by

Attorney Matthew D. Roy has decided to run for a local position within the City of Sacramento in the upcoming November election. Matthew Roy started the Law Offices of Matthew D. Roy in 2010 that resolves personal and financial problems for Sacramento area residents.

Mr. Roy is a graduate of California State University Sacramento and the McGeorge school of law. As a volunteer attorney with W.E.A.V.E he has helped numerous victims of domestic violence obtain restraining orders against their abusers. Additionally, he regularly facilitates workshops at the William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse on behalf of the Family Law Facilitator’s Office to conduct their domestic violence prevention series.

Mr. Roy supports growth in Sacramento. He believes the City Charter should be updated since it was first established in 1920. “We are not a small town anymore,” says Roy. “We need to allow this city to evolve and grow with the modern times.” “By updating the Charter we will allow our city officials to meet the present needs of the city and prepare for the future.”

Continue reading

by

As a Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy attorney in Sacramento I frequently receive calls from people who consider bankruptcy because they have oppressive student loan debt. Student loans are a major issue for many bankruptcy filers. I predict these issues will continue to increase and the laws will ultimately need revision as the problems surmount; students, have been denied the opportunity to discharge their debt even when the amounts are astronomical and the student has little means to make payments.

In what can be considered a victory for individuals with student loans, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided in In re Gourlay that Sallie Mae, the student loan organization, could not set a default judgment aside that had been obtained by debtor Kristin Gourlay. Sallie Mae failed to respond to adversary proceeding filed by Gourlay which attempted to find the debt dischargeable. The Sixth Circuit found that the bankruptcy court was within its rights to find that the failure was not excusable neglect, the court said; service was proper and the appropriate person simply failed to respond.

Kristin Gourlay filed for Chapter 7. During the case she filed an adversary proceeding seeking to determine the dischargeability of her student loans owed to Sallie Mae. She owed Sallie Mae approximately $25,500. Her bankruptcy attorney sent Sallie Mae a timely summons by certified mail, and the return card was signed by someone believed to be a part time employee at the company’s Virginia headquarters. The deadline for a response came and went without a response from Sallie Mae. Gourlay filed for a default judgment about a week later. The Bankruptcy Court intitially rejected her motion due to improper service. However, Gourlay served the summons again. When there was still no response, the bankruptcy court granted her second motion for default judgment. Eighteen days after the default judgment became final, Sallie Mae moved to set it aside for excusable neglect. The Bankruptcy Court ultimately rejected this, finding that internal breakdowns are not excusable neglect, and Sallie Mae appealed.

Continue reading

by

As a practicing bankrtuptcy attorney in Sacramento I have followed the states progress in the “robo-signing” settlement talks with great interest. Attorney General Kamala Harris has recently made headlines by refusing to sign on to the national settlement, calling it inadequate to compensate Californians for the many losses they incurred in the housing crash. The California Attorney General’s Office has launched independent investigations, including some in cooperation with Nevada. According to the LA Times in an article written Jan. 25, 2012, titled, California calls $25-billion mortgage settlement ‘inadequate,’ Harris and her deputies were invited back to the negotiating table by further concessions from lenders, but ultimately rejected all offers because they were insufficient. However, A spokesperson for Harris told the media that the settlement would prevent her and other AGs from pursuing further independent investigations.

Despite nearly 16 months of investigations and on going negotiation, and the original participation of AGs from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., no deal has been reached. The investigation has been plagued by politics, with conservative AG’s arguing that the settlement is too aggressive and liberal ones countering that it doesn’t go far enough. Particularly, AGs in New York, Delaware, California, Nevada and elsewhere have opted out of the settlement or threatened to and started their own investigations into lending practices. Harris said in late September that the settlement offer at that time did not include enough remedies from the five major lenders for the foreclosure crisis. She and the other breakaway AGs said they’d prefer to see efforts to stop foreclosures and their negative effects, going beyond addressing the fallout from robo-signing itself. A AG’s office spokesperson said: “The current deal still is not transparent enough or sufficient to address Californians’ needs.”

