A settlement or judgement in a divorce does not absolve your client of liability on a defaulted SBA loan. Don't leave your client on the hook.
Book a Consultation CallThe common situation exists where a husband and wife co-own a business and obtain an SBA backed loan. Both parties sign a personal guarantee. Some time later the marriage fails and the parties split. However, as part of a settlement or judgement, one party takes over the business and remains responsible for the SBA loan.
The common mistake is assuming that because the marital settlement or divorce judgement states that one party is responsible for the SBA loan that the other spouse is absolved from liability. However, unless you have obtained a release from the personal guarantee, the personal guarantee remains in effect as to your client.
More importantly, the federal government does not care what the settlement or judgement says. Your client can seek indemnity form his or her former spouse as far as the SBA cares. This means, for example, if your client and his or her spouse obtained a $500,000 SBA loan, and your client's ex-spouse thereafter takes over the business and responsibility for the loan and defaults - your client remains on the hook for the $500,000 loan because he or she signed a personal guarantee.
Your client can either pay the debt or risk submission to collection actions by the federal government. Collection can include a myriad of tools including filing a law suit, foreclosure, administrative wage garnishment, federal benefit or salary offset and tax refund offset. Your client may seek indemnity from his or her ex-spouse as a remedy, but while that process proceeds ... the government commences collection.
Protect Law Group provides assertive representation of clients fighting the SBA and collection by the federal government. Your client may settle his or her SBA debt with experienced legal representation. Better yet, move in front of the problem and contact Protect Law Group to help release your client from the personal guarantee.
Click here to download your free white paper from Protect Law Group:
Please contact us for a consultation at: 1-888-756-9969.
Millions of Dollars in SBA Debts Resolved via Offer in Compromise and Negotiated Repayment Agreements without our Clients filing for Bankruptcy or Facing Home Foreclosure
Millions of Dollars in Treasury Debts Defended Against via AWG Hearings, Treasury Offset Program Resolution, Cross-servicing Disputes, Private Collection Agency Representation, Compromise Offers and Negotiated Repayment Agreements
Our Attorneys are Authorized by the Agency Practice Act to Represent Federal Debtors Nationwide before the SBA, The SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Treasury Department, and the Bureau of Fiscal Service.
Client personally guaranteed an SBA 7(a) loan to help with a relative’s new business venture. After the business failed, Treasury was able to secure a recurring Treasury Offset Program (TOP) levy against his monthly Social Security Benefits based on the claim that he owed over $1.2 million dollars. We initially submitted a Cross-Servicing Dispute, but then, prepared and filed an Appeals Petition with the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals (SBA OHA). As a result of our efforts, we were able to convince the SBA to not only terminate the claimed debt of $1.2 million dollars against our client (without him having to file bankruptcy) but also refund the past recurring amounts that were offset from his Social Security Benefits in connection with the TOP levy.
Clients personally guaranteed an SBA 7(a) loan that was referred to the Department of Treasury for collection. Treasury claimed our clients owed over $220,000 once it added its statutory collection fees and interest. We were able to negotiate a significant reduction of the total claimed amount from $220,000 to $119,000, saving the clients over $100,000 by arguing for a waiver of the statutory 28%-30% administrative fees and costs.
Client’s small business obtained an SBA 7(a) loan for $750,000. She and her husband signed personal guarantees exposing all of their non-exempt income and assets. With just 18 months left on the maturity date and payment on the remaining balance, the Great Recession of 2008 hit, which ultimately caused the business to fail and default on the loan terms. The 7(a) lender accelerated and sent a demand for full payment of the remaining loan balance. The SBA lender’s note allowed for a default interest rate of about 7% per year. In response to the lender's aggressive collection action, Client's husband filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in an attempt to protect against their personal assets. However, his bankruptcy discharge did not relieve the Client's personal guarantee liability for the SBA debt. The SBA lender opted to pursue the SBA 7(a) Guaranty and subsequently assigned the loan and the right to enforce collection against the Client to the SBA. The Client then received the SBA Official 60-Day Notice. After conducting a Case Evaluation with her, she then hired the Firm to respond and negotiate on her behalf with just 34 days left before the impending referral to Treasury. The Client wanted to dispute the SBA’s alleged debt balance as stated in the 60-Day Notice by claiming the 7(a) lender failed to liquidate business collateral in a commercially reasonable manner - which if done properly - proceeds would have paid back the entire debt balance. However, due to time constraints, waivers contained in the SBA loan instruments, including the fact the Client was not able to inspect the SBA's records for investigation purposes before the remaining deadline, Client agreed to submit a Structured Workout for the alleged balance in response to the Official 60-Day Notice as she was not eligible for an Offer in Compromise (OIC) because of equity in non-exempt income and assets. After back and forth negotiations, the SBA Loan Specialist approved the Workout proposal, reducing the Client's purported liability by nearly $142,142.27 in accrued interest, and statutory collection fees. Without the Firm's intervention and subsequent approval of the Workout proposal, the Client's debt amount (with accrued interest, Treasury's statutory collection fee and Treasury's interest based on the Current Value of Funds Rate (CVFR) would have been nearly $291,030.
.jpg)
