Refinery 29: What Really Happens When Your Bill Goes Into Collections

By Judith Ohikuare

In ye olden days, people were routinely tossed into debtors' prisons for bills in arrears. And, just this month, the ACLU charged that private debt collectors around the country have manipulated local courts and prosecutors' offices to resurrect the practice today.

 

The shame that comes with being unable to pay a bill can be bad enough without the stress of being locked up for it. If you've been contacted by a creditor or collector, the first thing to do is to not freak out. You're not alone: Last year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) found that one-in-three people with a credit record had been contacted by a creditor or collector.

 

Here are a few things to know if you're facing this issue and are wondering where to start.

What Does It Mean When A Bill Goes Into Collections?

The most basic thing to know about a collector is that they're calling to ask you to pay a bill. Debts that a collector may seek can include loans (such as a car loan or student loan), and past-due bills, such as a doctor's bill or a phone bill.

 

"When you haven’t paid a bill for a certain amount of time, typically a few months, that service provider can send your account to a third party that deals with the effort of getting that debt from you," explains Lisa Rowan a lifestyle and personal finance expert at The Penny Hoarder. "That outside company is a collections agency that specializes in getting people to pay their bills, and they can often be aggressive."

 

Some laws have been established to prevent debt collectors from harassing people who owe money, so don't feel like you have to be silent about shady tactics.

 

"Don't panic!" Rowan advises. "Yes, they want your money, but debt collectors are not permitted to harass you or even call you outside of reasonable hours of the day. Before you respond to a late notice or call from a collector, go through your files (contracts, bills, estimates) and make sure you are informed about your situation. Think about some options, whether it be a payment plan or a lump-sum negotiation offer, before you call back or respond by mail."

 

She also advises tamping down on worst-case scenarios by talking to a trusted friend or family member who can help you look over any paperwork with you, or sit in on a phone call.

Is There Any Recourse Before A Bill Goes Into Collections?

Contact your service provider (a doctor’s office, for example) directly instead of waiting for the bill to get sent to collections as many companies will offer payment plans, Rowan advises. If you're unable or too freaked out to make a plan with the company, commit to making one yourself.

 

"Partial payments won't stop the overdue notices from coming, but showing progress on your balance can prevent your bill from going to collections," she adds. Once you get going, you might help your case by taking a deep breath and calling or writing to the company to let them know you are making progress and will keep doing so until you're back in the black.

What Is The Potential Impact Of A Bill Going Into Collections?

Debt collectors can report your unpaid debt to the major credit bureaus, who mark them on your report as delinquencies. Rowan says an unpaid bill can affect your credit score for up to seven years. 

 

That's a long time — but it's not forever.

 

Remember that an important factor of determining your credit score is your credit saturation limit: the ratio of total available credit you have to the amount you use. That ratio is ideally 30% or less. When you pay off debt — whether it's in collections or not, Rowan says — you are actively reducing that utilization rate. So focus on knocking out as much as you can, as soon as you can.

"When that negative mark finally comes off your credit report, you’ll likely see an increase of about 14 points on your credit score, according to a study FICO conducted on its own data," Rowan says.

Can You Ever Challenge Or Negotiate A Claim?

You'll have more success doing so if you keep track of your paperwork. Before you speak to someone to set things straight, gather any records of what you spent and what you owe, Rowan says. Doing so will make it easier to avoid being steamrolled over the phone.

 

"It's easy to get overwhelmed, but having whatever information handy can help you keep your cool and know where you stand," she explains. "So don’t throw out past-due bills, even if you know you can’t pay them right now. You need to be aware of the original charges and any late fees."

 

If you're seeking a payment plan, be realistic rather than appeasing, she adds. Don't succumb to pressure to pay everything upfront if you simply can't and keep in mind what you can really afford to pay.

 

"There may be fees for breaking the bill up into parts or accruing interest you'll need to keep in mind. For instance, if a bill collector wants you to pay $200 per month when you know you can only send in $150 per month reliably, tell them that," she says. "They'd rather get a smaller amount of money on a regular basis than have you flake on a payment plan."

 

Finally, Rowan adds, you may also be able to drive a hard bargain by paying a large fraction of the full sum upfront in exchange for the full cost being forgiven. For example, if you owe $1,500 on a late bill but have $1,000 in your savings account, you can inquire about paying them that money on the terms that the bill goes away forever.

