What is the point of the 341 meeting if creditors...

[PaKettle]

What is the point of the 341 meeting if the creditors can object any time in the 60 days after it, anyway?

In other words, is there any difference between objections filed AT the 341 meeting, as opposed to objections filed after it, during the 60 day waiting period?

I understand the need to meet with the judge and for him to ask questions to make sure you are you and have you swear to your paper work under oath, at the 341 meeting.

But does it really serve the creditors, in any way, since they can object any time in the 60 days AFTER the meeting? Or in other words, just because you don't get any objections at the 341 meeting does not mean anything, really, right? Because some of them may very well still object after it?

[HHM]

Ok...let's back-up

1. Creditors do not object AT the 341 meeting.
2. You DO NOT meet with the judge (at least, it would be very rare if you did)
3. You meet with the BK trustee.
4. The purpose of the 341 meeting is for the trustee (and your creditors, if they attend) to ask you questions...that is it. The 341 meeting has NO other purpose but for the trustee and creditors (assuming any creditors show) to ask you questions about your petition for BK and the reasons for filing BK).

If a creditor does show-up at the 341 meeting, it would be to ask you questions about the specific account to determine if an objection, from the creditor's perspective, is something they would pursue. For example, if you have a $10,000 cash advance 4 months before filing BK, a creditor might attend the 341 meeting to hear your explanation as for why you took the advance and what it is was used for. Then, during the 60 day objection period, they would weigh that information along with other factors to determine if an objection is appropriate.

[jp2861]

Pa, the 341 is really just a fact finding mission. Swear you in, make sure you understand what you're doing, make sure the paperwork is complete, any changes happened recently, etc. From a money standpoint, it doesn't make sense for a creditor to waste manhours to show up at 5 minute meeting, especially in a no-asset case. I'm sure a creditor has seen enough cases to be able to look at someones history and determine if they're going to attempt a settlement or not, without going to the 341 meeting. If there are substantial assets involved they may show up to ask about them. It seems more like a trustee meeting than a creditors meeting to me.

[SinkingFast]

And possibly to verify that you are a real person??

They do have you show photo ID and SSN. The Trustee does see you live and in person.

Think about it. Without a 341 Meeting, and unscrupulous individual could create identities, run up debts, and file BK's for people who do not exist. Like a form of identity theft as it were.

Just an off the wall thought.

[aa06a47]

As others have said, it is a fact finding mission first and foremost.

Filing Bankruptcy had 3 big fear factors for me...1) talking to an attorney about the situation. 2) Pushing the button to file, and 3) The fear of the dreaded 341 meeting.

I think Congress put it in there to be a major inconvience for people and to weed out fraud. If you never had to see the trustee, I think alot more people would probably file instead of sticking it out living paycheck to paycheck.

[PaKettle]

Ok...let's back-up

1. Creditors do not object AT the 341 meeting.

No, I know that; I meant that they show up to ask questions with an eye towards objecting.

2. You DO NOT meet with the judge (at least, it would be very rare if you did)
3. You meet with the BK trustee.

Right, it's the trustee at the 341 and a judge at the hearing if you go to court on an objection. Again, I was loose with my words, but I knew that.

4. The purpose of the 341 meeting is for the trustee (and your creditors, if they attend) to ask you questions...that is it. The 341 meeting has NO other purpose but for the trustee and creditors (assuming any creditors show) to ask you questions about your petition for BK and the reasons for filing BK).

Okay, I get it, it's just a fact finding mission. So some creditors want to ask questions before filing an objection, and others just object (if they object) without showing up to ask questions.

If a creditor does show-up at the 341 meeting, it would be to ask you questions about the specific account to determine if an objection, from the creditor's perspective, is something they would pursue. For example, if you have a $10,000 cash advance 4 months before filing BK, a creditor might attend the 341 meeting to hear your explanation as for why you took the advance and what it is was used for. Then, during the 60 day objection period, they would weigh that information along with other factors to determine if an objection is appropriate.

I have 2 more questions on this then, this fascinates me because it seems so arbitrary.

In your scenario above, what information would they want to know at the 341 meeting, and why wouldn't they just go ahead and try to settle with you for half their money, if they think you should pay?

It seems to me that in almost any case they would come out ahead by trying for a settlement with you because everyone wants to settle out of court because the bankrupt person cannot afford to pay an attorney to fight it in court. So what is to stop them from just always hitting you up to settle, knowing you can't afford to fight them? Does the judge ever throw out the objection? Do they have to show a certain amount of "evidence" before they can try to settle OR object?

I suppose if they show up at the 341, they would want to know what you used the money for, and whether or not you might have known you were going to file bankruptcy a few months later?

So under what circumstances would your answers make them not want to object or try to settle with you to pay half? If you say,"Well I used it for doctor bills" does that make them less likely to try for getting half back, as opposed to your saying, "I went on vacation?" Why does it matter to them? Either way it seems they can squeeze you into paying back half, no?

Also, (last question) Do creditors ever get together and gang up on you? Let's say you have $40k in balance transfers in the previous 2 years, from 5 banks. Do they ever all get together and say "Let's all try to get half our money back from this guy?"

I'm not talking about a case where there was clear fraud- say a guy took out $30k in cash just before filing. I am talking about cases of cash advances outside of 6 months.

[SinkingFast]

Generally, the only Creditors that show up at the 341 are Locals. The little Mom and Pop appliance/furniture shop type Creditors.

Creditors don't collude. They work LOC by LOC.

The Armani suit and Gucci loafer guy representing Chase/Citi/BoA is not gonna show. He/She'll call your attny with a veiled threat and banter back and forth that way. They're not paid by the billable hour. They get a %'age of what they recover so why scuff the shine on their polished shoes by coming to your 341.

