OMG Please help!

[MSbklawyer]

Something doesn't quite make sense: Why would you sign a reaffirmation agreement if you were in a 13? Reaffirmations only occur in chapter 7. In a 13, you don't reaffirm. There's no need to. You put the debt into the plan, or state in the plan that you are paying the debt outside the plan.

[aces67]

Hopefully it will all work out in your favor at the end. But please keep us posted. This is unusual.

I suspect if your lawyer and the car people can not agree, it will go before a judge to determine if the reaffirmation is valid or not. Hopefully the car finance company will just back down and be done with this.

That's what I'm hoping also. I just want this over with. This is our last hurdle and then we really will be FREE.

My lawyer said the finance company thinks they are right b/c they don't realize that our case was converted from a 7 to a 13 and then back again. He said the conversion is what they don't get and he's going to point it out to them.

[NoMoreCards]

Hopefully it will all work out in your favor at the end. But please keep us posted. This is unusual.

I suspect if your lawyer and the car people can not agree, it will go before a judge to determine if the reaffirmation is valid or not. Hopefully the car finance company will just back down and be done with this.

[aces67]

Okay here's the timeline:

12/06- Chapter 7 filed
01/07- reaffirmation signed with HSBC Auto
03/07- UST converted case to a 13
04/09 - Converted back to a 7 due to loss in dh's income

Now my lawyer says when the case was initially converted from a 7 to a 13 that the reaffirmation that we signed and then voided. Once we converted back to a 7 a new should have been signed and since it wasn't we aren't responsible.

The problem is HSBC disagrees so we have to wait on our lawyer to argue this point with them. I feel like my lawyer is probably correct b/c when we signed the reaffirmation with HSBC in January of 07 we also signed one with our mortgage company. BUT in July of this year our mortgage company said that we HAD to sign a new one b/c the old one was not legally binding anymore since the case was converted.

In the meantime my lawyer says I should keep making my payments but I think instead I will just save that money and see what happens. If the lawyers can't agree then what happens? My lawyer said he wasn't really sure what would happen but he feels that he is right and once he sends them all the documents they will see that he is right also.

What a mess.

[aces67]

I also am converting to a 7 from a 13 due to my decrease in income... How was the process? we are going to our 341 tomorrow and was just wondering what they asked? and was it a simple process? thanks ahead for any input you could give us! I wish I had some adivce to you pertaining to your car.

Really it wasn't bad at all. It would have been easier if I had picked a better lawyer. The problems we did have were due to my lawyer making mistakes.

[nulifeahead]

I also am converting to a 7 from a 13 due to my decrease in income... How was the process? we are going to our 341 tomorrow and was just wondering what they asked? and was it a simple process? thanks ahead for any input you could give us! I wish I had some adivce to you pertaining to your car.

[aces67]

IF you mean did we sign a new reaffirmation agreement no we didn't. What happened was when we initially filed in December of 06 he filed it as a 7. So we signed the reaffirmation. Then before it ever went to a judge the UST converted us to a 13 so my lawyer said it would not go to a judge. Then dh's income dropped dramatically and my lawyer refiled in April of this year as a 7. We DID not sign anything else pertaining to my car at that time. My lawyer said not to and that way we wouldn't be legally liable for the debt.

Now HSBC is saying he's wrong and even though this agreement was never signed by a judge it's legally binding and we'll responsible for defiiciency's and repo costs. I'm so confused. I asked my lawyer about this stupid car at least 5 times before our discharge.

[AngelinaCatHub]

When we initially signed them we were in a 13. Then our lawyer modified and refiled it as a 7 in April of 2009. The reaffirmation was signed in January of 2007 and it was never signed by a judge.

I am not sure it needs to be signed by a Judge. It can be denied by a Judge. However, right now, you squabble is with your lawyer. IF he gave you bad advice, you need to address this.

Now, a C7 is certainly different, as well as in a 13 you can afford but by time, in a 7 you cannot afford at all. Your lawyer may be correct. I admit, I don't know, but this conversion is just like a new action and the rules may change. Remember these mortgage holders LIE!. Please keep us informed and I invite others to your aid. 'Hub

[RBisDebtFree]

He refiled your case as chapter 7? You probably had to sign all the papers, but did you sign the reaffirmation agreement in chapter 7?

[aces67]

When we initially signed them we were in a 13. Then our lawyer modified and refiled it as a 7 in April of 2009. The reaffirmation was signed in January of 2007 and it was never signed by a judge.

[RBisDebtFree]

Wait, are you talking about the reaffirmation papers you signed in your chapter 13? Or is it in 7?

[aces67]

I just pulled the document from Pacer and we signed it but there is NO Judge's signature on it. So are we okay then?

[aces67]

We originally filed BK in December of 2006 and were put in a 13. In January we signed what my lawyer said was a VOLUNTARY reaffirmation on my car. Then in April of this past year we converted to a 7. My lawyer told me that the modification VOIDED the previously signed Reaffirmation. He said we would have to sign a new one if we intended to keep the car. We didn't sign one. We were successfully discharged.

Now today I call HSBC auto to surrender the car and they are telling me that it is NOT TRUE. The original reaffirmation stands and we are legally liable. Of course my lawyer is gone for the day and dh and I are FREAKING OUT!

Is this true? I'm looking on Pacer trying to figure this all out. My lawyer said b/c it was a voluntary agreement a judge would NOT sign it. Now if a judge never signed it then it's not valid RIGHT?