BK done but big problem now

[dealingsdone]

I have a friend. He just got completed with his BK chapter 7. It was fully discharged last 45 days ago and he thought he was free and clear. Now much later a lawyer that was owed money that was discharged though the BK now contacts his BK lawyer and says "I was never contacted" I still want my money!

The BK lawyer claims he contacted this other lawyer and that it isn't worth fighting over anyway.

THE QUESTION: Where does this leave my friend who thought he was free and clear after the BK? Can this old debtor reopen the case and say he wasn't contacted? It seems he was contacted but who is to say unless the letter was sent via certified mail.

[justbroke]

This friend should contact his BK laywer. If the case was a no asset case, then eitehr the debt is discharged automatically -- even without being listed on the schedules -- due to local precedence, or he could re-open his case for the sole purpose of adding the creditor. This will cost your friend at least $260 (re-opening fee), but attorney fees.

If this was an asset case, then your friend is out of luck if he can't prove that the old debt was "scheduled" or otherwise knew of the case.

As for notice, the bankruptcy court sends out the notice of bankruptcy, so if they are on the matrix, they'd have to prove that the bankruptcy court erred somehow. If this is a "sophisticated" creditor, they were probably notice via the BNC (Bankruptcy Noticing Center) or by subscription to one or more of the Credit Reporting Agencies that monitor bankruptcy filings!

Sounds like it's not worth fighting... how much money is it?

[dealingsdone]

The debt was about 12.4k

It would seem to me that this creditor was indeed notified and he was on the BK paperwork, throughout the process.

This creditor is sophisticated as he is a lawyer.

My friend does not want to reopen anything. He was happy it was all behind him.

Thanks for the advice, what else should the friend do? He thinks that if the attorney did somehow leave a name off of the BK, the attorney should take care of this on his own nickel for the incompetence.

[Dst1]

The debt was about 12.4k

My friend does not want to reopen anything. He was happy it was all behind him.

.

That's just silly. He's not going to reopen the case because he wants it all behind him rather than spending $260 to save $12,400.

OK. yeah. Right. sure.

TROLL!

[justbroke]

The debt was about 12.4k

This is not an amount to "ignore". Continued collections could get aggressive including a lawsuit, judgment, garnishments and/or levies. Your friend needs to address the problem.

[dealingsdone]

That's just silly. He's not going to reopen the case because he wants it all behind him rather than spending $260 to save $12,400.

OK. yeah. Right. sure.

TROLL!

Hey dumbaXX, He said he doesn't want to reopen anything. He did not say he wouldn't reopen it. I've been posting here quite a bit longer than you and don't make trollish posts so if you have nothing to say of any use why don't you find another site to post on?

[dealingsdone]

This is not an amount to "ignore". Continued collections could get aggressive including a lawsuit, judgment, garnishments and/or levies. Your friend needs to address the problem.

I'm not sure how this problem gets addressed. The creditor was included in the BK and now claims he was never notified.

How is this handled without reopening the case?
Why should my friend have to reopen the case on his nickel, IF IF IF, the BK lawyer was not competent enough to include this creditor on the bk. I think the BK lawyer did include this creditor but how is that proved?

[Xue]

That's just silly. He's not going to reopen the case because he wants it all behind him rather than spending $260 to save $12,400.

OK. yeah. Right. sure.

TROLL!

Troll defined: One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're a troll!) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

So, we have an ad hominem attack with the word "troll" being used. So by the above definition, who is the troll?

[BobMango]

The debt was about 12.4k

It would seem to me that this creditor was indeed notified and he was on the BK paperwork, throughout the process.

This creditor is sophisticated as he is a lawyer.

My friend does not want to reopen anything. He was happy it was all behind him.

Thanks for the advice, what else should the friend do? He thinks that if the attorney did somehow leave a name off of the BK, the attorney should take care of this on his own nickel for the incompetence.

Sounds like your friend's attorney needs to write a letter the creditor telling him to cease and desist. If the creditor was indeed notified, as seems clear from your statement about the paperwork, then the debt was discharged.

You didn't say whether this was an asset case or not. In any case, if the debt was listed in the filing, and the creditor was listed in the matrix then it seems your friend's attorney did their job and there is no reason for your friend to reopen the case. If the attorney attempting collection wants to challenge the discharge, that's on them.

[BobMango]

I'm not sure how this problem gets addressed. The creditor was included in the BK and now claims he was never notified.

