BANKRUPTCY ARTICLE - ATTORNEY IN HACKENSACK NEW JERSEY (201) 646-3333

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.

No. A-2950-14T3.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Submitted April 19, 2016.Decided April 25, 2016.

Terance J. Bennett, attorney for appellant.

The D'Elia Law Firm LLC, attorneys for respondents (Teresa M. Lentini, on the brief).

Before Judges Fisher and Espinosa.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

PER CURIAM.

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]

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.

BEST BANKRUPTCY LAWYER NEAR ME - (201) 646-3333 | (2020) - YouTube

How you doing, my name is Julio Ospina. I really recommend Rafael Gomez, he's a great lawyer he helped me a lot and my case went amazing awesome.

Acosta filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy 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 bankruptcy matter on October 16, 2012.

At a hearing in bankruptcy court 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.

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).

HACKENSACK NJ BANKRUPTCY LAWYER - (201) 646-3333 | (2021) - YouTube

Hello, my name is Alex Fortule, I've been uh I've known Rafael Gomez for over 10 years, he has taken a few of the cases that he uh I won by using his services. I recommend them highly, so if you, if you need any representation, please call Rafael's office.

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 mortgage was 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's disposition 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.

FORECLOSURE ARTICLE - ATTORNEY IN BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY (201) 646-3333

  53 A.3d 673 (2012)

428 N.J. Super. 315

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, f/k/a Banker's Trust Company, as Trustee, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

Yony R. ANGELES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-2522-11T1.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued September 12, 2012.Decided October 11, 2012.

674*674 Gary D. Grant, Florham Park, argued the cause for appellant.

Robert D. Bailey, Vineland, argued the cause for respondent (Zucker, Goldberg & Ackerman, L.L.C., attorneys; Mr. Bailey, of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges KOBLITZ, ACCURSO and LISA.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

KOBLITZ, J.A.D.

In this residential foreclosure case, Yony R. Angeles appeals from a November 6, 2009 final judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (Deutsche) and a subsequent December 16, 2011 oral order, dismissing his application to vacate the judgment or dismiss the complaint. Angeles argues that because the mortgage on his property was not assigned to Deutsche until two weeks after Deutsche filed the original foreclosure complaint, Deutsche lacked standing and the judgment should be dismissed. Because Angeles did not raise the standing issue, or contest the foreclosure in any way, until two years after default judgment was entered and three-and-one-half years after the complaint was filed, we affirm the decision of the Chancery judge.

On January 10, 2007, Angeles executed a note for the sum of $454,400 with First Equity Financial Corporation (First Equity). To secure payment of the note, Angeles executed a mortgage that same day to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), as nominee for First Equity.^[1]

Angeles made the first ten contractual payments on the note, but failed to make the installment payment due on February 1, 2008 or any time thereafter. On May 29, 2008, Deutsche filed a foreclosure complaint, two weeks prior to the June 12, 2008, assignment of the mortgage by MERS to Deutsche. The complaint states that "[o]n or before the date the within complaint was drafted, the plaintiff herein became the owner of the note and mortgage being foreclosed herein."

(201)646-3333| BANRUPTCY ATTORNY IN PASSAIC COUNTY AND REGION | HAWTHORNE - HALEDON - WANAQUE - LODI - YouTube

Hi my name is Daiana Palacio I'm a client of Rafael Gomez. I just came out of court and everything went well I highly recommend him for every case you need.

675*675 On July 23, 2008, Deutsche filed an amended complaint. Angeles was served with the summons and amended complaint on July 26, 2008. He failed to file a responsive pleading and a default was entered on September 11, 2008. Final judgment of foreclosure was entered more than a year later on November 6, 2009.

On February 25, 2010, the court stayed the sheriff's sale scheduled for the following day until May 28, 2010, and ordered the parties to participate in the court-sponsored mediation program.^[2] Mediation apparently failed, as Deutsche purchased the property at a sheriff's sale on August 20, 2010. Angeles did not object to the sale at that time. See R. 4:65-5 (requiring any objection to be made within ten days after the sheriff's sale or any time prior to the delivery of the deed). The deed was delivered by the sheriff to Deutsche and recorded on September 16, 2010.

