don't get the logic though....My 5 year BK13 plan pays 51% (~$50K) of my total creditors. I thought that was pretty high. (Oh well, that's what happens when you go pro se!). But, here's the part I really don't get. If I 'give' the trustee $50K now, why would she impose the general rule that if I do a BK buy-out before 36mos., I would have to pay 100% of my total debt? I mean, if I do the full 5 year plan, she 'only' gets $50K. And, if I buy-out the BK13 now, she still only gets $50K...no diff as far I'm concerned. Why discourage me NOT to pay off a 5 year plan that I have statistically speaking, only a 75%chance of completing?
In other words, wouldn't you take the $50K lump sum, if your were the trustee? What am I missing here? I mean, if she says, I'm going to have to pay $100K to get out of it now, of course I'm not going to go for it. She incurs more risk than me, since she has no idea if I'm going to complete the 5 year plan or something like my 2 year ARM kicks in and I ask for a change in my plan such as a reduction (I know, it never happens, but hey, something has to give if your mortgage goes up $300/mo., like mine just did).
In other words, wouldn't you take the $50K lump sum, if your were the trustee? What am I missing here? I mean, if she says, I'm going to have to pay $100K to get out of it now, of course I'm not going to go for it. She incurs more risk than me, since she has no idea if I'm going to complete the 5 year plan or something like my 2 year ARM kicks in and I ask for a change in my plan such as a reduction (I know, it never happens, but hey, something has to give if your mortgage goes up $300/mo., like mine just did).
Comment