Do you think you are the only one contemplating bankruptcy ? Think again! Hundreds of thousands of people are running to the Bankruptcy Court seeking refuge from collector activity, judgments, garnishments, and a slew of other collection tactics. Right now, people are suffering through financial hardship typically caused by diminished income, increased expenses, medical calamity, unemployment, and other financial setbacks that are rendering them unable to continue making their mortgage, car and credit card payments. Many times, if a person could simply eliminate their credit card debt, they could channel those payment savings towards their other high priority monthly bills. Most times, a person in this situation simply needs a breather from the monthly stresses of making the minimum payments on their unsecured credit card debt balances and be able to channel those funds towards their mortgage and/or car payments. Oddly enough, many people are religious in making their monthly minimum payments, but when the balances on those credit card debts never decrease, what is the sense of continuing to make those payments at the expense of saving that money towards your children's college expenses or paying your mortgage payment?

Many times a person can file a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy to eliminate these debts. Other times, a person may be forced to file a Chapter 13, whereby the person would be required to pay back a percentage of what is owed, but at the same time consolidating their monthly payments into one easy payment and denying the ability of their unsecured debt from accruing interest during the course of the case. Although specifically each person's case presents different facts, if you are deep in debt and see no way out, educate yourself about the bankruptcy process as it may help you get back on track and change your life for the better.

In Curtis O. Rosemann v. Salsbury, Clements, Bekman, Marder & Adkins, LLC , the Maryland Court of Appeals reviewed a decision of the Court of Special Appeals affirming the decision of the Circuit Court of Howard County disallowing the ability of a child support judgment creditor from seizing personal injury settlement funds payable to the child support judgment debtor. According to the facts, the child support debtor became injured as a result of a bumpy airline flight for which she received $30,000 for her personal injury. The personal injury settlement funds were held in escrow at the law firm of Salsbury et al. The child support judgment creditor learned of the settlement proceeds and issued an attachment of the funds held in escrow in satisfaction of the child support arrearages owed by his ex-spouse. Upon receipt of the request for attachment, Salsbury et al., on behalf of its client issued a response to the attachment invoking Section 11-504 b(2) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article claiming that the compensation for this personal injury was exempt and protected under State Law as money payable in the event of sickness, accident, injury or death.

In a 21 page opinion, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the personal injury funds were in fact exempt and protected against seizure even against a child support judgment creditor. The Court took an exhaustive look at Federal law, numerous court decisions, and public policy concerns and finally determined that if the Maryland State Legislature intended an exception to the exemption statute thus allowing a child support judgment creditor to seize funds payable in the event of sickness, accident, personal injury, or death, then the Legislature could have written that exception into the exemption statute, but did not. Since the Maryland Legislature did not expressly provide for such an exception, the Court of Appeals would not become a "super-legislature" and judicially create an exception which did not appear in the original text of the statute and would not "judicially place in the statute language which is not there, in order to avoid a harsh result." The Court also stated that if the situation brought to light by this case is an oversight of the statute, then it is for the Legislature to correct and not the Court.

This is yet another example of the Maryland high court recognizing its bounds and instituting a logical reasoned restraint in interpreting Maryland State Law.