 

"Ask about it," she urges. "They just might accept the offer. A business would rather wait a little while and get all the money it's owed" — you choosing to work out a payment plan directly with them, for example — "but the debt collection game is about making as much money as quickly as possible. A collector may take a smaller amount in exchange for being able to mark your name off the list."

 

If they accept your terms, pat yourself on the back — and make sure to get whatever agreement you make in writing.

 

© 2018 Refinery29

CNBC: Trump administration may make it easier to wipe out student debt in bankruptcy

By Jessica Dickler

Student loan borrowers may finally have their day in court.

The Education Department said this week it will review when borrowers can discharge student loans, an indication it could become easier to expunge those loans in bankruptcy.

The department said it is seeking public comment on how to evaluate undue hardship claims asserted by student loan borrowers to determine whether there is any need to modify how those claims in bankruptcy are evaluated.

As of now, "it's almost impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy," said Mark Kantrowitz, a student loan expert. "The problem was undue hardship was never defined, and the case law has never led to a standardized definition."

Meanwhile, college-loan balances in the United States have jumped to an all-time high of $1.4 trillion, according to Experian. The average outstanding balance is $34,144, up 62 percent over the last 10 years.

Roughly 4.6 million borrowers were in default as of Sept. 30, also up significantly from previous years.

The national student loan default rate is now over 11 percent, according to Department of Education data. Student loans are considered in default if you fail to make a monthly payment for 270 days. Your loan becomes delinquent the first day after you miss a payment.

"I'm encouraged that they are asking the question," Kantrowitz said of the Department of Education's request for comment, although "this doesn't necessarily mean there will be any policy changes."

Still, he added, bankruptcy should only be considered as a very last resort.

People with unmanageable student debt have several options to consider:

For starters, you may be able to postpone payments with a deferment or forbearance. A deferment lets you put your loan on hold for up to three years. If you don't qualify for a deferment, forbearance lets you temporarily suspend payments for up to one year.

As a longer-term fix, income-based repayment plans allow you to pay a percentage of your income rather than a flat rate, as long as you are under a certain income threshold.

And in certain situations, you can have your federal student loan forgiven, canceled or discharged, although that often comes with its own administrative hurdles.

© 2018 CNBC LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Division of NBCUniversal

Inside Higher Ed: Bankruptcy Standards Get New Scrutiny

By Andrew Kreighbaum

The Department of Education signaled Monday that it is interested in tweaking the standards used for determining whether student loan debt can be discharged in bankruptcy.

That could point to an opening for potential bipartisan cooperation between the department and Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren, who have long sought to loosen bankruptcy law so student borrowers can discharge their debt.

However, what steps the department might take in that regard, including issuing new guidance or working with Congress to change the law, are unclear.

In a Federal Register notice, it requested public comments on the process for evaluating claims of “undue hardship” -- the standard student borrowers must clear to be able to discharge their loans through bankruptcy.

An Education Department spokeswoman said the notice should speak for itself. The document doesn’t indicate the steps the department may take, but consumer groups that work on student loans and bankruptcy issues said it would be hard to narrow the current standards.

Getting student loans discharged through bankruptcy is notoriously difficult. A 2005 federal law barred most student loan borrowers from that option unless they could demonstrate that they would suffer undue hardship from being forced to pay the loans.

Congress, however, has never defined what undue hardship means and didn’t delegate to the department the ability to do so. That’s left it to the courts to establish their own standards.

But debt holders and Department of Education contractors have often sought to aggressively block those undue hardship claims via litigation.

“It’s a very difficult hurdle for most consumers,” said John Rao, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center and an expert on bankruptcy issues.

In 2014, the obstacles created by contractors prompted congressional Democrats, including Warren, to write to then education secretary Arne Duncan urging new federal guidance that would make clear specific minimum criteria for an undue hardship claim.

Among those criteria, the Democrats wrote that receiving disability benefits under the Social Security Act or being determined to be unemployable because of a service-connected disability should qualify a borrower as having an undue hardship. Contractors should accept proof of those or other criteria from a borrower without a formal litigation discovery process, the Democrats said.

The guidance released by the department the following year disappointed many Democrats and consumer advocates.

