bankruptcy petition preparers - caveat emptor

[FreshLikeADaisy]

Just an FYI for anyone who is thinking about using a BPP anytime soon:

For over a month I have been looking at cases in PACER to prepare for filing pro se, and now that I have filed I am very interested to see what other pro se filings look like. There is a local business paper that publishes all the bk notices, so if I see a pro se filer I'll generally go look up the petition if I have time.

What I have noticed is that, without exception, every single petition filed by a BPP after December 1 that I have seen has gotten a deficiency notice, usually more than one, for filing "forms" that are not the official forms and are so far off the mark the court is rejecting the entire filing in one deficiency notice. Many pre-Dec 1 BPP filers were getting dinged too, but ALL of the post-Dec 1 BPP filers seem to be, at least the ones I have seen, and the court is apparently getting tired of it.

For instance, today I saw a case that was filed pro se the day I did mine, and he only got one deficiency notice:

"The debtor shall file amended petition, schedules, statement of Financial Affairs and/or any other required documentation on corresponding Official Bankruptcy Forms B1 through B24 (Revised 12/07) within (7) seven days."

In other words, he has to redo every single form in his petition, using the new (Dec 1) forms, and do it within 7 days or he faces automatic dismissal. (I should add that for the privilege of having his petition kicked back, he paid the BPP $325.00.)

Until now, the deficiency notices have been for the same reasons, but less drastic, such as:

"The Application and Order to Pay Filing Fee in Installments which you filed on August 5, 2007, does not have a proper caption pursuant to Local Rule 9004−2. Also this application should be filed using Official Form 3A(10/5). You will need to file an amended application with a proper caption on Official Form 3A(10/05)."

Basically, this means: we don't like your format, redo it. (This is text from an actual case; I saw the doc in question and though it had similar wording, it was definitely NOT anything like the official forms. This wasn't the court being picky; it really was not good.)

There was another one I saw a couple weeks ago (I'd quote it if I remembered the specific case, but I don't) where a pro se filer used a BPP, and the forms -- specifically the schedules -- looked NOTHING like the official forms. And of course it got kicked back. How could these BPPs not know?

If I were to guess, I would have to say that these BPPs are just cruising right along with whatever software they were using before the forms changed, either unaware that the filings would be rejected or just not caring. They are definitely notified after the fact, though: each deficiency notice gets mailed to the BPP as well as the debtor, usually the same day the case is filed.

So caveat emptor, folks. Until and unless you know for sure that the BPP you're thinking of using has tools that conform to the latest set of official forms, your filing may very well be kicked back to you with only seven days to correct it and refile. If you are going to use a BPP, you would do well to look through some attorney-filed cases in your area as well as the official forms, so that you at least have a sense of what they should look like.

I've been kind of disgusted with this for a while now, but now that I am seeing EVERY BPP bk I look at kicked out for forms violations (and it's the *entire filing*) I thought I'd let y'all know. Caveat emptor, folks.

[Bankruptcy Atty]

They Can't Keep Up With All The New Law Changes - Both Substance And Forms

Just an FYI for anyone who is thinking about using a BPP anytime soon:

For over a month I have been looking at cases in PACER to prepare for filing pro se, and now that I have filed I am very interested to see what other pro se filings look like. There is a local business paper that publishes all the bk notices, so if I see a pro se filer I'll generally go look up the petition if I have time.

What I have noticed is that, without exception, every single petition filed by a BPP after December 1 that I have seen has gotten a deficiency notice, usually more than one, for filing "forms" that are not the official forms and are so far off the mark the court is rejecting the entire filing in one deficiency notice. Many pre-Dec 1 BPP filers were getting dinged too, but ALL of the post-Dec 1 BPP filers seem to be, at least the ones I have seen, and the court is apparently getting tired of it.

For instance, today I saw a case that was filed pro se the day I did mine, and he only got one deficiency notice:

"The debtor shall file amended petition, schedules, statement of Financial Affairs and/or any other required documentation on corresponding Official Bankruptcy Forms B1 through B24 (Revised 12/07) within (7) seven days."

In other words, he has to redo every single form in his petition, using the new (Dec 1) forms, and do it within 7 days or he faces automatic dismissal. (I should add that for the privilege of having his petition kicked back, he paid the BPP $325.00.)

Until now, the deficiency notices have been for the same reasons, but less drastic, such as:

"The Application and Order to Pay Filing Fee in Installments which you filed on August 5, 2007, does not have a proper caption pursuant to Local Rule 9004−2. Also this application should be filed using Official Form 3A(10/5). You will need to file an amended application with a proper caption on Official Form 3A(10/05)."

Basically, this means: we don't like your format, redo it. (This is text from an actual case; I saw the doc in question and though it had similar wording, it was definitely NOT anything like the official forms. This wasn't the court being picky; it really was not good.)

There was another one I saw a couple weeks ago (I'd quote it if I remembered the specific case, but I don't) where a pro se filer used a BPP, and the forms -- specifically the schedules -- looked NOTHING like the official forms. And of course it got kicked back. How could these BPPs not know?

If I were to guess, I would have to say that these BPPs are just cruising right along with whatever software they were using before the forms changed, either unaware that the filings would be rejected or just not caring. They are definitely notified after the fact, though: each deficiency notice gets mailed to the BPP as well as the debtor, usually the same day the case is filed.

