Preplanning question.

[SamanthaJones]

I'd maybe like to keep a rental property. If so, I would be ineligible for 7, that leaves 13. If I keep my income to the bare minimum, can I file 13 to keep the rental (and my own house), while having NO payment? I have heard of 13 filers actually ending up paying nothing, since their disposable income would have been under $100, or one of the other payback criteria? This particular rental house almost pays for itself, and I like it. The other are upside down, and I don't like the tenants, and would be happy happy happy to surrender them. Comments, experiences with low or no 13 payments? I have heard it's possible for the trustee to abandon a rentaal if it would not make money, and that is the case here also- but I think filing 13 would be a better chance of keeping the good rental?

[HHM]

I thought in earlier threads you said you had NO income. So which is it?

Instead of asking questions here and there and posting little facts in different threads, why don't you just lay out your situation in whole.

What is your income (from what source)
What debts, secured, unsecured etc.
Are you behind on any payments to any creditors, if so, to whom, and how much.
What are your total expense (we do not need an itemized list).
Do you share your expenses with anyone.
Marital status.
What state do you live in.
etc.

[bige1030]

Assuming your rental properties are nonexempt (which is most likely), you have no chance at a 0% plan if you want to keep one or more of them. In fact, you have to pay into the plan an amount that is at least the value of your equity in your property - your creditors have to do at least as well in 13 as they would have in 7.

As for keeping your house, we can't tell you anything unless we know what state you live in (or, if you moved in the past 2 years, your previous state).

[no_it_all]

I have heard of 13 filers actually ending up paying nothing

Can you point me to a case? TIA

[keepmine]

Assuming the OP means a 0% payback to unsecured creditors, not unusual. I've seen a few like that. Here's one with just a 1% payback.

http://www.bankruptcyforum.com/showthread.php?t=12511

[SinkingFast]

It is possible to have a Ch 13 plan with 0% payback to Unsecureds. Secureds and Priority Creditors are paid at 100% of the arrears owed and nothing to CC's.

I've personally seen a plan like that on PACER. The people owed back payments on their house and a car, and owed back taxes on their home. They were under the Median so their attny structured their plan payments to pay,.........

The attny and the Trustee's %'age, the arrears on the house and car, and the back property taxes. Unsecureds were/are getting 0%.

But a Ch 13 plan with $0/mo paid,.......... That's not Ch 13,......... That's Ch 7.

[bige1030]

I was going to do a 13 with 0% to unsecured creditors, and my lawyer said I could do a plan with 0% interest to my lone secured creditor. But then, after doing my own research, I figured that it wouldn't fly with the Supreme Court because it's a minority opinion, and they probably would repeat their Till line of reasoning. (I figure that the auto loan creditors would appeal it until they got a favorable ruling because they could lose a *ton* of money if they had to let debtors pay 0% in 13.) That was one reason why I converted...since I figured I'd probably end up having to pay the Till rate, and I'd end up paying more than I would in a 7 with a reaff.

So yeah, it's definitely possible to have a 0% to unsecureds plan, depending on your district, attorney, and debt load. (You'd have to have a lot of secured debt in order to pull that off...basically enough to eat up most or all of your disposable income.)