Ch.7 dismissed due to "abuse" AND "totality of circumstances"

[goingcrzy]

Mike-

are you high income or high debt? That is where the UST may pop up.

The UST showed up at our 341 and drilled us -to the point where the reg trustee was getting annoyed that his "schedule" was going to get thrown off.

[mike258]

Mike-

are you high income or high debt? That is where the UST may pop up.

The UST showed up at our 341 and drilled us -to the point where the reg trustee was getting annoyed that his "schedule" was going to get thrown off.

I have high debt.

[goingcrzy]

Is there anything the UST could look at and say if you didn't pay for that you could fund a repayment plan? Such as a high mortgage, high car payment, private school, or anything else that would stick out?

At this point the UST would need to find something "way out there" since he would need to get a judge to take his side on it.

So if you own a boat, the UST may get on your case, but if your expenses are average for your area then you should be ok.

[2manybills]

JB: I thought that too, but the code is vague.

Either way, pretty much if the UST is involved, most folks know prior to or at the 341 hearing don't you think?

[Chowder]

.....with more reasonable car payments there would be money left to fund a 13.

uh huh. If I moved to a cheaper house there'd be more money to pay the sweethearts and Citibank, Chase etc...

Fortunately it don't work that way.

[justbroke]

JB: I thought that too, but the code is vague.

It's not vague to me. While parts of the code are muddy, that section is pretty clear. Plus, there is a lot of caselaw on the topic to boot. I think most people don't read past the "presumption of abuse" in section (b)(1), but go no further to (b)(3) which clearly starts by stating that encompasses in relation to the entire chapter. I think all that junk in (b)(2) -- which we lovingly call the Means Test -- is what stops people from continuing to read. In the end, the UST generally doesn't pull that Ace, the bad faith and totality of circumstances card, unless they need to. As a matter of fact, many forget to include such in their motion to dismiss, and end up losing.

That's why many USTs now add the words "or, in the alternative, under 707(b)(3)(B) for totality of circumstances" to their Motion to Dismiss. Sneaky.

Either way, pretty much if the UST is involved, most folks know prior to or at the 341 hearing don't you think?

Pretty much the UST will let you know if they are interested in your case, one way or another. Usually by the conclusion of the 341 Meeting (the concluded 341 Meeting of Creditors,not the continued ones), you'll know if the UST has taken an interest in your case.

[brokeballer]

It's not being naive. I don't typically judge, but I have much less sympathy for someone with a high income. They aren't experiencing financial difficulty, they simply spent way too much.

Those of us with lower income were just trying to get by, while those with higher income were trying to "keep up with the Jonses"

[justbroke]

Those of us with lower income were just trying to get by, while those with higher income were trying to "keep up with the Jonses"

I don't agree.

As a "well-compensated" individual, I did my best to boost the economy. My downfall was with rental properties (one 3-unit and one single family) while owning my primary residence.

I don't and never owned jet skis, although they looked like fun.

The most luxurious vehicle I ever owned, was a Mercury. I own 2 Ford Focus vehicles (2002 and 2007).

I never went on any expensive vacations.

The most expensive piece of jewelry I own, is a $600 Movado. I own no other jewelry.

What I did do, was be nice to my renters. I charged them below market rents (while I carried the property taxes and repairs). What I did do was employ a leasing company who employed people. What I did do was use various contractor services for maintenance. I stimulated the economy like no other. LOL Another two ventures of mine employed several people full and part-time.

I don't see how that defines a typical highly compensated person. I don't consider myself wealthy, but surely earn a very good salary. However, my salary requires that I represent the company that I work for and myself as a professional. This requires me to wear nicer clothes than what's at Wal*Mart. I may have to entertain clients and colleagues, so I can't necessarily be living in a roach-infested rent-controlled apartment in an undesirable part of town.

Just as I wouldn't purchase my home from a Realtor who showed up in a rusted out Pinto with expired tags and wearing a Mr. T starter gold chain set, baggy jeans hanging off their hips, with Timberline boats on a dry summer day in Florida... my customers wouldn't buy services from me or my company if I looked any different. So, yes, I do wear what I call mid-tier brand-name clothing from places like the Gap and Banana Republic. Yes, I did shop at a few (clothing) stores I shouldn't have.

Sorry.

However, your blanket statement is empty on its merits. Do you know where most new jobs come from? People like me.

[goingcrzy]

uh huh. If I moved to a cheaper house there'd be more money to pay the sweethearts and Citibank, Chase etc...

Fortunately it don't work that way.

That is excatly the argument our UST is using against use. She thinks if we sold our house and moved into something smaller then we could pay back our creditors.

[goingcrzy]

It's not being naive. I don't typically judge, but I have much less sympathy for someone with a high income. They aren't experiencing financial difficulty, they simply spent way too much.

Those of us with lower income were just trying to get by, while those with higher income were trying to "keep up with the Jonses"

Some of it is the area too. I make a ton of money if I lived in the middle of nowhere. I am average for my area. An apartment in my area for a family of four STARTS at 2500 per month (and thats if you don't mind the lead paint)

[backtoschool]

It's not being naive. I don't typically judge, but I have much less sympathy for someone with a high income. They aren't experiencing financial difficulty, they simply spent way too much.

Those of us with lower income were just trying to get by, while those with higher income were trying to "keep up with the Jonses"

You are judging. Why? Do you really think that your insolvency is superior to anyone else's?

For instance, in order to earn a high income, I had to incur over $100,000 of non-dischargable student loan debt that cannot be claimed as an expense on my expense schedule and to which I was paying a monthly payment to the tune of $1,500 a month, money that could not go to other creditors.

Also, my over priced education trained me only to work in a profession that mostly hires in large expensive cities like nyc where my cost of living was five times what it is in the rest of the country, etc....

I could go on, but the point is that there are many circumstances that make people file chapter 7 and your situation is yours and may or may not apply to anyone else's. Why judge? In the end we are all insolvent if we are filing for bankruptcy.

[justbroke]

That is excatly the argument our UST is using against use. She thinks if we sold our house and moved into something smaller then we could pay back our creditors.

That's easy to rebut. There is plenty of caselaw stating that a person's "homestead" is necessary for an effective reorganization and fresh start.

[goingcrzy]

That's easy to rebut. There is plenty of caselaw stating that a person's "homestead" is necessary for an effective reorganization and fresh start.

JB,

that is excactly what we are hoping for!! She just won't back down on this house issue!

[pcn]

It's not being naive. I don't typically judge, but I have much less sympathy for someone with a high income. They aren't experiencing financial difficulty, they simply spent way too much.

Those of us with lower income were just trying to get by, while those with higher income were trying to "keep up with the Jonses"

[bkmaggster]

.