustment of debts of an individual with regular income).
The effect of the debtor's discharge is provided for at 11 U.S.C. § 524. In addition, certain limitations on the debtor's discharge are described at 11 U.S.C. § 523.
Hi my name is Maxia Mercardo, I'm a client of Rafael Gomez. I worked with him over a year ago and him and his personnel was very easy to talk to, very easy going it was efficient and fast and I would recommend his services to anybody.
A secured creditor of a debtor in Chapter 13 (except a creditor secured only by a lien on real property used as the debtor's principal residence) faces the prospect of a repayment plan forced upon it if the bankruptcy court confirms the debtor's plan. Confirmation usually follows the filing of a petition by fewer than six months. Thus, unless the secured creditor is concerned about uninsured property having significant value, or unless the secured creditor seriously doubts the likelihood of prompt confirmation of a plan, the expense of seeking relief from stay may not justify the benefit. Moreover, as suggested by In re Radden, it may be difficult for the secured creditor to prevail on a motion seeking relief from stay. As in a Chapter 7 case, a secured creditor with a consensual lien on a Chapter 13debtor's residence will often seek relief from stay in order to foreclose if the debtor is in arrears on mortgage payments and if it appears unlikely that the debtor will be able to fund a plan that both cures arrearages and maintains ongoing mortgage payments. A bankruptcy petition, once it is filed, immediately operates as an automatic stay, holding in abeyance various forms of creditor action against the debtor. Automatic stay provisions work to protect the debtor against certain actions from the creditor, including: (1) beginning or continuing judicial proceedings against the debtor, (2) actions to obtain debtor's property, (3) actions to create, perfect or enforce a lien against a debtor's property, and (4) set-off of indebtedness owed to the debtor before commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding.
Hey Rafael it's Ken Zambrano. I'm here sending you this message to you and your staff to thank you for everything that you've done for me. Everything was great and everybody was polite and helpful for me. Thank you again. I recommend you to everybody that I come across.
A court may give a creditor relief from the stay if the creditor can show that the stay does not give the creditor "adequate protection" or if it jeopardizes the creditor's interest in certain property. The court may give relief to the creditor in the form of periodic cash payments or an additional or replacement lien on the property. Concerned that debtors may exploit some of the advantages of automatic stay provisions, Congress provided some relief to certain creditors, such as those creditors who have a secured interest in a single real estate asset, from the automatic stay in 1994. Congress required such debtors to either file a plan that has a reasonable chance of being accepted within a reasonable amount time or to make to each such secured creditor monthly payments in the amount equal to interest at a current fair market rate on the value of the creditor's real estate. Also in 2005, Congress added two more exceptions to the automatic stay provisions. These exceptions concern landlords seeking to evict tenants. First, any eviction proceedings in which the landlord obtained a judgment of possession prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition may be continued. Second, eviction proceedings filed after bankruptcy proceedings are exempt from the automatic stay if they involve evicting the tenant on the basis of using illegal substances or "endangerment" of the property.
Hi my name is Jenny. Mr Gomez was recommended to me by another attorney. I'm also a paralegal. Mr Gomez has done a case for me in which he's won. I've known him for 14 years plus. Mr Gomez and his staff is very very professional. I love them basically he is an excellent
attorney. I would recommend him to anyone as a matter of fact have recommended him to a
few people and they also like him. Base he should be he's my attorney and he will continue to be my attorney and he should be your attorney too.
Pursuant to the new provisions of BACPA, certain restrictions were added to section 362 as to the automatic stay. If the debtor had a case dismissed in a case pending during the year before the bankruptcy case was filed, the automatic stay will expire to a certain extent unless the debtor obtains an order extending it within one month. If the debtor had two cases pending in the year prior to filing, the automatic stay does not go into effect unless the debtor files a motion.
In bankruptcylaw, an automatic stay is an automatic injunction that halts actions by creditors, with certain exceptions, to collect debts from a debtor who has declared bankruptcy. Under section 362 of the United StatesBankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362, the stay begins at the moment the bankruptcy petition is filed. Secured creditors may, however, petition the bankruptcycourt for relief from the automatic stay upon a showing of cause. As noted in a Senate Report: The automatic stay is one of the fundamental debtor protections provided by the bankruptcylaws. It gives the debtor a breathing spell from his creditors, stopping all collection efforts, all harassment, and all foreclosure actions. It permits the debtor to attempt a repayment or reorganization plan, or simply to be relieved of the financial pressures that drove him into bankruptcy. Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, Senate Report No. 95-989. For example: a creditor with a claim that arose before commencement of the bankruptcy case cannot contact the debtor requesting or demanding payment, cannot request from the debtor security for existing unsecured or undersecured debt, cannot initiate a lawsuit against the debtor or pursue litigation activities in a pending lawsuit against the debtor, cannot attempt to enforce a judgment against the debtor and must act to stop enforcement activities that are already in motion (e.g. notify a sheriff to stop a wage garnishment or to refrain from a scheduled execution sale), cannot perfect a lien against property of the estate, cannot repossess collateral that is property of the estate, and cannot initiate or pursue non-judicial or judicial foreclosure against property of the estate.
