Discharged !!!!!

[logansdad]

Congratulations on your discharge

Thanks Coolmom for realizing the true nature of this thread.

[Mensa1]

It was only this small Riverside Bank that complained and the debtor reaffirmed the debt (changing their intentions to "retain" and the intention to "reaffirm").

I guess that makes sense with the Bank being small, and probably wounded or trying NOT to be wounded and absorbed. Many of these small ones had the OTS on them hot and heavy for super sloppy lending practices.

Two Riversides down there,,, well one now, since one went by way of the FDIC into another bank.

Riverside Bank of Gulf Coast

Then there is Riverside Natl Bank still going strong... Brevard Co based, I think.

[logansdad]

WOW I waited forever for this day, I guess I expected more than this. I got no hamsters and a hijacked thread.

[justbroke]

WOW I waited forever for this day, I guess I expected more than this. I got no hamsters and a hijacked thread.

I think the hamsters are on vacation or something. Haven't seen them in a week.

So, here are the "replacement hamsters" that do gigs as impersonators. I'm sure the real deal will show up soon.


Congratulations!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3894301868978665655#

[PoorGrammyinBK7]

Congrats!!!

[logansdad]

Thanks guys I was only joking

[ForumReader]

Thanks Coolmom for realizing the true nature of this thread.

That is right Congratulations on your discharge and enjoy your fresh start!

[BCA2009]

Logansdad, I'm sorry I highjacked your thread, I am very happy for you and wish you the best.

But since I did highjack the thread, I'd like to add another comment.

I guess it's irrelevant becasue it appears people are doing ride thru's by default.

Regardless of whether or not "Taylor" has been in effect for 17 years or not. All I was pointing out was that the Judge specifically said in his ruling that the only way to keep property was to redeem or re-affirm. This is obivously not the case. I would have assumed (as he/she did) that he would have ruled in Riverside's favor, but not went as far as saying that no debtor could keep property unless he redeemed or re-affirmed, because it just isn't true. It practice it up to the banks discretion to foreclose on non-reaffirmed property.


I guess I don't know enough about how the law works, but it seems wierd that he would word his ruling in a way that contradicts what is actually happening in alot of cases.

I guess what Mensa & Justbroke are saying is that by not redeeming or re-affirming, by default you are "surrendering" but the bank just doesn't have to foreclose on the "surrendered" property. I guess this is just another case of the law clearly saying one thing, but in practice it is handled differently from what the law clearly says.

[justbroke]

Regardless of whether or not "Taylor" has been in effect for 17 years or not. All I was pointing out was that the Judge specifically said in his ruling that the only way to keep property was to redeem or re-affirm. This is obivously not the case.

When it comes before the Bankruptcy Court... it "is" the case. The Judge can only go by the law and the caselaw and precedence is clear. Now, what happens in practice is what I wrote earlier... where Citimortgage declined to force the debtor to "choose" and Riverside decided to use the court to compel the debtor to "choose".

I guess I don't know enough about how the law works, but it seems wierd that he would word his ruling in a way that contradicts what is actually happening in alot of cases.

Aha, you hit the nail on the head. However, there's a difference between what the law is and what people do. I guess it requires a definition of what actually happens in a BK case. There are many many things that go on in a BK case that are just not checked or litigated. Much of the time, creditors and debtors just don't care. There are almost always things that a particular case does that is in conflict with the law. however, every case is not reviewed down to ensure compliance.

Just look at foreclosures. A perfect example of how the banks are foreclosing on properties, where they didn't even file the right paperwork to prove that they are the "real" party in interest and that they have standing to bring forth the complaint to start with! This happens hundreds of times a day and nobody complains. It's only when a complaint or a defense/offense is raised that gets the Judge's attention.

That doesn't change the underlying law. I think this to be no different than an assault victim, never filing a police report. Just because it happened, doesn't mean any action is taken.

[BCA2009]

Thanks, that does make sense. I didn't think about it having to go all the way to the judge to be enforced. The way I read the ruling, I was thinking that reardless of whether or not it was challenged, the judge was saying debtor had no choice but to follow the specific language of the law. But rather he was saying the debtor and creditor can do whatever they want, but if it comes to the judge, then the debtor has to redeem or re-affirm.

Well, I learn something new every day. Thanks

[liz417]

Congrats on your DISCHARGE!!!! WhooooHooooooo!!!

[Mensa1]

Hey, what is this thread all about, anyway...?

Now I am getting all confused by these emotions.......

Oh BTW, Congrats to logansdad on your discharge!!!!!!!!!!!!