Originally posted by TooMuchCredit
View Post
top Ad Widget
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Just back from 341 Meeting...didn't go so well
Collapse
X
-
-
I have a comment and a question. It seems that appraisals do indeed run higher than the true value. I just had a licensed appraiser complete one on my house. He states that our house is worth 415K (county assessed at 433K). Interestingly, a top local broker did a CMA and states that she cannot sell our house for a dime more than $330K and would not consider marketing our house for more than $350K. Also my second trust holder just told me that they ordered an appraisal that came in at $330K. Being that our 1st trust is $369K, we were hoping that we could do a lien strip in 13. Interesting that the 2nd trust holder at $189K and most likely to lose something were upfront about their appraisal at $330K. I am trying to negotiate a principal curtailment/rate reduction right now with them - hoping that one way or the other it will work out. I am current on my first and behind on my second.
The Appraiser seems to be out of touch (the comps he used were not that great in my opinion). He also didn't take into account anything for condition, improvements, intended use, or outbuildings. I am pretty upset about it but what can I do? The district I am in requires an appraisal and not a BOP. He seemed insulted when I mentioned it to him and stated that it was his "opinion of value". Not sure if I can debate that with him...he implied that he was untouchable in terms of his opinion and that he didn't really care what I or my Realtor thought or if he was even in the ballpark. I haven't paid his bill yet so we will see about that. Any advice on best next steps anyone?
We have not filed and are not in a giant rush to file so would like to get this "right". My attorney hasn't been a ton of help on this as he is waiting on income data from my husband....so still things up in the air (more to this part of the story not relevant to the appraisal/value question).
Comment
-
Well, appraisers are not all equal. There are appraisers that are experienced and can adjust to the marketplace and their are others that just have many years in the business, but do not possess the necessary skills to do a quality appraisal.
It is especially interesting that the Realtor, and the 2nd lien holder both have determined the value at $330k and this appraiser has come in so much higher. The comps are the basis of any good appraisal, so if the appraiser was using bad comps - its a function of his skill level.
I certainly would not use a bad appraisal for your Ch 13. Get another one.Filed CH 7 9/30/2008
Discharged Jan 5, 2009! Closed Jan 18, 2009
I am not an attorney. None of my advice is legal advice in any way..
Comment
-
Well, I got a response from my lawyer. As some as you said, now is not the time to panic
He says those objections were the trustee wanting more money paid into the plan. Apparently, the trustee wants some or all of the 5% I am contributing to my 401K, and my entertainment expense. I am not really comfortable giving up my 401K contribution. From reading here it varies from district to district their take on it. Here it appears they only allow it if it is mandatory.
It seems to me that this district puts more weight on Sched J than B22C. Since I am over median, B22C should be the final say on DMI, so I think there's a ceiling on what they can ask for. Disallowing my 401K contribution sends alot more to the unsecureds.
My attorney says if the trustee doesn't agree, it can all be argued in front of the judge. I think I can squeeze tad more out of my budget and maybe go along with taking some of my 401K contribution.
I hate the uncertainty.March 2009 - Filed Ch 13 April 2009 - 341 Meeting
Sept 2009 - Confirmed April 2014 Plan completed May 2014 - Discharged!!
Comment
-
This is actually a really good thread, despite the title!
Having wrote that, there are Trustees who will automatically object to any Plan which pays less than 70% to unsecured creditors. I have actually read this in a Mid-West Trustee guidebook!!! Trustees are there to squeeze you.
As HHM wrote earlier, the Trustee can object all they want, but a Judge is the final arbiter of what Plan gets approved. If you are basing it on B22C and feel it's good (even with $75 on a Schedule I/J), then go for it. Of course, your lawyer is your best resource for determining what the most prudent course of action is based on your Trustee and District.
For me, the $600/month car was a non-starter to begin with. If you're over $489/month and not paying 100% to unsecureds, you should expect a bad faith objection. If your lawyer didn't explain that to you... well... maybe he just missed it.
For the other things, I would fight the Trustee. Again, some of them just object to anything under a certain percentage... and I think that's unfair.Chapter 7 (No Asset/Non-Consumer) Filed (Pro Se) 7/08 (converted from Chapter 13 - 2/10)
Status: (Auto) Discharged and Closed! 5/10
Visit My BKForum Blog: justbroke's Blog
Any advice provided is not legal advice, but simply the musings of a fellow bankrupt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by justbroke View PostThis is actually a really good thread, despite the title!