How is this handled without reopening the case?
Why should my friend have to reopen the case on his nickel, IF IF IF, the BK lawyer was not competent enough to include this creditor on the bk. I think the BK lawyer did include this creditor but how is that proved?

Pull the paperwork. Check the mailing matrix and compare to the creditor's info, address, etc. The court is responsible for making the notification, not the filer or the attorney. If the creditor is in the bankruptcy filing and mailing matrix there is really nothing for your friend to do other than complain to the court about the violation and ask for sanctions.

[justbroke]

I'm not sure how this problem gets addressed. The creditor was included in the BK and now claims he was never notified.

The Bankruptcy Noticing Center (BNC) is the entity that actually sends out notifications. You would still follow the advice below. If the BNC actually sent it, it wasn't returned and the attorney's address was as such at the time of the proceedings -- and even if the creditor had forwarding enabled, they were notified.

How is this handled without reopening the case?

Hire an attorney. If the friend included the creditor in the original filing and that person is on the mailing matrix, then re-open, file a motion for sanctions and tax the attorney fees and damages to the offending creditor. Many attorneys will do so on contingency if you actually have a case.

Attorney, attorney, attorney. Trying to get advice third party on an internet forum is not going to work for your friend. He needs to go back to his original BK attorney and ask for a contempt charge (stay violation) and/or sanctions... or get a consultation with 2-3 BK attorneys taht will take this on continegnecy.

[dealingsdone]

Thanks guys,

The case was a "no asset" case.

Based on your advice, my friend may have to hire another attorney to stave off this attorney that MAY not cease and desist.

I know that my friend would clearly rather not spend money on yet another attorney, since he is flat broke, although it sounds like some attorneys will take this on contingency.

Why would this attorney/creditor bother with trying this stunt when he knows the law? I mean the man is a credible decent attorney, that probably overlooked the notification. What would make him think he could collect any money out of this?

[blessed]

If it was a no asset case then he has nothing to worry about. The original bk attorney can clear this up with one letter to cease and desist.

[justbroke]

If it was a no asset case then he has nothing to worry about. The original bk attorney can clear this up with one letter to cease and desist.

This is not the case in all Districts. A recent ruling by a Florida bankruptcy judge seemed to indicate that, unlike some other Districts, you still need to "schedule" all debts that you want discharged. This is contradictory to some persuasive caselaw from other Districts, but not binding on us here in the 11th Circuit. However, our District in Florida will allow you to re-open the case for the sole purpose of amending the schedules to include the "forgotten" creditor in a no asset case.

You are right to point out that generally, a cease and desist along with a copy of the discharge order and injunction makes most creditors go away. However, in this case, the OP's friend's creditor is in fact a lawyer for whom he, I assume, owes legal fees to.

I know that my friend would clearly rather not spend money on yet another attorney, since he is flat broke, although it sounds like some attorneys will take this on contingency.

If the case is "sound", then there are many attorneys in the BK arena who LOVE to earn fees on stay violations... so much, that they are willing to take them on contingency!

Why would this attorney/creditor bother with trying this stunt when he knows the law?

I don't know what's in the mind of the creditor attorney or whether he "knows" the law or not, or even to what extent he may or may not know the law.

I mean the man is a credible decent attorney, that probably overlooked the notification. What would make him think he could collect any money out of this?

Perhaps he doesn't feel he had adequate notification. However, any type of notification can be deemed to be "actual" notification. Even if he didn't get the BNC notification in the mail, a call to him, FAX, e-mail or any other notification that the person "may" be in Bankruptcy... even without a case number... is constructive notice. Hey, $12K may be a lot for that creditor/attorney. He may just be playing the attrition game. (Attrition is where creditors, after the discharge, send a single collection letter to the debtor to try to get them to pay. The single letter is usually not considered a stay violation, because procedure generally dictates that you warn them once, in writing, and then any subsequent attempts to "actively" collect are considered a violation.)

[Mensa1]

The BK lawyer claims he contacted this other lawyer and that it isn't worth fighting over anyway.

I think this is a defining statement (or attitude); not worth fighting over anyway? OK d*ckweed, if it isn't worth fighting over then you pay it!!!!!!!

An Atty making an assinine statement to a client over a 12K claim should be disbarred. What it tells me is there may be some connection between the two Attys that runs deeper than the Atty-Client relationship. Troubling.

I would attempt to get his Bk Atty to put that in writing. And, if the other Atty is named in the discharge as a creditor, then he/she is the one with the problem, not your friend; at least for the moment. Kind of a risky proposition for the other Atty to be attempting collection of a debt after being named as a discharged creditor.