Clare McCann, deputy director of higher education policy at New America and a former Obama Education Department official, said the department’s call for comments appears to signal that it wants to broaden the definition of undue hardship. She said whatever change the department or Congress makes will have to strike the proper balance.

“You want to make sure it captures people who aren’t able to pay and won’t be able to pay over the long run, so you’re not wasting energy collecting debts you’ll never be able to collect on,” she said of the standards.

Opening up bankruptcy standards too wide, McCann said, could mean the federal student loan program becomes much more costly.

A report this month from the Department of Education’s inspector general found that the popularity of income-driven repayment plans and loan forgiveness programs could mean the federal government soon starts losing money on the student loan program.

But Rao said only a small percentage of consumer borrowers file for bankruptcy now.

“These are individuals who have some kind of hardship that is lasting, or they’re in a position where maybe they went to college and never got a degree,” he said. “In the case of some borrowers, they’re just not going to be able to repay the loan.”

Jason Delisle, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said after the addition of multiple income-driven repayment programs for student loans since 2005, there is less of a case to be made for widening bankruptcy standards for federal student loans than for private loans.

“There are costs that go well beyond discharging loans for people who can’t pay,” he said. “There are also costs to discharge loans for people who can pay.”

 

Copyright 2018 Inside Higher Ed.  All rights reserved.

City Hall Taxi Driver Tragedy

As reported by the New York Times and the New York Post, on February 5^th, a taxi driver drove up to the steps of City Hall and took his own life.  Douglas Schifter posted on Facebook that morning that he had worked 100-120 consecutive hours almost every week for more than 14 years. Despite his grueling work schedule, he was no longer able to afford health insurance or vehicle maintenance and repairs and had maxed out his credit cards.  He blamed Governor Cuomo, Mayor de Blasio and former Mayor Bloomberg for increasing the number of livery cars and taxis on the streets of NYC.

We feel for Mr. Schifter and other taxi drivers and medallion owners; his story and other stories we have heard are modern-day tragedies. By way of background, for those who aren’t familiar with the taxi industry in New York City, taxi drivers either own their own medallion or lease the use of a medallion to drive in the city.

Our taxi driver clients indicate that on average they are working 30% longer each week and regrettably earning 30 to 40% less money each week. Their competition from Uber, Via, Lyft and black cars has increased tremendously, along with the costs associated with driving a cab.

For those drivers that purchased their medallion in the last three years, the situation is equally bleak. Three years ago, taxi medallions were selling for approximately $1,300,000 per medallion. Last month’s sales based on data from the TLC indicate that the average medallion is now selling for approximately $186,000 – a drop in value of approximately 86%. Moreover, many of our clients have refinanced their medallions through banks or credit unions, and with the drop in the value of taxi medallions, those taxi medallions are also “underwater” (the value of the medallion is exceeded by the debt secured by it). Additionally, our clients tell us that the costs associated with owning a taxi medallion, such as the TLC mandated costs and expenses, have increased as well.

Unfortunately, for taxi drivers, there are no easy solutions, other than to stop driving and consider another occupation or job. Fortunately for owners of taxi medallions, relief may be found in filing for personal bankruptcy or doing asset protection planning and a workout with the bank or credit union that holds their taxi medallion loan.

If you’re an overburdened taxi medallion owner struggling with an underwater medallion or other debt, please don’t despair–we can help you.  Please contact Jim Shenwick.

New York Times: When Calling an Uber Can Pay Off for Cities and States

By WINNIE HU

In Chicago, a 15-cent fee on Uber, Lyft and other ride-hailing services is helping to pay for track, signal and electrical upgrades to make the city’s trains run faster and smoother.

Ride-hailing trips in Philadelphia are expected to raise $2.6 million this year for the city’s public schools through a 1.4 percent tax that will also generate more than a million dollars for enforcement and regulation of the ride-hailing industry itself. In South Carolina, a 1 percent ride-hailing fee has yielded more than a million dollars for municipalities and counties to spend as they choose.

And Massachusetts began collecting 20 cents for every ride-hailing trip this month, earmarking the revenue to improve roads and bridges, fill a state transportation fund and even help a rival — the struggling taxi industry — adapt with new technologies and job training.