So caveat emptor, folks. Until and unless you know for sure that the BPP you're thinking of using has tools that conform to the latest set of official forms, your filing may very well be kicked back to you with only seven days to correct it and refile. If you are going to use a BPP, you would do well to look through some attorney-filed cases in your area as well as the official forms, so that you at least have a sense of what they should look like.

I've been kind of disgusted with this for a while now, but now that I am seeing EVERY BPP bk I look at kicked out for forms violations (and it's the *entire filing*) I thought I'd let y'all know. Caveat emptor, folks.

FURTHERMORE, IF THEY MAKE A MISTAKE AND YOU LOSE AN ASSET LIKE A HOUSE, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? (AND THIS HAPPENS A LOT) SUE THEM? SUPRISE, THEY HAVE NO ASSETS OR PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE. GO WITH A LOCAL PRO THAT HAS INSURANCE. YOU ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

[CindyLou]

I filed pro se. Never got one deficiency notice (old law). I had a paralegal fill out my paperwork. He did it with me sitting there. Very smooth process! No problems. He said he had been doing it 15 years and had an attorney he could consult if he had questions filling the forms. I trusted him and he did a great job..Smooth sailing.

[FreshLikeADaisy]

(I should note that the cases I am looking at are those filed in the Middle District of Florida; YMMV in other districts.)

Cindy, I'm getting the impression that it's a new tightening down, because of the frequency with which I am now seeing deficiency notices as opposed to before the forms changed, and not an ongoing intolerace of BPPs on the court's part. There are a number of pre-December BPP filings I saw that were not The Official Forms, but looked fairly okay and just got a deficiency notice on one or two items for format, lack of captioning, etc. I'm also in a district that seems pro se friendly in many other respects, so I don't think it's that.

I didn't mention this in my first post, but when I spoke of the filing where the schedules looked nothing like the official forms, I forgot to mention that they honestly looked as though they'd been done in an Excel spreadsheet, especially I & J. While it may have been the exact same wording as in the official form (I don't know; I didn't get all that far up into it ) if I were a clerk or a trustee and I had to look at 50 petitions a day, I'd be kinda torqued too, because anyone looking at it would have had to search for the numbers they were use to seeing in the same place.

You were very lucky to get a good paralegal who had legal help if she needed it; I only wish that had been available when I was first looking into all this. (It may not be; there was a recent crackdown -- like within the last year -- of paralegals being busted for giving what the court decided amounted to "legal advice", even when that "legal advice" was nothing more than handing someone a book.) I ended up choosing to do the forms myself, and I'm so glad I did.

Bk Atty, I had no money to pay an attorney with. None. Much less assets left to protect. So unless you make pro bono work a large part of your practice, could you not ALL CAPS your ad at me? Thanks ever so much.

[FreshLikeADaisy]

It occurred to me that I should make myself clear about something (it may already be, but): It is not my intention to deter anyone who wants to and thinks that they can from filing pro se. Nor is it my intention to deter anyone from using a BPP if they are so inclined. But it is definitely my intention to encourage anyone who wants to use a BPP to ensure they're making the right choice with who they select, and why that's important.

Sorry if that was already clear, but I just wanted to make sure.

[chpxiii]

FLAD, what I got from your post was that any person who was considering a BPP or considering filing pro se, could do just as good a job, if not a BETTER job than a BPP if they simply filed pro se.

After all, no one is going to care more about the bankruptcy filing than the person filing bankruptcy themselves. Not even the person they're paying to fill out forms - all they care about is your money.

Good job!

[FreshLikeADaisy]

FLAD, what I got from your post was that any person who was considering a BPP or considering filing pro se, could do just as good a job, if not a BETTER job than a BPP if they simply filed pro se.

100% agreed. The only thing is that the mechanics of completing the forms (typewriters, fillable forms, Adobe Acrobat, what have you) are damned difficult to come by. The new forms were not fillable PDFs when I pulled them down. If a person has legible handwriting they should be okay. But then there are the people who get all nellie at the sight of a form, and those forms are damned intimidating to begin with. So a person who would otherwise be okay with filing pro se might then decide they needed a BPP.

But not if that BPP is going to file a bk that gets spat out the same day!!!

After all, no one is going to care more about the bankruptcy filing than the person filing bankruptcy themselves.

Man, I am seeing that OVER and OVER and OVER again as I go through all this...

[chpxiii]

But then there are the people who get all nellie at the sight of a form...

I've seen you use the word "nellie" several times on this forum. Cracks me up! I've not used it in a looooooooong time. hehehe

[FreshLikeADaisy]

Many years ago I used to have this friend, a guy who was *very* femme who also used to wring his hands a lot. I mean literally wring his hands. Whenever there was any paperwork in his life, I would get a nervous call from him, come over, and there'd be some form they had to fill out sitting on the table. In front of it he'd be sitting there wringing his hands, and his partner would be standing just over his shoulder, staring at me nervously with one hand slapped up to his cheek and the other arm across his chest holding it all up. Both of em. Wide eyed. Staring at me. Every time I use the word nellie I get that picture in my head.

[chpxiii]

nvm. took it privately.

[FreshLikeADaisy]

Ohhh, yeahhhhhh.