Just back from 341 Meeting...didn't go so well

[Dizzy]

It's all about strategy. Plus, those two "missed" payments, you can use for other "necessities" like stocking up on food, getting medical work done, getting new clothing, fixing a car, etc.

He's smart, but I've never heard of a lawyer actually giving "constructive" ways to save money in your Chapter 13. Most skirt around the issues.

But isn't it true that you aren't allowed to have any money put back or is that just in a 7?

[TooMuchCredit]

Update:
Had my motion to value hearing today. 2nd mortgage had filed responses to the motion and Objection to discharge, but did not show up at the hearing so the Motion was granted. So it is essentially on the way to being stripped when I finish my 5 year plan.

Yippie!!

Ok, shouldn't I see something on PACER regarding the motion being granted? Maybe it takes a while to show up...

Just want to make sure it doesn't get missed and won't get reversed ;-)

[justbroke]

By that you mean they can argue about the amounts entered. I.E. Medical expenses, etc.? I understand that part. But if you have proof of all of the expenses, they really can't demand you pay more than the DMI indicates. That would seem to be 'bad faith' on their part :-)

Yes they can, and here's why.

What if you are in a 1,200 sq ft home and you're using $600/month in electricity. The average home is 1,500 sq ft and uses $200/month in electricity. The Court can say that you are using an unreasonable amount and need to use less electricity.

Just because your payments are higher, doesn't mean that you're entitled to have them accepted as allowed... just because you can document it with bills. Now take the same electric bill, but the person has a child that's on a heart lung machine (that uses lots of electricity). That's a different case than the single guy using $600/month in electricity for no apparent reason.

[TooMuchCredit]

I concur and there is much caselaw on this.

By that you mean they can argue about the amounts entered. I.E. Medical expenses, etc.? I understand that part. But if you have proof of all of the expenses, they really can't demand you pay more than the DMI indicates. That would seem to be 'bad faith' on their part :-)

[justbroke]

B22C is regarded as "merely a starting point", especially for above median cases. Several courts have taken that opinion, as we were also pushed that way.

I concur and there is much caselaw on this.

[13inIN]

B22C is SUPPOSED to govern the DMI in above median cases, so probably can fight whatever they argue about on sched. J.

Just the opposite is what I found in my year+ of objections, hearings, etc.

B22C is regarded as "merely a starting point", especially for above median cases. Several courts have taken that opinion, as we were also pushed that way.

[f86sabjf]

definitely get a new appraisal . My house is now worth 80,000 .A year ago it was sitting at 195,000

[justbroke]

Well, this is what my attorney told me in 2007 when we were filing, so I guess it hadn't been hashed out yet, I thought at the time it was horrible that the attorneys couldn't give good advice to clients, glad to know it got fixed since then!

Excellent. That's what I figured and wrote...

Your lawyer is not up on the law or you are remembering something he told you 2 years ago!

Most attorneys ignored that dumb "debt relief agency" stuff anyhow. However, much of this was "fixed" (litigated) in 2007, although the wording int he Code is still there... it was found to be unconstitutional if applied to attorneys.

[woeisme]

Well, this is what my attorney told me in 2007 when we were filing, so I guess it hadn't been hashed out yet, I thought at the time it was horrible that the attorneys couldn't give good advice to clients, glad to know it got fixed since then!

Your lawyer is misinformed or not up to date on the BAPCPA.

Your lawyer is not up on the law or you are remembering something he told you 2 years ago!

[justbroke]

Update:
Had my motion to value hearing today. 2nd mortgage had filed responses to the motion and Objection to discharge, but did not show up at the hearing so the Motion was granted. So it is essentially on the way to being stripped when I finish my 5 year plan.

Yippie!!

Congratulations on your lien strip!

[TooMuchCredit]

Update:
Had my motion to value hearing today. 2nd mortgage had filed responses to the motion and Objection to discharge, but did not show up at the hearing so the Motion was granted. So it is essentially on the way to being stripped when I finish my 5 year plan.

Yippie!!

[catleg]

the guy I consulted also said I should miss a couple of mortgage payments to throw those into the plan so there was less for the unsecured. I almost messed my pants, since I have never been late on the mortgage, and the thought of that floored me. I can understand the strategy now

I can see where this would make sense, but this whole thing already has my wife stressed out to the max, if I skipped the mortgage payment she would have kittens! :-)

[catleg]

Some of these trustees must really be smoking some good dope.
What's the point of doing a ch13 if you're going to lose your house AND car??
Might as well just quit working and file a chapter7.
Just remember, this is just a prelude to negotiation.
In the ranking of things i'd like my plan payments to go towards, I'd still rather spend money on the lawyer than the unsecured creditors. Adversary proceeding? Bring it on. My lawyer gets paid out of plan assets also, correct? Meaning the BK estate is paying for the lawyer ultimately (he says, hoping to hear someone say this is true).

I learned last night that what I thought about lawyers fees is not really true.
In particular, if you have an upside-down car loan, the attorney has to get in line behind the car lender, so if you don't complete the plan he doesn't get paid!
Interesting reading, might come into play for some of you if you are in that situation.

[justbroke]

My lawyer told me flat out that it was against the new BK laws for a lawyer to recommend that a client take on any new debt while considering a BK filing.

Your lawyer is misinformed or not up to date on the BAPCPA.

The questionable part was whether an attorney or firm was a debt relief agency or not. This has been hashed out and was found to a.) never have been Congress' intent to make your attorney or a BK firm a debt relief agency and b.) never meant to apply to attorneys. It was found to be unconstitutional when applied to attorneys or law firms.

Your lawyer is not up on the law or you are remembering something he told you 2 years ago! Most Districts found those "Debt Relief Agency" provisions to be unconstitutional when applied to a BK lawyer and/or his firm.

Yes, I read all that caselaw because it was interesting. Have your lawyer look at this citation...

If BAPCPA’s debt relief agency sections apply to attorneys, it means Congress has taken upon itself the authority to determine the advice attorneys can give their clients and what attorney advertisements must say, thereby infringing on the state’s traditional role of regulating attorneys. See Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438, 442 (1979) (“Since the founding of the Republic, the licensing and regulation of lawyers has been left exclusively to the States.”)
.
.
.


(Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz v. United States, Case No. 05-cv-2626 (D. Minn. December 7, 2006))

[woeisme]

My lawyer told me flat out that it was against the new BK laws for a lawyer to recommend that a client take on any new debt while considering a BK filing. So while this lawyer may be doing something in his client's best interests, it's my understanding that he is also doing something prohibited by law if advising clients to increase their debts, even if it is to their advantage, like buying a car would be.