As ride-hailing services become a dominant force across the country, they have increased congestion, threatened taxi industries and posed political and legal challenges for cities and states struggling to regulate the high-tech newcomers. But they are also proving to be an unexpected boon for municipalities that are increasingly latching onto their success — and being rewarded with millions in revenue to pay not only for transportation and infrastructure needs, but also a host of programs and services that have nothing to do with the ride-hailing apps.

Now New York is seeking to join this growing wave with a new surcharge on ride-hailing and taxi trips that could become a central piece of an ambitious congestion pricing plan for Manhattan. A state task force has proposed fees of $2 to $5 per ride that would be among the highest in the nation — and could generate up to $605 million a year for the city’s failing subway system.

“We used to have yellow cabs, we now have yellow cabs and black cars and green cars and every color in the rainbow and they cruise downtown Manhattan to pick up fares,” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has said. “That is one of the first places I would look to reduce congestion and to raise money.”

Even as President Trump promotes a plan to rebuild the country’s tattered infrastructure, many local governments are not waiting to see what, if any, help Washington provides and are finding novel ways to pay for transportation and other public works projects.

Across the nation, more than a dozen states and municipalities have imposed fees or taxes on ride-hailing companies or their passengers, or sometimes both, and many more are considering such measures, according to transportation and tax experts. Advocates for the charges contend that the ride-hailing cars should pay for using public streets and resources, contributing to gridlock and pollution, and siphoning passengers and fares from public transit.

“If they want to share the pie, then they have to pay the price,” said Fayez Khozindar, the executive director of the United Taxidrivers Community Council, an advocacy group for taxi drivers in Chicago. “It’s fair because we know the city is short on funds and they want to fill the hole.”

But some drivers and passengers for the ride-hailing companies say they have been unfairly singled out — in many places the new fees do not apply to taxis.

“Uber and Lyft have always been an easy target for cities looking for new streams of revenue,” said Harry Campbell, a driver for Uber and Lyft in California who writes a popular blog, The Rideshare Guy.

In New York and Chicago, Uber and Lyft have said they see their services as complementing the public transit systems and providing another option for riders, especially in transit deserts with few bus routes and train lines. Uber supports a congestion plan for Manhattan — even running an ad campaign backing the idea —as long as it does not single out for-hire vehicles.

“A comprehensive congestion pricing plan that is applied to all vehicles in the central business district is the best way to fully fund mass transit, reduce congestion and improve transportation for outer borough New Yorkers,” an Uber spokeswoman, Alix Anfang, said. “A surcharge alone will not accomplish these goals.”

Last year, New York State approved a 4 percent assessment on ride-hailing trips that begin outside New York City (rides in the city are already subject to state and local taxes). It is expected to raise $24 million a year for the state’s general fund though one state legislator, Senator John E. Brooks, a Democrat from Long Island, has proposed legislation to direct that revenue to local bus and commuter rail services. “We need to think creatively and outside of the box in order to improve
funding for local transit,” he said.

The new fees and taxes are often part of broader regulatory measures as states and localities scramble to update tax codes and laws that have not kept up with the proliferation of app-based ride services. For instance, a Georgia state tax applies to rides in taxis but not ride-hailing cars even though they essentially do the same thing, said Carl Davis, research director for the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy in Washington.

“A lot of tax codes weren’t set up to take them into account,” Mr. Davis said.

“They’re so new they didn’t even exist a decade ago. It’s an emerging tax issue, and states and localities are playing catch up.”

South Carolina added a 1 percent fee to ride-hailing trips in 2015, in part to establish a single regulatory framework and block local efforts to charge prohibitively high fees to keep them out, state officials said. Now that fee has become a source of extra cash. The city of North Charleston, for instance, receives more than $30,000 annually and uses it for municipal operations.

In Oregon, Portland officials initially barred Uber but eventually agreed to allow it and Lyft to operate through pilot programs. In 2016, the city sought to create a single standard for taxis and ride-hailing cars and assessed a 50-cent ride fee on both of them, which is paid by passengers.

The 50-cent fee has added up to more than $8 million to help pay for city enforcement efforts, including spot inspections of cars and incentives to companies and drivers to choose wheelchair accessible cars. The fee “hasn’t been a barrier to the riders at all as the ride-hailing services have continued to expand,’’ said Dave Benson, a senior manager for the Portland Bureau of Transportation. “We haven’t seen the top yet.’’