California’s participation in the talks is considered important to any settlement due to the size of the state; California has the resources to bring large lawsuits on its own. According to the article, the latest proposal includes a $17 billion program that would reduce principal on loans that are “underwater,” or larger than the value of the home. Another $5 billion would be earmarked for people directly harmed by robo-signing and other bad servicing practices, and $3 billion would help underwater homeowners refinance at a rate of 5.25%. (Current rates for a 30-year prime mortgage are 4 to 4.5%.) In return, the AGs would agree to release lenders from actions for improper servicing or origination of mortgages — a provision that Harris and some colleagues believe would stop their existing investigations. Delaware has filed a lawsuit alleging MERS has engaged in deceptive practices; Massachusetts has sued five lenders, alleging they knowingly pursued illegal foreclosures.

As a Sacramento Bankruptcy Attorney I am pleased to see our state continue the fight and pursue a settlement that could provide meaningful help to people who were hurt in the housing crisis. That includes people who were directly harmed by robo-signing or other illegal and unethical behavior by lenders, as well as people who are suffering because housing prices have dropped through no fault of their own. Throughout the robo-signing scandal, lenders have downplayed their responsibility, arguing that there was likely no real harm from that particular kind of illegal behavior. This may or may not be true — instances of wrongful foreclosures have been reported — but there’s certainly widespread harm from, for example, their refusal to give meaningful consideration to loan modifications.
Continue reading

by

Como un abogado de bancarrota de Sacramento, que haga tomar el caso de un cliente antes de que él o ella presenta la petición de bancarrota. Hago esto con el fin de ayudarle a preparar la petición ante la actual presentación del capítulo 7 o el Capítulo 13. Preparación para la bancarrota puede significar muchas cosas, incluyendo la toma de decisiones estratégicas con respecto a los activos que son importantes para un individuo. Entender el proceso de bancarrota y conocer las reglas complejas convertido en un aspecto importante de cualquier capítulo 7 o la presentación del capítulo 13 con el fin de eliminar o minimizar la exposición de una persona a sus acreedores.

Por desgracia, no representados los litigantes a menudo no logran comprender la complejidad de un caso y que parece ser lo que pasó con el deudor en In re Ruiz, un caso en el Panel de Apelación de Quiebras de la Décima Corte de Apelaciones de Circuito de los EE.UU.. En este caso, José Ruiz y Carrie escribió cheques para compras de las empresas, una donación de caridad y su pago mensual de la hipoteca antes de peticiones de bancarrota del capítulo 7. Los controles no se había aclarado aún el día de la petición, por lo que su administrador argumentó que técnicamente aún tenía el dinero y deberían estar obligados a darle la vuelta a la finca. Un tribunal de quiebras en Utah no estaba de acuerdo, pero el BAP se invierte, lo que requiere a su vez más de cerca de $ 3.700.

Los cheques de Ruiz fueron escritos entre el 29 de marzo y 23 de abril de 2010, que presentó su petición de quiebra por vía electrónica el 24 de abril. En sus horarios, el de Ruiz enumeró una cuenta de cheques con $ 10.02. Este fue el número que sería verdad una vez que los cheques compensados, sin embargo, la cuenta en realidad contenía $ 3,764.99. El último de los cuatro despejó el 28 de abril de 2010. En el artículo 341 la audiencia, el fiduciario Ruiz descubrió la discrepancia y se mudó a les obligan a entregar el resto del dinero. El tribunal de quiebras denegó la petición del administrador, y encontraron que el dinero en cuestión no eran de propiedad del deudor. Por el contrario, encontró que la cuenta corriente fue una deuda por el banco a la de Ruiz, y que la deuda era de propiedad de la finca, el banco tenía un control real y la posesión del dinero. El tribunal sostuvo además que el fiduciario, no la de Ruiz, tenía la obligación de cobrar esa deuda en nombre de la masa de la quiebra. El síndico apeló.

Continue reading

by

As a Sacramento bankruptcy attorney, I typically take a client’s case before the he or she files the bankruptcy petition. I do this in order to help him or her prepare the petition before the actual filing Chapter 7 or Chapter 13. Preparation for bankruptcy can mean a lot of things, including making strategic decisions regarding which assets are important to an individual. Understanding the bankruptcy process and knowing the complex rules become an important aspect of any Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 filing in order to eliminate or minimize a person’s exposure to his or her creditors.