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.
This debtor protection is truly automatic. No hearing is held, no judge's signature required. It is invoked simply by the stamp of the bankruptcy clerk's time clock when a petition is presented for filing. Creditors are bound by the automatic stay even before they know of it, but sanctions attend only wilful violations (see Bankr. Code 362(h)). There are some exceptions to the automatic stay (see Bankr. Code 362(b)) and the stay does not preclude a creditor from taking action against any entity other than the debtor (e.g. a co-debtor, guarantor, or insurer). The automatic stay is temporary. It terminates automatically upon the occurrence of specified events (see Bankr. Code 362(c)). Also, upon an appropriate showing in a noticed hearing in bankruptcy court, creditors may obtain relief from the stay that either annuls, terminates, or modifies the stay, or conditions continuance of the stay upon certain events, such as interim payments by the debtor to the secured creditor (see Bankr. Code 362(d) and Bankr. Code 361). A secured creditor may seek relief from the stay in order to pursue its state law rights against the collateral or may seek relief from the stay as a way to force a debtor to make interim payments to the secured creditor as a condition to the stay remaining in effect.
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.
Relief from stay in a consumer Chapter 7 Creditors secured by liens on personal property do not often seek relief from the automatic stay in a consumer Chapter 7 case. With respect to much of the collateral securing debt in a consumer Chapter 7 case - - an automobile, household furnishings, or jewelry - - other solutions are common: (1) the debtor continues payments of the secured debt, uninterrupted by the filing of the bankruptcy petition; or, (2) the debtor reaffirms the secured debt and begins making payments under the reaffirmation agreement; or, (3) the debtor redeems collateral from the lien; or, (4) the debtor surrenders the collateral to the secured creditor. If the debtor does none of the above, the creditor may simply wait until the grant of discharge and then pursue its state law remedies against the collateral. A secured creditor of a Chapter 7debtor is most likely to seek relief from stay and not await automatic termination of the stay in three situations: (1) When property of significant value, such as an automobile, is uninsured or is otherwise subject to unacceptable risk; (2) When property of significant value, such as an automobile, is depreciating rapidly and the creditor has reason to believe that the debtor will not promptly surrender the collateral, reaffirm the debt secured by the collateral, or redeem the collateral from the lien; (3) When the creditor holds a consensual lien on a debtor's residence and the debtor has defaulted on mortgage payments and appears unable to maintain continuing mortgage payments or promptly cure arrearages.
At the law firm of Rafael Gomez we understand what a trying and stressful time you are likely going through. It is never easy to file for bankruptcy, but with the entire process explained to you, it can become simpler for you to make an informed decision as to what option will work best for you. Not only can we help you make the initial decision of whether to file, but we can also guide you through the process of filing for bankruptcy in order to ensure your rights are well-protected. We will do everything that we can to help you avoid some of the most common bankruptcy mistakes. Our firm has been helping the residents of Bergen, Hudson and Passaic Counties and the surrounding communities for many years. Our legal staff provides you with personal attention and focuses on bankruptcy law, so that you know the attorney helping you is well-versed in all aspects of bankruptcy. We strongly advocate regular face to face appointments until your case is resolved. Your attorney is always available to answer any questions you may have about the current status of your case. Bankruptcy law under Chapter 13 provides for the development of a plan that allows a debtor, who is unable to pay his creditors, to resolve his debts through the division of his assets among his creditors. This supervised division also allows the interests of all creditors to be treated with some measure of equality. Certain bankruptcy proceedings allow a debtor to stay in business and use revenue generated to resolve his or her debts. An additional purpose of bankruptcy law is to allow certain debtors to free themselves (to be discharged) of the financial obligations they have accumulated, after their assets are distributed, even if their debts have not been paid in full.
Hi my name is Jane D'antoni and I used Rafael Ggomez as our lawyer, he made it so that there are no court charges pressed, we had a wonderful day in court and I'm ready to go home and I'm happy.
