Is it ok to buy more expensive things that are needed?

[Snax]

Specifically, I think I'm alright with this first one: Work boots, as my current set is in dire need of replacement/reconditioning at a minimum of $170.

We also desperately need new tires for one of our cars, and the cover for our hot tub is now dangerously heavy, falling into the tub and in need of immediate replacement. We are looking at $300-$400 for each of those. Is the UST likely to view any of those purchases as a problem since we would be skipping payments to creditors do them?

[LimpDisc]

I don't think anyone will question the new tires for your car. Not sure about purchasing the hot tub cover.

Talking about paying cash, correct?

[chad9162]

I think it comes down to common sense. Don't use credit if your filing BK. Needs vs Wants. Hot Tub can wait!

[OhioFiler]

No one will question you spending a couple hundred dollars to repair your hot tub.

[Snax]

My thought on the cover is that it is a maintenance item necessary to preserve the value of a hard-wired fixture on the property. Obviously that assumes we would keep the house! So maybe we just won't go there . .

And they would be debit transactions for the tires and boots.

[JEM]

My thought on the cover is that it is a maintenance item necessary to preserve the value of a hard-wired fixture on the property. Obviously that assumes we would keep the house! So maybe we just won't go there . .

And they would be debit transactions for the tires and boots.

Work boots and tires...most definitely ok! My husband has to wear steel toe work boots for work--and like you said, they aren't cheap for a good pair. We'll be buying him a new pair as soon as we get our tax refund.

Hot tub cover--possibly a grey area....but if it prevents the hot tub from being ruined, I would think it should be ok.

[chad9162]

My thought on the cover is that it is a maintenance item necessary to preserve the value of a hard-wired fixture on the property. Obviously that assumes we would keep the house! So maybe we just won't go there . .

And they would be debit transactions for the tires and boots.

My point is this....If your bank account shows a transaction for several hundreds of dollars to Hot Tubs R US, some might complain. But at the same time my attorney said if its in the code its the standard. So I guess if you can shield the Hot Tub under your exemptions then you should be find.

Personally, I only bought what was needed. Maybe I was overly cautious but I wanted an easy path to discharge.

If you are thinking about walking away, then any money spent on the house would be wasted!

[frogger]

You can buy a 29.95 pair of workboots at Wally-World that will last a little while and your feet constantly hurt, or you can buy a good set that costs 150-200 dollars that will last and feel good.

I don't think you have any problems with any of the things you're talking about. The hot tub cover is a health/safety issue, the boots and tires are things just happen.

If you're leaving the house, drain the hot tub and buy other things that you're taking with you.

And....... try the Nu-Balance workboots. I bought a pair of them a few months ago and they are great. Won't be buying any more TimberLines or Wolverines.

[chad9162]

TimberLines or Wolverines.

What are those!!!

[frogger]

What are those!!!

The good stuff! The boots you can hopefully afford to buy when you're not paying 39% interest to the cc bills.

[naturistman]

financial management

The thing I don't see mentioned in this thread so far is this. Yes, the concern about how the potential purchases will be viewed by the trustee is valid.

But (and I don't mean to sound critical, just being objective ... there's a bigger question: if your finances are such that you needed to file bankruptcy, should you really be spending money on things you don't "need"? As they explain in the post-filing financial management course, it comes down to "need" vs "want".

IMO, the work boots and tires are "need"... you need them for work, and to safely drive your vehicle. The hot tub cover is less clear... perhaps it can wait until you're better able to actually afford it.

The most important thing isn't to do things in a way to satisfy the trustee, but to do them in a way that's best for meeting your own short and long term financial goals.

[nickifan]

My point is this....If your bank account shows a transaction for several hundreds of dollars to Hot Tubs R US, some might complain. But at the same time my attorney said if its in the code its the standard. So I guess if you can shield the Hot Tub under your exemptions then you should be find.

Personally, I only bought what was needed. Maybe I was overly cautious but I wanted an easy path to discharge.

If you are thinking about walking away, then any money spent on the house would be wasted!

Would you explain what that means, please? What code?

[chad9162]

Would you explain what that means, please? What code?

The BK Code......

Example...

I'm paid biweekly so a couple months out of the year, I get 3 pay checks in 1 month. For the means test, income is the average of the previous 6 months starting the month prior to the month you file BK. Being paid bi-weekly could have changed my means test.

So when you here people talk about planning or timing their BK....its not fraud or cheating but following the code or the standard.

Clear as mud right

[Snax]

Likewise, one of the reasons this question of spending on needs came up is because my most recent check included nearly $1000 extra from working allot of seasonal overtime. It's unlikely I will get as much OT going forward until next fall, so the question of disposable income from that check seems well worth showing as not so disposable from what I understand. I.e., $800-900 worth of "needs" expense would show a continued tight/untennable budget for our circumstance - even if I did actually just get 3 checks for the month of December.

[chad9162]

Likewise, one of the reasons this question of spending on needs came up is because my most recent check included nearly $1000 extra from working allot of seasonal overtime. It's unlikely I will get as much OT going forward until next fall, so the question of disposable income from that check seems well worth showing as not so disposable from what I understand. I.e., $800-900 worth of "needs" expense would show a continued tight/untennable budget for our circumstance - even if I did actually just get 3 checks for the month of December.

I'm not following you.....Are you saying that if you spend the extra money that somehow it shows less disposable income???? If that's what you're saying then you do not fully understand the Means Test.

The Means Test is based on averages allowable expense not one time expense like a hot tub cover or work boots. Your Income is determined by the BK code, which states its the average of the past 6 months starting the prior to the month you file BK. There is not gray area.