Having wrote that, there are Trustees who will automatically object to any Plan which pays less than 70% to unsecured creditors. I have actually read this in a Mid-West Trustee guidebook!!! Trustees are there to squeeze you.
As HHM wrote earlier, the Trustee can object all they want, but a Judge is the final arbiter of what Plan gets approved. If you are basing it on B22C and feel it's good (even with $75 on a Schedule I/J), then go for it. Of course, your lawyer is your best resource for determining what the most prudent course of action is based on your Trustee and District.
For me, the $600/month car was a non-starter to begin with. If you're over $489/month and not paying 100% to unsecureds, you should expect a bad faith objection. If your lawyer didn't explain that to you... well... maybe he just missed it.
For the other things, I would fight the Trustee. Again, some of them just object to anything under a certain percentage... and I think that's unfair.
No reliable car, no job. No job, have to convert to Ch. 7 and no one gets paid, not even the 24-25% currently proposed.
If all they are seeking is the difference in the $489 allowance and the ctual payment, then maybe I will consider giving up part of my 401K contribution to save the hassle and not have to find a clunker at 24% interest.March 2009 - Filed Ch 13 April 2009 - 341 Meeting
Sept 2009 - Confirmed April 2014 Plan completed May 2014 - Discharged!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by TooMuchCredit View Post...maybe I will consider giving up part of my 401K contribution to save the hassle and not have to find a clunker at 24% interest.
You can hang out without being confirmed while your lawyer wrangles with your trustee. It won't change your payments until a final decision is made, and due to the existence of case law protecting your right to keep contributing to your 401K during an active 13, it's definitely worth fighting your trustee on this one. Don't just settle!
We didn't settle when we had the very same 401K contributions objection from our trustee when we filed our 13 - and guess who won when the judge decided? We did!I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice nor a statement of the law - only a lawyer can provide those.
06/01/06 - Filed Ch 13
06/28/06 - 341 Meeting
07/18/06 - Confirmation Hearing - not confirmed, 3 objections
10/05/06 - Hearing to resolve 2 trustee objections
01/24/07 - Judge dismisses mortgage company objection
09/27/07 - Confirmed at last!
06/10/11 - Trustee confirms all payments made
08/10/11 - DISCHARGED !
10/02/11 - CASE CLOSED
Countdown: 60 months paid, 0 months to go
Comment
-
If trustee didnt recommend dismissal on your case then your ok, just provide whatever documents trustee wants to see. Also trustee is objecting about the recreation expense because trustee thinks that if your behind in payments then you shouldnt be spending money on that but save it so you could have money to pay the plan payment. About your home equility lines you should probaby tell your lawyer to do a motion to strip or an adversary proceeding, it all depends on what are the requirements for the judges.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TooMuchCredit View PostIf all they are seeking is the difference in the $489 allowance and the ctual payment, then maybe I will consider giving up part of my 401K contribution to save the hassle and not have to find a clunker at 24% interest.
Many Trustees are hypertechnical when it comes to allowances. Mine seems more down to earth, but I keep hearing on this board where people, like you, get grief over 401(k) contributions, when the new law clearly allows it!!! Don't give up on your 401(k) just yet. Even if you gave part of it back to the plan, the Trustee still won't let you keep that car, AND, the Trustee will still get more money.Chapter 7 (No Asset/Non-Consumer) Filed (Pro Se) 7/08 (converted from Chapter 13 - 2/10)
Status: (Auto) Discharged and Closed! 5/10
Visit My BKForum Blog: justbroke's Blog
Any advice provided is not legal advice, but simply the musings of a fellow bankrupt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by justbroke View PostYou seem to have what they call "textbook" Trustees in your District. The only way you're keeping the $600/month car, is to pay all unsecured creditors who file an allowed claim, at 100%. It doesn't make sense and is counterintuitive (with the whole job thing), but they don't think that way.
Many Trustees are hypertechnical when it comes to allowances. Mine seems more down to earth, but I keep hearing on this board where people, like you, get grief over 401(k) contributions, when the new law clearly allows it!!! Don't give up on your 401(k) just yet. Even if you gave part of it back to the plan, the Trustee still won't let you keep that car, AND, the Trustee will still get more money.
still not sure if I'll be pushed into a Ch-13 yet. consultation was based on income at the time, and it's less now and still reducing.Stopped Paying CC's 2/2009. Retained Attorney 1/10/2010 Filed 1/23/2010. Discharged 5/19/10 $187K CC, $240K 2nd,$417K 1st, No asset Ch-7
Comment
-
Originally posted by albacore44 View PostNow let's say his car payment was $489 or less, could the trustee gripe about that ?? The 1st attourney I consulted, and he was a good one, reccomended I buy a car, so I could get the $489 deduction.
