PACER update

[blaze]

Can someone tell me what this means - found on PACER today filed by US trustee

Order that this case is not subject to dismissal under 521(i)(1). (mjs, )

[MomIcantFindmy]

What it means is that there were some missing documents in your BK filing (Possibly pay stubs?) However it looks like they can ignore what ever was missing and not dismiss your case for it. I would ask your attorney though. I found this:
__________________________________________________ ___________________

Section 521(i)(1) requires dismissal of a case only upon failure to file all of the information contained in the documents that the debtor must provide. However, the court noted to the extent that the most recent pay stub incorporated all of the information that would be reflected in pay stubs issued over 60 days, it was possible to avoid dismissal despite a failure to file every payment advice.
__________________________________________________ _____________________
Hope this helps...

[FreshLikeADaisy]

Blaze, ditto on getting in touch with your atty. He/she should be able to contact the UST or your trustee directly and get more info on what is lacking, if it hasn't happened already.

Obviously, something's missing, even though it's not enough to get your case dismissed. The trick is to find out what they want, and address it *quickly* and thoroughly. That generally resolves the problem and speeds things up. But whatever you do, don't ignore it or let it go; definitely ask the atty what it means, what he/she plans to do about it, and then keep track of it as best you can to ensure that your side doesn't drop the ball.

It may very well be something stupid -- a *duh!* sort of omission in your documentation -- but if your atty doesn't find out what it is and provide it, then it does become important.

And if it IS a lack of paystubs, you can get reprints via the company's HR dept whether you still work there or not. I'd provide the paystubs anyway just to cover my a$$, but I'm overly careful anyhow.

Good luck to you!!!

[blaze]

why does it say this case is NOT subject to dismissal then? there has been nothing to indicate that it WOULD be dismissed so why are they posting something saying it won't?? If we had failed to file something wouldn't they have had to file something saying we had deficient filing? In the beginning we got a letter saying we had deficient filing b/c they did not have our pay advices - we filed that and that is it. We have not recieved anything else. So wouldn't something like that show up again if we were still missing something? I faxed my attny what I found today and he said it is nothing - nothing out of the ordinary - made is sound liek it was a good thing? I am confused. They have not reqested anything further - Our 341 went fine - trustee filed notice of no distribution - our reaffs are finally filed our counseling is filed - I think everything has beendone. The longer explanation of this refers to 11 U.S.C. 521 (i)(2) and 521 (a)(1)(B) - where can I look this up and what is the 521?

[FreshLikeADaisy]

Blaze, I'm not your atty, I don't know your specifics. I can only assume from what you posted, and the law reference you gave, that there's something missing BUT they decided it wasn't important. Me, I'd find out what it is regardless, and I'd pester whoever I had to pester until I did. You, well, do whatever you feel like you need to do.

Here's the link to Title 11 if you want to look up those sections of the law yourself:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode11//usc_sup_01_11.html

[blaze]

Thanks for that link - I read through it and did not see anything that applies to me that I can tell. The order goes on to read "No party in interest has filed a request for an order of dismissal pursuant to 11 USC 521(i)(2)" I couldnot find that subsection. But I wonder if this something that just gets filed routinely when there is no cause for dismissal? I will pester my attny again tomorrow and ask him more about it - but in the meantime I would just appreciate hearing from anyone who might have seen this on their BK docket too and what it meant for them. I do realize that posters on this site are not attny's and all I am ever looking for here is people with similar experiences - not legal advice!

[FreshLikeADaisy]

Actually, I was thinking about it more later on, and it occurred to me that it may well have been the paystubs that you filed, but apparently submitted late? Not sure from what you wrote, but that could generate such a notice as you got, as "payment notices" are non-negotiable as far as the law is concerned; if it was recorded somewhere that they were not submitted, but then were, this would be a likely reason for the notice you got. Glad you decided to pester someone about it. And no, it's NOT a routine thing at all that everyone who's not getting dismissed receives.

On a different matter, if you go back and look at the *tone* of your response to me, with all the caps and multiple question marks and exclamation points, I think you'll see why I needed to clarify that point about not being your atty: you seemed to be DEMANDING an specific explanation from me that I could not possibly have: I don't know your case, your atty, your trustee, your circumstances.... nothing but what you tell me.

I know that you are frustrated and you want answers, but if in the future you receive answers to your posts that you find unsatisfactory, it may be beneficial to tone down your responses. I didn't create your problems, and I won't answer for them. All I -- or anyone -- can do is try to help when we feel we have a tidbit that might be useful to you. If I write something that's just not helpful to you for whatever reason, please try not to pin my ears back for it. Thanks.

[blaze]

Just frustrated in that post I guess - not at you even if it did seem that way. I think you may be right about the pay stubs b/c way early on we got a notice saying we'd be dismissed if we did not submit them - we did that the next week but I guess maybe this is just now showing up as we approach the end. Thanks again!

[AngelinaCatHub]

Blaze, all of us have either been there, or are there. Don't worry about most if not all of us understanding your frustration. To me, I'm in worse shape. To you, you are. It is all perspective. I come here not only to get VERY good information, but the catharsis of sympathy, as well as seeing others going before and after me in the same misery proves that I am not quite off my rocker...........yet.

Your previous poster, is one of the finest people with information and my respect for 'Daisy is great. Stay calm, act in a timely way, stay calmer, and insist your lawyer explain. It seems a common thread that some of these bk lawyers as many teachers who teach the same thing over and over, expect a novice to know it all. I am now getting better than my attorney as I have a vested interest. She only needs to make my money. So, we are all in the same boat. Thank God we are in this country as debtor's prison does not exist here. I would get my hundred years.

[FreshLikeADaisy]

Blaze, no problem.

And ACH, thanks for the props.

I wish you both every success!!!