There wasn't one Creditor at our 341 for any of the cases heard that day.

Yes they do offer to settle 99.99% of the time. It's cheaper and faster for everyone concerned. Many times for way lower than half.

Unless, the Creditor is sure of their ground. Then, either you'll pay in full, or you're in for a very expensive and nasty legal battle.

[HHM]

Ok...let's back-up

1. Creditors do not object AT the 341 meeting.

No, I know that; I meant that they show up to ask questions with an eye towards objecting.

Ok, then you should type what you mean...after all you said

is there any difference between objections filed AT the 341 meeting

and even went to the trouble of capitalizing "AT"


In any event...no member of this forum, nor your attorney is a mind reader. No one knows "exactly" whether a creditor will object in a given circumstance. Eventually you have to pull the trigger and let the chips fall where they may.

I think we have addressed your cash advance issue in easily half a dozen different threads by now.

Bottom line...
1. If the cash advance is older than 6 months, the odds of a creditor objection drop dramatically.
2. Even if the creditor approaches you about an objection, that is an opportunity to negotiate a reaffirmation and reduce the amount owed.
3. A creditor objection DOES NOT upset the rest of your BK. The creditor's objection WILL NOT delay your discharge or effect the discharge of any other debt.
4. Worst case scenario, you have to pay back something to these creditors...but in the grand scheme of things, you still recieve a discharge of other debts, so there is still a benefit to declaring BK.

[PaKettle]

[snip]
I think we have addressed your cash advance issue in easily half a dozen different threads by now.

I know. I am beginning to think I am developing a case of OCD about this!

Bottom line...
1. If the cash advance is older than 6 months, the odds of a creditor objection drop dramatically.

This is why I dont' understand my attorney wanting to wait another month on a 10 month old debt!

2. Even if the creditor approaches you about an objection, that is an opportunity to negotiate a reaffirmation and reduce the amount owed.

This is what I don't understand about it. You're filling bankruptcy, the idea of which is to wipe out your debts. So why are creditors allowed to bully you into repayment plans of 50% just because they CAN, by threatening to take you to court which they know you cannot afford to pay to defend yourself? I know you say it seldom happens, but what's to stop them, if they know they can bully you this way?

3. A creditor objection DOES NOT upset the rest of your BK. The creditor's objection WILL NOT delay your discharge or effect the discharge of any other debt.

Well, thank goodness for that, at least!

4. Worst case scenario, you have to pay back something to these creditors...but in the grand scheme of things, you still recieve a discharge of other debts, so there is still a benefit to declaring BK.

Right. I don't doubt that bankruptcy is still a benefit. But I just don't see how they can allow creditors to force you into payment plans. I know this forum isn't about debating the law, but it just sticks in my craw that they can get away with this kind of sh**!
The law oughtta state that if the debt is over 6 months old, they cannot object, period, unless they can prove you still have the money!

[B12]

[QUOTE=PaKettle;116212]I know. I am beginning to think I am developing a case of OCD about this!


Beginning to develop????

LOL Pa, just messing with you.

[HHM]

Well PA...As I recall, your cash advances were quite large...so that may be why your attorney is being more cautious. But note, all I say is that the odds of an objection "drop" after six months, but the chance of an objection doesn't disappear.

Factors such as (1) the amount of the cash advance (2) your financial circumstances at the time the advance was made (3) what you used the advance for (4) how many and what amount of payments you made, all come into play.

As for the bullying...that is not really what happens. Creditors, and their attorneys', still need a good faith basis for coming forward in a BK. Keep in mind, nearly all creditor's attorneys in this context work off commission, so they are not going to waste time or resources on "questionable" cases. Granted, they may "test the waters", but in the end, most creditors attorney's really only pursue sure things. The nice thing about the cash advance being outside the 90/70 day time frame is the creditor has to prove the case against you (so in essence, if the case is "really" weak, you don't really need to defend yourself). If the case is questionable, you can call their bluff and force them to take the case to court.

Case in point, Best Buy...Best Buy talks tough, but in the end, almost never does anything. Granted, Best Buy is a slightly different scenario, they come in threatening to repo your TV (or whatever you bought) if you don't reaffirm, but unless the purchase is very recent, i.e. less than 3 months, they almost never do anything.

[SinkingFast]

PaK,..............

Unless you're under the gun, legally, for a Foreclosure or a Law Suit, it won't hurt to wait.

I know all too well, you're living in limbo right now. BUT,.......... I'd take a cautious attny who waits a bit and gets me thru unscathed over one that rushes in and bungles things.

[demismom]

I'm with SF on this one! Our attorney waited and waited and waited until I thought I was going to be dead and cold in the ground before she filed. Voila - everything was smooth as ice (relatively speaking) and I got discharged already!

[PaKettle]

I'm with SF on this one! Our attorney waited and waited and waited until I thought I was going to be dead and cold in the ground before she filed. Voila - everything was smooth as ice (relatively speaking) and I got discharged already!

Thanks to all for continuing to answer my questions and comments.

Your answers have clarified a lot for me HHM, thank you, and all the others, SF, lrprn, etc.. The mods and everyone on here are really great and thank goodness I found this board in order to have an idea what is going on and not make any bad mistakes.

Sometimes though, I think maybe too much knowledge is a dangerous thing. In my case, knowing "too much" just makes me worry. So I'm going to TRY to cool out and not read or post here as much. I think my attorney has things under control (I'm counting on that, anyway), so I've got to just trust him and let him handle it...

[until I'm in the 60-day club, at least, then I might REALLY be a nervous wreck and have to come here for solace!]