The (IRS) allowance gives $489 per car (nationally) for the ownership costs. I kept a car, because the payments (spread over my plan duration -- of 60 months -- combined with the cram down) were $203/month. However, form B22C allows me $489 for the car. that's $286 more to me, and not my disposable monthly income (DMI). Trust me, I went through this many times, trying to get the optimal (lowest) DMI and money in my budget. If I had given up the car, it would be $489 to the unsecured creditors and less money in the monthly budget ($286 to be exact).
As I'm sure HHM would concur, this is where a good lawyer who knows how to maximize your budget in a Chapter 13 really goes far. I didn't use a lawyer personally, but I figured out how to maximize my budget quickly. I did this because I created my own B22C spreadsheet (which is actually more complex than B22C), that gave me the ability to do what-if scenarios (like what if I surrender the/a car).
The first attorney you consulted with was smart. I bet he said to buy a car that would cost $300 or less a month so you could get the $489!
(And all of the assumptions in this post are for an above median income petitioner/debtor.)Chapter 7 (No Asset/Non-Consumer) Filed (Pro Se) 7/08 (converted from Chapter 13 - 2/10)
Status: (Auto) Discharged and Closed! 5/10
Visit My BKForum Blog: justbroke's Blog
Any advice provided is not legal advice, but simply the musings of a fellow bankrupt.
Comment
-
Yeah, It was wink.....wink, this is what you should do. But I'm still confused about about the mortgage payment issue that HMM posted. I did not see any guide lines that limited you to a certain amount for a mortgage payment. Mabee i missed it.Stopped Paying CC's 2/2009. Retained Attorney 1/10/2010 Filed 1/23/2010. Discharged 5/19/10 $187K CC, $240K 2nd,$417K 1st, No asset Ch-7
Comment
-
Originally posted by albacore44 View PostYeah, It was wink.....wink, this is what you should do. But I'm still confused about about the mortgage payment issue that HMM posted. I did not see any guide lines that limited you to a certain amount for a mortgage payment. Mabee i missed it.
For all cases, Congress and the Bankruptcy Code indicate that a persons residence is necessary for an effective reorganization of the debtor. That plainly means... that the (BK) Court and the Trustees are not to question a debtor's need to keep their residence. However, Trustees can bring a bad faith objection when the residence has severe negative equity (is underwater) and the debtor is desiring to keep it, while unsecured creditors are paying the penalty.
I'm a perfect case for "necessary for effective reorganization of the debtor". If I didn't keep my house, I'd be in a 100% plan. However, I had no objections (bad faith) as I stripped the second and I'm only 5% in negative equity on my home! However, if I couldn't strip my second, I'd be 30% negative, and I'm sure a bad faith objection would have come about! (But, alas, I'm smart enough to know, not to have kept it without the lien strip.)Chapter 7 (No Asset/Non-Consumer) Filed (Pro Se) 7/08 (converted from Chapter 13 - 2/10)
Status: (Auto) Discharged and Closed! 5/10
Visit My BKForum Blog: justbroke's Blog
Any advice provided is not legal advice, but simply the musings of a fellow bankrupt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by justbroke View PostThere are no guidelines for mortgage payments.
For all cases, Congress and the Bankruptcy Code indicate that a persons residence is necessary for an effective reorganization of the debtor. That plainly means... that the (BK) Court and the Trustees are not to question a debtor's need to keep their residence. However, Trustees can bring a bad faith objection when the residence has severe negative equity (is underwater) and the debtor is desiring to keep it, while unsecured creditors are paying the penalty.
I'm a perfect case for "necessary for effective reorganization of the debtor". If I didn't keep my house, I'd be in a 100% plan. However, I had no objections (bad faith) as I stripped the second and I'm only 5% in negative equity on my home! However, if I couldn't strip my second, I'd be 30% negative, and I'm sure a bad faith objection would have come about! (But, alas, I'm smart enough to know, not to have kept it without the lien strip.)Stopped Paying CC's 2/2009. Retained Attorney 1/10/2010 Filed 1/23/2010. Discharged 5/19/10 $187K CC, $240K 2nd,$417K 1st, No asset Ch-7
Comment
-
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).filed chapter 13..confirmed...converted to chapter 7...DISCHARGED!
Comment
bottom Ad Widget
Collapse
Comment