The court granted Angeles' May 16, 2011 hardship application to stay the eviction so that his children could complete the school year. Deutsche subsequently stayed the eviction further in an attempt to negotiate a short sale of the property back to Angeles.

After negotiations failed, Angeles filed an order to show cause on November 16, 2011, seeking to: (1) vacate the sheriff's sale; (2) enjoin Deutsche from conveying title; and (3) permit Angeles to either file an answer to Deutsche's foreclosure complaint or, alternatively, dismiss the complaint for lack of standing. After this application was denied, the eviction and lock-out were completed on January 3, 2012.^[3]

In his appeal, Angeles relies on our recently decided case of Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J.Super. 214, 27 A.3d 1229 (App.Div. 2011), asserting that the facts are similar. In Mitchell, we held that either possession of the note or an assignment of the mortgage that predated the original complaint conferred standing. Id. at 216, 225, 27 A.3d 1229. We determined that an amended complaint can not cure an initial lack of standing. Ibid.

In Mitchell, however, the defendant actively engaged in the litigation, filing an answer and counterclaims in response to the plaintiff's foreclosure complaint. Id. at 220, 27 A.3d 1229. The defendant also contested the plaintiff's standing to file the foreclosure complaint long before the end of the litigation. Id. at 220-21, 27 A.3d 1229.

Rule 4:50-1 governs an applicant's motion for relief from default when the case has proceeded to judgment. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc. v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 466, 38 A.3d 570 (2012). The Guillaume Court explained that "[t]he rule is `designed to reconcile the strong interests in finality of judgments and judicial efficiency with the equitable notion that courts should have authority to avoid an unjust result in any given case.'" Id. at 467, 38 A.3d 570 (quoting Mancini v. EDS, 132 N.J. 330, 334, 625 A.2d 484 (1993)).

A reviewing court must accord "substantial deference" to a trial court's 676*676 determination under the rule and its decisions will be left undisturbed "unless [they] result[] in a clear abuse of discretion." Ibid. (citing DEG, LLC v. Twp. of Fairfield, 198 N.J. 242, 261, 966 A.2d 1036 (2009)). "[A]n abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is `made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis.'" Id. at 467-68, 38 A.3d 570 (quoting Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 123, 922 A.2d 710 (2007)).

In the context of a foreclosure case, the Guillaume Court reiterated the grounds on which a party may seek to vacate a default judgment pursuant to Rule 4:50-1. The grounds are:

(a) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (b) newly discovered evidence which would probably alter the judgment or order and for which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under R. 4:49; (c) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (d) the judgment or order is void; (e) the judgment or order has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment or order upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or order should have prospective application; or (f) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment or order.

[Id. at 467, 38 A.3d 570 (quoting R. 4:50-1).]

(201)646-3333 | INTEREST REDUCTION - MONTHLY - PAYMENTS - REPOSSESSIONS - FILLING AN ANSWER IN NJ - YouTube

Hi my name is Crystal Diaz I'm a client of Rafael Gomez, we just leave court, everything went fine, the case got dismissed, I definitely recommend him to anyone.

Motions made under any Rule 4:50-1 subsection "must be filed within a reasonable time." See Orner v. Liu, 419 N.J.Super. 431, 437, 17 A.3d 266 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 208 N.J. 369, 29 A.3d 741 (2011) (citing Bascom Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 363 N.J.Super. 334, 340, 832 A.2d 956 (App.Div.2003)). In addition, Rule 4:50-2 bars relief outright to "motions based on Rule 4:50-1(a), (b) and (c)" when filed "`more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken.'" Id. at 436-37, 17 A.3d 266 (quoting R. 4:50-2).