Still, many Portland taxi owners and drivers say the fee has hurt them more than their rivals. Noah Ernst, a superintendent for Radio Cab, said many taxi drivers feel the 50-cent fee means a smaller tip because passengers lump everything together when they pay. Taxi companies also face the headache of trying to collect the fee from drivers.

He added that taxis continued to face more stringent safety, equipment and insurance requirements, and were targeted more often for inspections because their cars were easily identified by company colors and logos.

“It’s not an equal playing field at all and we were trying to tell them this the entire time they were rewriting the code,” he said.

As a result, he said, taxi companies are struggling and at least two have gone out of business. His company, Radio Cab, has lost more than a third of its business since 2015.

Chicago officials have calculated that ride-hailing companies have cost the city about $40 million a year in lost revenue from transit fares, parking fees, licenses and permits. In 2014, the city imposed a 20-cent fee on ride-hailing trips in response to concerns that taxis were being undercut. Two years later, that fee went up to 50 cents, with an additional two-cent fee paid by the ride-hailing companies themselves. And now, the new 15-cent fee for the transit system brings the total to 65 cents for passengers.

The city also assessed a separate $5 fee on passengers who were picked up or dropped off by ride-hailing cars at the major airports, the convention center and the Navy Pier, a popular tourist destination.

The ride-hailing fees produced nearly $39 million for the city’s general fund in 2016, up from about $100,000 in 2014, according to city estimates. Last year’s revenue, which is still being collected, is expected to reach $72 million.

“It’s a fairly new industry and once they actually got settled in the city we saw a lot of growth,” the Chicago budget director, Samantha Fields, said.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, who has made modernizing the L a priority, said the new 15-cent fee was the first of its kind to raise money solely for public transit from those who might not even use it because they could afford the ridehailing cars. “I think it’s a progressive transportation tax,” Mr. Emanuel said. “It will make public transportation competitive with the rideshare industry.”

In effect, Mr. Emanuel said, it will serve as a “backdoor approach” to fighting congestion created by the ride-hailing cars by helping shift more people — by their own choice — to the transit system. “There’s a congestion fee and I would just say the rideshare fee is kind of parallel parking into the same position,” he said.

The 15-cent fee is projected to bring in $16 million this year, which will be turned over to the Chicago Transit Authority. The money will be used to secure additional funding through bond sales to pay for a total of $179 million in capital improvements, according to city officials.

Kyle Whitehead, the government relations director for Active Transportation Alliance, a Chicago advocacy group for biking, walking and transit, said that the transit system contributes to the health of the city by getting more people out of cars, increasing exercise levels and reducing pollution — and it is now in dire need of money.

“The public transit system benefits everyone who lives and works in the city, he said, “regardless of whether they’re using it.”

Copyright 2018 The New York Times Company.  All rights reserved.

New York Times: A Driver’s Suicide Reveals the Dark Side of the Gig Economy

By GINIA BELLAFANTE 

Last spring, Bhairavi Desai, a middle-aged woman without a driver’s license and thus an unlikely leader for thousands of mostly male drivers in the world’s largest market for hired vehicles, delivered emotional testimony in front of New York City’s Taxi & Limousine Commission about the mounting existential difficulties in her field.

The executive director of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, Ms. Desai had been a labor activist for 21 years but she had never seen anything like the despair she was witnessing now — the bankruptcies, foreclosures and eviction notices plaguing drivers who were calling her with questions about how to navigate homelessness and paralyzing depression.

“Half my heart is just crushed,’’ she said, “and the other half is on fire.”

The economic hardship that Uber and its competitors had inflicted on conventional drivers in New York and London and other cities had become overwhelming. For decades there had been no more than approximately 12,000 to 13,000 taxis in New York but now there were myriad new ways to avoid public transportation, in some cases with ride-hailing services like Via that charged little more than $5 to travel in Manhattan. In 2013, there were 47,000 for-hire vehicles in the city. Now there were more than 100,000, approximately two-thirds of them affiliated with Uber.