Unfortunately, unrepresented litigants often fail to understand the complexities involved in a case and that seems to be what happened with a debtor in In re Ruiz, a case from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In this case, Jose and Carrie Ruiz wrote checks for business purchases, a charitable donation and their monthly mortgage payment just before petitioning for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The checks had not yet cleared on the day of the petition, so their trustee argued that they technically still had the money and should be required to turn it over to the estate. A bankruptcy court in Utah disagreed, but the BAP reversed it, requiring them to turn over about $3,700.

The Ruiz’s checks were written between March 29 and April 23 of 2010; they filed their bankruptcy petition electronically on April 24. On their schedules, the Ruiz’s listed a checking account with $10.02. This was the number that would be true once the checks cleared; however, the account actually contained $3,764.99. The last of the four cleared on April 28, 2010. During the section 341 hearing, the Ruiz’s trustee discovered the discrepancy and moved to require them to turn over the rest of the money. The bankruptcy court denied the Trustee’s motion and found that the disputed money was not debtor property. Rather, it found that the checking account was a debt owed by the bank to the Ruiz’s, and that debt was the estate’s property; the bank had actual control and possession of the money. The court further held that the trustee, not the Ruiz’s, had the obligation to collect that debt on behalf of the bankruptcy estate. The trustee appealed.

Continue reading

by

As an attorney who protects my clients against foreclosure, I am very familiar with the concept of filing a Chapter 13 or Chapter 7 bankruptcy stop the foreclosure sale. Since the filing of a bankruptcy petition includes an automatic stay – a court order prohibiting all creditors from collecting against debts held by the debtor – the filing often results in providing the bankruptcy client with some temporary or even permanent relief.

The Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy can even help a debtor in the long run if the bankruptcy allows the debtor to catch up on any arrearages and reorganize their unsecured debts. This may also work in the event that a mortgage lender has a flawed claim on the property held by the debtor or has broken some sort of predatory lending law. However, as the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ruled in Edwards v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filing bankruptcy is not the right avenue to pursue for a debtor whose property has already been foreclosed against. In Edwards, the appellate Panel upheld the bankruptcy court’s decision to grant relief from stay to the bank.

Lupi Paulo Edwards, from Southern California, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in August of 2010. Her home lender, Wells Fargo, moved the court for relief from stay shortly thereafter. Wells Fargo included a copy of the Trustee’s Deed whereby they purchased the property at a sale on May 17, 2010. Wells Fargo then began proceedings to eject Edwards from the property. Edwards attempted to oppose the bank and argued that Wells Fargo had no standing to request that the court allow it to begin the foreclosure proceedings.

Continue reading

by

Sacramento area residents considering a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy should be interested to learn about the recent United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case: In re Brenda Marie Jones, which affects how a second bankruptcy filing affects a persons tax debts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals governs all appeals made from Sacramento area federal courts, including bankruptcy matters.

Federal and State income taxes can typically be discharged if they were due more than three years ago. However, the three-year standard can be extended if the debt could not have been collected. This means that when an automatic stay is issued in a previous bankruptcy, the debt cannot be collected, which therefore extends the time period to which a debtor must wait before he or she can discharge that tax debt.

In the Brenda Marie Jones case, a California woman filing for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy owed a debt, more than three years old, to the California Franchise Tax Board (CFTB). Ms. Jones attempted to discharge that debt in her new bankruptcy but the CFTB argued that because Jones had previously filed for bankruptcy, they were prevented from collecting the tax debt and it was therefore improper for her to discharge the debt in the recently filed case.

Continue reading

by

Los residentes de California que residen en el área metropolitana de Sacramento pueden estar interesados en conocer una actualización de la jurisprudencia que podría afectar a cualquier modificación de préstamo hipotecario. La tendencia actual en relación con los litigios que rodean el Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) ha sido reafirmado por un juez de Washington DC en el caso, Doreen Edwards et al v. Aurora préstamo Administradores LLC. En Edwards, el demandante argumentó que un prestatario debe tener el derecho a demandar, ya que se vieron afectados por el acuerdo entre el HAMP Aurora, un administrador de préstamos privados y Fannie Mae.