Bankruptcy law is federal statutory law contained in Title 11 of the United States Code. Congress passed the Bankruptcy Code under its Constitutional grant of authority to "establish... uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcy throughout the United States." States may not regulate bankruptcy though they may pass laws that govern other aspects of the debtor-creditor relationship. A number of sections of Title 11 incorporate the debtor-creditor law of the individual states. Bankruptcy proceedings are supervised by and litigated in the United StatesBankruptcy Courts. These courts are a part of the District Courts of The United States. The United States Trustees were established by Congress to handle many of the supervisory and administrative duties of bankruptcy proceedings. Proceedings in bankruptcy courts are governed by the Bankruptcy Rules which were promulgated by the Supreme Court under the authority of Congress. There are two basic types of Bankruptcy proceedings. A filing under Chapter 7 is called liquidation. It is the most common type of bankruptcy proceeding. Liquidation involves the appointment of a trustee who collects the non-exempt property of the debtor, sells it and distributes the proceeds to the creditors. Bankruptcy proceedings under Chapters 11, 12, and 13 involve the rehabilitation of the debtor to allow him or her to use future earnings to pay off creditors. Under Chapter 7, 12, 13, and some 11 proceedings, a trustee is appointed to supervise the assets of the debtor. A bankruptcy proceeding can either be entered into voluntarily by a debtor or initiated by creditors. After a bankruptcy proceeding is filed, creditors, for the most part, may not seek to collect their debts outside of the proceeding. The debtor is not allowed to transfer property that has been declared part of the estate subject to proceedings. Furthermore, certain pre-proceeding transfers of property, secured interests, and liens may be delayed or invalidated. Various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code also establish the priority of creditors' interests. However, a recent decision by the Supreme Court has shifted this power towards the debtor. In Rousey v. Jacoway, (April 4th, 2005), the Court held that assets in Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA's) are protected under 11 U.S.C § 522(d) and thus exempt from withdrawal from the bankruptcy estate. This decision has broad implications for the baby-boomer generation, providing millions of Americans nearing retirement with increased protection of their earnings.
Hi my name is Elizabeth, I was just represented by Mr Gomez, I would recommend him as a lawyer for anyone.
Recent passage of the Bankruptcy Prevention and Consumer Protection Act in April 2005 has also resulted in major reforms in bankrupcy law, outlining revised guidelines governing the dismissal or conversion of Chapter 7 liquidations to Chapter 11 or 13 proceedings. The law also expands the responsibilities of the United States Trustees Program to include supervision of random and targeted audits, certification of entities to provide credit counseling that individuals must receive before filing for bankruptcy, certification of entities that provide financial education to individuals before being discharged from debt, and greater oversight of small business Chapter 11 reorganization cases.
BANKRUPTCY LAW FIRM IN HACKENSACK - NJ 201-646-3333
If you are like many Bergen/Hudson and Passaic Countydebtors today, you may be in a situation where you are overwhelmed with debt, having difficulty making your mortgage payments or are considering some form of debt relief such as consolidation, settlement or even bankruptcy. In any of these or similar matters, it can be difficult to determine what course of action you should take to seek relief. This is when we advise discussing your financial situation, your concerns and your goals with an experienced New Jerseybankruptcy lawyer. This is a potentially sensitive and complex matter that will have lasting effects for you and your family. With the right information and advice provided to you by an honest legal professional, you have the opportunity to make a decision that will positively impact your finances - and put your concerns at ease. Thousands of residents in northern New Jersey are facing difficult times due to our current economic conditions. Whether you have been affected by a job loss, divorce, medical expenses or overwhelming credit card debt, you may find yourself unsure of what your next step should be. Having to confront handling your finances can be a difficult thing to do, but ignoring them can lead to dire consequences. With the help of a caring and dedicated New Jerseybankruptcy attorney at the Rafael Gomez, Attorney at Law, P.C., our firm will work closely with you to determine your financial situation and recommend the best option for your circumstances. Rafael Gomez will not speak to you in complicated legalese, instead he will explain in simple terms the options for relieving your financial situation. Scheduling a free bankruptcy consultation is your first step towards peace of mind and eliminating your debt.
Hey Rafael, this is Danny Wyden I just wanted to thank you for all your help with all of my legal problems, everything worked out perfectly and I really just want to send out. Thank you to you.
Many people assume that bankruptcy should never be an option, buying into the many bankruptcy myths that surround the process. It appears complex, frightening and may seem insurmountable, something you can never come back from. This is not the case, however, and the myths should not be believed. With the proper guidance and experienced legal support of a knowledgeable New Jerseybankruptcy attorney, it doesn't have to be the end of your life, but rather a way to begin the next chapter of it. By sitting down and evaluating your situation with you, Rafael Gomez will be able to help you decide whether a Chapter 7 or a Chapter 13 would be a better fit, as well as help you understand all of the aspects caused and affected by it, including foreclosure, credit card debt and life after bankruptcy. By thoroughly and completely comprehending both the process and all the ramifications, you can feel more comfortable as your begin to navigate through it with the help of your Bergen, Hudson, Passaic Countybankruptcy lawyer at your side.
When dealing with bankruptcy, there will be many decisions to make. A thorough and complete review of your finances will be conducted, along with a confidential and detailed interview with you to assist in determining the strategy that will be used to once again obtain your financial freedom. With the right approach, you can experience the many benefits that bankruptcy or other forms of debt relief can offer you while mitigating any potentially negative results. Our firm can provide you with information and legal expertise in virtually any area related to bankruptcy. Any one of these important topics may have a significant impact on your decision to file for bankruptcy or to seek an alternative route for debt relief. We understand that, Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 may not be the right option for every client, and that is why our legal services are based upon a foundation of personalized attention and dedicated client service. When you work Rafael Gomez, you can rest assured that we will offer you information that is pertinent to your unique case as we guide you in making the right decision for YOU, your family and your future.
