look back period

[De Los Muertos]

Does anyone know what the look back period is for property transfers in California?

[HHM]

Do you mean property as in, Real Estate, or property as in personal property?

[De Los Muertos]

Real estate. To a family member if it makes any difference.

[HHM]

If you decide to file BK, and the transfer is to a family member, the BK trustee could conceivably look back 10 years. However, the usual time frame is about 2 years.

[attila]

This is of interest to me. I was instructed to transfer the house completely into my husband's name and we did so in December 2004. The case was not filed until the end of May 2007.

They (attorney / paralegal) did not complete my paperwork correctly according to the attorny at the US Dept of Justice - Office of the Trustee who handled my 2004 Examination (which my attorney did not attend)

[lrprn]

I was instructed to transfer the house completely into my husband's name and we did so in December 2004. The case was not filed until the end of May 2007.

They (attorney / paralegal) did not complete my paperwork correctly according to the attorny at the US Dept of Justice - Office of the Trustee who handled my 2004 Examination (which my attorney did not attend)

How did the USDOJ justify a Rule 2004 examination in your case? Was it only about the property transfer or were there other issues with your case?

[attila]

How did the USDOJ justify a Rule 2004 examination in your case? Was it only about the property transfer or were there other issues with your case?

I was told it was triggered by the fact I was not at the initial 341 hearing as my representative told me not to go. I have had the absolute worst legal advice. My income was an issue and so was the house. The attorney with the USDOJ was not sure how far back the look back would be.

I have contacted the local bar association for a referral to a chpt 13 attorney to discuss my case as most likely this is what my case will be converted to...as my income is an issue tho I recently absorbed a 20% cut in my salary due to school obligations.

The people representing me have told me to get my case dismissed and negotiate with the creditors to pay less than what I owe. Sounds great until you find out that what you don't end up paying results in taxable income. With the size of my debt being in the $55K range...that could be a substantial hit at tax time.

[HenriettaHen]

ahem.

YOUR ATTORNEY TOLD YOU NOT TO ATTEND YOUR 341 HEARING?

[lrprn]

I was told it was triggered by the fact I was not at the initial 341 hearing as my representative told me not to go. I have had the absolute worst legal advice.

Yeeeowwwch! That truly was bad advice. Was your "representative" a bankruptcy lawyer, a non-bankruptcy lawyer, or a paralegal?

I have contacted the local bar association for a referral to a chpt 13 attorney to discuss my case as most likely this is what my case will be converted to...

Good idea. Also take a look online at http://www.martindale.com/ under your state. Here you can see which lawyers are certified in bankruptcy and knowledgeable - certainly enough to know you are 100% REQUIRED to attend your 341 meeting!

The people representing me have told me to get my case dismissed and negotiate with the creditors to pay less than what I owe. Sounds great until you find out that what you don't end up paying results in taxable income. With the size of my debt being in the $55K range...that could be a substantial hit at tax time.

Again, terrible advice - I'm glad you didn't take it.

Hang in there, attila. All is not lost, and happier times are ahead. Be a knowing partner in your filing by learning as much as possible yourself about both chapters of consumer bankruptcy (7 and 13) so you can protect yourself better this next time around. Keep us posted about what happens in your case, ok?

[lrprn]

ahem.

YOUR ATTORNEY TOLD YOU NOT TO ATTEND YOUR 341 HEARING?

Hen, attila explained in another thread that he filed with a paralegal who obviously gave him very bad, stunningly wrong advice.....but that's what can happen when you don't file with a real bk lawyer and don't do your homework to understand how bankruptcy works before filing. Attila said the DOJ is preparing to pay the paralegal a visit to inquire about their practicing law without a license. (Wouldn't want to be that paralegal!)

[HenriettaHen]

I'm caught up to speed now on this doozy of a mistake by a paralegal overstepping the legal limits - thanks, lrprn

Wouldn't want to be that paralegal!

Righto! The party is OVER - The Cows Are Coming Home!

Keep us informed on this one, A. Cliffhanger!

[attila]

Thanks for the support. I hired this guy because he had been recommended by a friend who file BK well before the law changed. I have no excuse for not being better informed except I am too trusting.

I work full time and have been attending college full time (now in graduate school) and so I was trusting that the paralegal and the attorney he was working with were doing their jobs as I had paid a total of $2000 for my fees.

I will update you. Trying to get a referral to a chpt 13 attorney but no response yet form the local state bar certified referral service.

[attila]

contacted two law offices that the referral service gave me numbers for. Upon speaking to one he mentioned that if your equity is too high, in a 13, I will have to pay the entire debt. The DOJ attny said that was not true when I told her what my legal representation had told me about 13's.

So confused...

He also told me the look back period in California is 4 years. Whether that is true or not, I have no idea since I don't know who to trust.

[lrprn]

Upon speaking to one he mentioned that if your equity is too high, in a 13, I will have to pay the entire debt. The DOJ attny said that was not true when I told her what my legal representation had told me about 13's. So confused...

The right answer to this depends on the state you live in and how much of a homestead exemption that state allows.

Attila, you live in California. California has two systems of bankrupty exemptions - when a home is involved, System #1 is the most generous.

According to the Bankruptcy Action website at http://www.bankruptcyaction.com/caexemptions.htm, here's the System #1 home exemption in California:
"Real or personal Property you occupy including a mobile home, boat, stock cooperative, community apartment, planned development or condo to $50,000.00 if single and not disabled; $75,000.00 for families if no other member has a homestead; $150,000 if age 65 or older, or physically or mentally disabled; $100,000 if 55 or older, single and earn under $15,000 or married and earn under $20,000 and creditors seek to force the sale of your home; sale proceeds exempt for 6 months after received (husband and wife may not double the amount and may file a homestead declaration."

Let's say that you own a home worth $300,000 that you owe $260,000 on. That's an equity of $40,000 and that amount is protected under System #1 by the $50,000 exemption. You won't pay any of that money if you file Ch 13.

However if your home is worth $300,000 and you owe $380,000 dollars in mortgages, then you will pay $80,000 (the difference between what you owe and the house's value) and $50,000 (the exemption) = $30,000. If you can't cover the extra $30,000 with other System #1 exemptions, then your trustee could choose to either take your home and sell it for the extra, or ask you to pay the $30,000 difference to keep your home.

So to make things more confusing, both the answers you received have a kernel of truth in them. It all depends on your state's exemptions and how much equity you have in your home.

He also told me the look back period in California is 4 years. Whether that is true or not, I have no idea since I don't know who to trust.

The revised bk law states a lookback of two years to look for fraudulent transfers, but frankly state law often allows a lookback far longer than that. It could be that California's state law sets four years for investigating fradulent transfers.

Frankly if the local or US trustee want to, they can look back 10 years if there's a suspicion of transfer to an illegal trust or the debtor made a deliberate attempt to hide assets.

[HenriettaHen]

Confusion is an honest response, maybe the MOST honest response.

Go from there.

Honest Debtor. ( pssst! that's you! )