Angeles argues under Rule 4:50-1(d) that the final judgment is void for lack of standing. Although he has raised a valid concern, since the complaint was filed prior to the assignment of mortgage, he has not definitively demonstrated a lack of standing. Deutsche may well have had possession of the note, conferring standing, at the time it filed the original complaint.^[4] We remanded the matter in Mitchell in order for the trial court to determine whether the plaintiff had possession of the note or another basis to achieve standing when the original foreclosure complaint was filed. Mitchell, supra, 422 N.J.Super. at 225, 27 A.3d 1229; see also N.J.S.A. 12A:3-101 to -605.

In foreclosure matters, equity must be applied to plaintiffs as well as defendants. Defendant did not raise the issue of standing until he had the advantage of many years of delay. Some delay stemmed from the New Jersey foreclosure system, other delay was afforded him through the equitable powers of the court, and additional delay resulted from plaintiff's attempt to amicably resolve the matter. Defendant at no time denied his responsibility for the debt incurred nor can he reasonably argue that Deutsche is not the party legitimately in possession of the property. Rather, when all hope of further delay expired, after his home was sold and he was evicted, he made a last-ditch effort to relitigate the case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant 677*677 was not equitably entitled to vacate the judgment.

Affirmed.

[1] Angeles also executed a second mortgage on the property to MERS, as nominee for First Equity, in the amount of $113,600.

[2] The New Jersey Judiciary Foreclosure Mediation Program was implemented to handle the increased number of foreclosure proceedings. Press Release, New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, Statewide Mortgage Foreclosure Mediation Program Launched (Jan. 9, 2009), available at http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases09/pr20090109a.html.

[3] On January 26, 2012, we denied Angeles' emergent application for a stay of the then-pending sale of the property to a third party. For other reasons, that sale was not completed.

[4] As we stated, the original complaint alleged that plaintiff had possession of the note at the time of filing. Defendant has never challenged that assertion.

 

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.

 

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.

WHAT IS THE PROCESS? - BANKRUPTCY LAWYER IN NEW JERSEY (201) 646-3333

 HACKENSACK 

BANKRUPTCY LAWYER

(201) 646-3333

Understanding the bankruptcy process is an important part in determining whether to file for bankruptcy and getting a clear picture of what you are up against over the next several months. The timeline and process associated with filing for bankruptcy in New Jersey will vary depending upon whether you file a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 case, but the basic process has been laid out below:

• The bankruptcy process will begin with determining whether you qualify. You must have completed a certified credit counseling briefing within the past 180 days. If you have previously filed or attempted to file for bankruptcy in the past, you must wait a certain amount of time before filing another petition.

• Your bankruptcy case will formally begin when you file your petition with the bankruptcy court. At this time, the court will place an automatic stay on all collection efforts, including foreclosure. A bankruptcy trustee will also be assigned to oversee your case.

• Within 15 days of filing, you must file particular information with the court, declaring assets, liabilities, income, expenses, and the like. If you filed a Chapter 13 case, you will need to provide a payment schedule as well.

• You will need to file a statement of intention regarding your debts, including which debts you would like to reaffirm in order to keep particular property and continue making payments on it.

• Within 45 days of filing for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee will schedule a meeting of creditors. Your presence will be required at this meeting, and you will need to testify under oath about the accuracy of all the statements and information in your bankruptcy petition.

• The bankruptcy process will conclude with the discharge of all eligible debt. For a Chapter 7 case, this may occur within 6 months of filing. For a Chapter 13 case, this discharge will occur within 3 to 5 years of filing (after the completion of the payment plan.)

BANKRUPTCY LAWYER NEAR ME IN NEW JERSEY - (201) 646-3333 | (2020) - YouTube

Hi my name is Richard Whalen. Rafael Gomez just represented me in court, everything went well and I'd recommend him to anyone looking for a good lawyer.

.

You can help ensure that the bankruptcy process goes as smoothly as possible and that your debt is successfully discharged by working with an experienced New Jersey Bankruptcy attorney.

TOP 3 BANKRUPTCY LAWYERS IN NJ - (201) 646-3333 | (2020) - YouTube

My name is Javier Flores and I was just represented by Rafael Gomez, he's a very good lawyer and I would recommend it to anybody.