Todos los demandantes en el caso fueron elegibles bajo HAMP para una modificación de préstamo hipotecario, pero se les negó, sin embargo por Aurora a pesar de que fueron calificados por el programa. El demandante citó “la incompetencia burocrática sin fin junto con la falta de un recurso efectivo para las denegaciones ilícito” como base para su contra Aurora, después de haber sido negado un préstamo modificado. La demanda alega una violación por parte de Aurora de su acuerdo independiente con Fannie Mae: (1) que Aurora no actuó de buena fe y trato justo y (2) Aurora violó su derecho al debido proceso. Aurora respondió que los demandantes no tenían derecho a demandar ya que no eran partes en el acuerdo con Fannie Mae y Aurora.

Rothstein juez estuvo de acuerdo con Aurora y sostuvo que los prestatarios individuales no tenían derecho a demandar porque no tenían intereses creados en virtud del acuerdo HAMP. El juez Rothstein se unió a numerosas decisiones de los tribunales lo que otros hallazgos similares. Los jueces en todos los tribunales de distrito de California han llevado a cabo esta misma decisión, incluyendo el Distrito Este de California, que atiende todos los casos presentados en el área de Sacramento. Estos tribunales han sostenido con el fin de que una persona tenga en pie, los demandantes propietario tenía que demostrar que Fannie Mae y Aurora la intención de incluir a los prestatarios, individual, a su acuerdo de HAMP.

Continue reading

by

California residents who reside in the Sacramento metropolitan area may be interested to know an update in case-law that could potentially impact any home loan modification. The ongoing trend regarding litigation surrounding the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) has been re-affirmed by a Washington D.C. Judge in Doreen Edwards et al v. Aurora Loan Servicers LLC. In Edwards, the Plaintiff argued that an individual borrower should have the right to sue because they were impacted by the HAMP agreement between Aurora , a private loan servicer and Fannie Mae.

All Plaintiffs in the case were eligible under HAMP for a home loan modification but were nonetheless denied by Aurora even though they were qualified under the program. The plaintiff’s cited “endless bureaucratic incompetence coupled with a lack of effective recourse for wrongful denials” as a basis for their against Aurora after having been denied a modified loan. The lawsuit alleged a violation by Aurora of its independent agreement with Fannie Mae: (1) that Aurora failed to act in good faith and fair dealing and (2) Aurora violated their right to Due Process. Aurora responded that the plaintiffs were not eligible to sue since they were not parties to the agreement with Fannie Mae and Aurora.

Judge Rothstein agreed with Aurora and held that the individual borrowers had no right to sue because they had no vested interest under the HAMP agreement. Judge Rothstein joined numerous other court decisions making similar findings. Judges in all District Courts of California have held this same decision including the Eastern District of California, which hears all cases brought in the Sacramento area. These courts have held in order for a person to have standing, the homeowner plaintiffs had to show that Fannie Mae and Aurora intended to include the borrowers, individually, to their HAMP agreement.

Continue reading

by

Lawmakers in Sacramento decided to vote against a bill that would have stopped “dual track” foreclosures across the state last week. The legislation, SB 729, required lenders to completely evaluate a borrower for a loan modification before they filed the notice of default, which officially begins the foreclosure process.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) have authored this sweeping legislation that was designed to limit dual tracking, which is the practice by mortgage lenders to pursue foreclosure at the same time they request a loan modification.

According to the LA Times, SB 729 would have gone further than any existing anti-foreclosure measure by preventing dual-track foreclosures for all California mortgages. The bill would have required lenders to completely decline a modification before it began the foreclosure proceedings. Had lenders failed to make a definite decision regarding the modification SB 729 would permit the lender to halt or void the foreclosure for up to a year after the sale of the house.

Continue reading
Contact Information
428 J Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 361-6028



We are a Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Code. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Matthew D. Roy
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design