It pays to scrutinize creditor claims!

[greenthinker]

We are in a 100% payback plan, and recently received some GREAT news! At our request, our attorney filed objections to three unsecured proofs of claim. The basis for each objection was insufficient supporting documentation. One of the creditors responded with sufficient documentation, but the other two - our two biggest debts did not! This means that we are off the hook for half of our unsecured debt, and will cut our payments in half!

It definitely helps to police creditor claims, and file an objection if there is a legitimate basis for it. One of those debts was a credit card balance of over $24K, which was legitimate. But, since they failed to respond within the 30 days, they don't get one penny! The other one was a $22K deficiency balance from our boat that we surrendered. That one infuriated us, as we could not believe how low a price they claimed to have auctioned the boat for. The also claimed over $700 in repossession costs even though we made it super easy for the repo company to come and pick up the boat. So, we really feel vindicated that they are not getting a cent!

[frogger]

In a 100% payback plan, I agree that claims should be scrutinized. However, if you're not in a 100% plan, it really does not matter who claims what. The more that is claimed, the better off you are, because that will lead to the discharge of the debts.

Provided a proof of claim has a signature and some sort of documentation attached, no one (except the debtor) really cares about the paperwork. Proofs claimed after the date are often admitted as well.

Remember.... 100% is the key here. Otherwise, bring them on. Let's get every potential claim discharged, even if it is past the statute of limitations or is not properly documented.

[greenthinker]

frogger,

I have some debts for which proofs of claim were never filed, and then these two which had proofs of claim but are being disallowed because they did not respond to our objections. Are you saying that these will not be discharged?

[DebtEnder]

Not sure what Frogger is trying to say here regarding claims and discharge so i'll ignore that for now. However I would think if you are at least paying SOME towards unsecured you should review all claims. Five years is a long time and a lot could happen. What happens if say you end up paying 25% toward unsecured and you made no review of the claims. You end up getting an inheritance, or a large promotion, or yer spouse starts working again, whatever. Now you could pay 100% to the ch13. But now you pay 100% of everything valid or not. If your paying NOTHING to unsecured, and you really have no realistic potential of more income then I would not spend the time, but if your still in a career with vast potential for income changes I would set myself up for best chance of success.

More then a few posts of people here thinking they would end up paying large amounts to unsecured, only to end up in basically 18-24 month plans as creditors never filed, or did not get approved claims.

[frogger]

frogger,

I have some debts for which proofs of claim were never filed, and then these two which had proofs of claim but are being disallowed because they did not respond to our objections. Are you saying that these will not be discharged?

As long as a creditor is notified, they will be discharged.

[frogger]

In a 100% payback plan, I agree that claims should be scrutinized. However, if you're not in a 100% plan, it really does not matter who claims what. The more that is claimed, the better off you are, because that will lead to the discharge of the debts.

Geeze.... I worded that wrong. You want to make sure that everyone is LISTED, and then you don't care if they claim or not. The more that is LISTED, the better off you are.

You want everyone on your mailing matrix regardless of if they are in stats or not. That way, there will be no question of discharge.

Not enough sleep. Sorry for the p-poor information.