While Uber has sold that “disruption” as positive for riders, for many taxi workers, it has been devastating. Between 2013 and 2016, the gross annual bookings of full-time yellow-taxi drivers in New York, working during the day when fares are typically highest, fell from $88,000 a year to just over $69,000. Medallions, which grant the right to operate a taxi in New York City, were now depreciating assets and drivers who had borrowed money to pay for them, once a sound investment strategy, were deeply in debt. Ms. Desai was routinely seeing grown men cry and she had become increasingly concerned about the possibility that they would begin taking their lives.

On Monday morning, Doug Schifter, a livery driver in his early 60s, killed himself with a shotgun in front of City Hall in Lower Manhattan, having written a lengthy Facebook post several hours earlier laying out the structural cruelties that had left him in such dire circumstance. He was now sometimes forced to work more than 100 hours a week to survive he said; when he had started out in the 1980s a 40-hour week was fairly typical. He blamed politicians — mayors Michael R. Bloomberg and Bill de Blasio, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo — and their acquiescence to the rich for permitting so many cars to flood the streets. He blamed the Taxi Commission for the fines and hassles it imposed.

He had lost his health insurance and accrued credit card debt and he would no longer work for “chump change,’’ preferring, he said, to die in the hope that his sacrifice would draw attention to what drivers, too often unable to feed their families now, were enduring. He had forecast all of this doom in columns he had written for a trade publication called Black Car News, he wrote, but few had listened to him.

Implicit in his testament was the anger he felt over the de-professionalization of his life’s work. Mr. Schifter had driven more than five million miles throughout his tenure, through five hurricanes and 50 snowstorms. He had chauffeured celebrities and worn a suit. He was not driving a car to supplement the income he was getting from his crepe business and he was not trying to make a little extra money for massage. He was not a participant in the gig economy; he was a casualty of it.

For at least a century, the suicide as spectacle, prompted by a reversal of fortune, has typically been the practice of the wealthy. In the months after Wall Street’s crash in 1929, four people threw themselves out windows in New York (leading to the folklore that there had been many, many more such deaths). Decades later, Bernie Madoff’s son Mark hanged himself from a dog leash in his SoHo apartment. In 2016, Sanjay Valvani, a hedge fund manager accused of insider trading, slashed his throat in the bedroom of his Brooklyn townhouse, to much sensation in the tabloid and financial press. Poverty too often kills you without making you try.

For taxi drivers staring down an even bleaker future of driverless cars at a moment when Washington considers a weekly paycheck bump of $1.50 an occasion to break out the layer cake, it is hard to see where the metaphoric Prozac will come from.

The problems facing the city’s taxi drivers have become so bad, Ms. Desai said, that even on New Year’s Eve many complained that they roamed around unable to pick up fares. At about that time she had received a call from a woman who runs a community radio station in the Bronx, with an audience made up mostly of Dominican livery drivers. Two drivers that the host knew of had killed themselves and other drivers were on the show talking about the isolation and fear they saw all around them.

In the days preceding his death, Mr. Schifter wrote about his decreasing faith in our politics and about his commitments to his spiritual life. “Forget the cliché you only live once it is not true,” he said in a Facebook post. “The clues are all about you if you take the time to seek them.”

Copyright 2018 The New York Times Company.  All rights reserved.

Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) Medallion Sales Data from January 2018

Provided below is sales data from the sale of 46 unrestricted taxi medallions as reported by the TLC for January 2018, which includes 34 medallions sold in a bankruptcy auction. The estate sales for $245,000, $176,000 and $170,000 may be too low a value because these sales reflect a sale by the estate of a taxi medallion owner who died, and those “desperate sellers” are selling for tax purposes or to quickly dispose of a depreciating asset.  Factoring out the foreclosure and estate sales, the fair market value of a medallion based on January sales data appears to be approximately $186,000 based on the 34 medallions sold at the bankruptcy auction.  Auction sales with a bidding process often reflect fair market value.  Medallion owners with “underwater” medallions (where the loan balance exceeds the value of the medallion) should contact Jim Shenwick to discuss their options under the law.

Price	Type of Sale	Number of Medallions
$380,000		2
$380,000		2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$372,000	Bankruptcy	2
$250,000		1
$250,000		1
$245,000	Estate	1
$185,000		1
$181,000		1
$176,000	Estate	1
$170,000	Foreclosure	1
$170,000	Estate	1
$170,000		1