Thirteen is the number we seem to loathe the most. Athletes won’t wear it. No hotel dares use it. Nevertheless, it is a number that will become increasingly familiar to Maine consumers this fall. That’s when the biggest overhaul in a generation of the nation’s bankruptcy laws takes effect. It’s a change that will require many of the consumers seeking relief from creditors to register under a chapter by that number in the revised bankruptcy code.

Whether the change is one that will condemn or console depends on whom you ask. Before we collect some opinions on the subject, a bit of background might be in order. Despite the popular, recent attention being given to Chapter 13, it’s a part of the credit relief system that’s been around since the late 1930s. Before that , consumers had only an all-or-nothing option of seeking protection from creditors. This was “straight” bankruptcy, meaning that nearly all one’s debts not secured by mortgages or taxing authorities could be wiped out by the bankruptcy process.

The 20th century’s most Democratic Congress, one that saw the GOP outnumbered by a margin of 4-to-1, elected at the same time as FDR’s landslide re-election in 1936, opened up a new avenue for consumers. This was the Chandler Act, one that ushered in a 13th chapter to America’s bankruptcy system. The basic premise of this most unluckily numbered element was to permit wage earners to get some relief from the pressure of debt without enduring the stigma of a full-fledged bankruptcy, sort of a halfway house approach. In it, consumers for the first time could have the option of paying off a percentage of their obligations over a period of time – then usually three years – thereby keeping more of their credit intact than they would had they gone through straight bankruptcy.

With passage two months ago of a law that will soon compel, rather than merely encourage, some consumers to call upon this method, Chapter 13 is now being regarded as a means of hurting rather than helping some consumers, sort of a form of involuntary servitude, in the eyes of the new measure’s critics. This is because many of the more than 4,000 Mainers who file bankruptcy each year will be precluded from doing so unless they file under Chapter 13 first. Whether the new Chapter 13 will assist or injure the rights of those it was originally designed to nurture, the new rules have rekindled as much debate on the future of consumerism as any event in years.

Has the deck really been stacked and what else should alert policy makers consider in the future? On these and other pressing consumer issues, I knew the person I wanted to see. His name is Gerald Cope, the man who for nearly 50 years has witnessed up close how Mainers handle their pocket books when they’re in financial trouble. Born to a lower-middle class Portland family during the Depression, this Harvard Law educated attorney came back to Maine in 1957, first as a protégé to longtime bankruptcy referee Richard Poulos, and then spending more than 20 years as trustee or guardian of the Chapter 13 program in Maine. For the last 25 years, he has been one of the more active practicing attorneys in our state’s bankruptcy courts.

Though Cope is a strong partisan of the Chapter 13 idea, he does not favor making it mandatory and believes that the bankruptcy system may well be “devastated by the reforms in the bankruptcy code which will literally force people into Chapter 13.” Most creditor attorneys, such as Portland’s Bruce Sleeper, do not share this view, pointing to the fact that the only bankruptcy candidates required to go Chapter 13 will be those who have had incomes above $37,000.

That said, there’s still a lot more going on that also concerns Cope. Among the changes he feels necessary are laws that would stop some lenders from extending additional credit – providing more money – to customers that are already way over their heads in debt.

A second proposal Cope advocates is an anti-flipping law. It would limit the number of times some lenders could renew, turn over or “flip” high interest loans so that the rates would be lowered over a period of time so as to promote the prospect of repayment. In the late 1960s, Cope was the key player in a brain trust that put such a law on the books, the so-called 36-month law. (Cope was so effective that a key Senate committee chair sought to banish Cope from the State House.) The desire to placate one of the state’s fastest growing employers, MBNA, led to its repeal in 1996.

A third idea Cope thinks policy makers should sign onto is to limit the amount of credit card debt to a percentage of a person’s income. Along with that, Cope feels that there should be laws against sudden increases in interest rates. Creditors should not be “in a position arbitrarily to have you take a credit card and offer you an interest rate of 7.99 percent and then because you are maybe 10 days late suddenly your interest rate has increased to 24.99 percent.”

One problem confronting Cope’s proposals is the emergence of the global economy. It’s no longer possible for Maine to be the leader it was in the consumer regulation field because so much of what both businesses and their customers do transcend state lines. The credit card companies and mail order catalogues that made state-by-state regulation challenging have now been joined by Internet giants, multinational banks and other behemoths that have rendered it impossible.

Whether anyone can do anything about the concerns raised by Cope, one thing is certain, the new Chapter 13 takes effect this October, just in time for Halloween. We will then know better whose trick and whose treat it will become.

Paul H. Mills is a Farmington attorney well known for his analyses and historical understanding of Maine’s political scene. He can be reached by e-mail: [email protected].