Court changed titling of lawsuit need help!

[montana59451]

Thanks! Will update if any further changes/actions in this matter and will post when Discharged! Should be done 6/4!

[AngelinaCatHub]

So if they want to go after the co-debtor then they have to file again against them? Can I be required to go to court to testify against the co-debtor or testify as to what the situation was?

Why would the civil court send a copy of the change order to the TT?

Oh yes you must. The automatic stay stops a suit AGAINST YOU, or of YOUR making. Not an action to make you a witness in someone else's case. 'Hub

[AngelinaCatHub]

So if they want to go after the co-debtor then they have to file again against them? Can I be required to go to court to testify against the co-debtor or testify as to what the situation was?

Why would the civil court send a copy of the change order to the TT?

The Civil Court just updated the case. You only have ONE case. The Trustee told you that. Just as if a Credit Card sold your debt to a CA. It is still only one debt, just another name on it. Regardless, that case WILL be dismissed or go back to the Bk Judge with your Judgment and dated paperwork if they keep harassing you. Or don't go to the hearings if they still insist your case is active and let the default Judgment occur then take it to the Feds. That case should be an AP if they insist on pursuing it. Not a Civil County case. By law your automatic stay (should have) stopped it. 'Hub

[montana59451]

None the less, bankruptcy is Federal Law. Your Civil law suit should be set aside by Federal Court if it is pursued and they win.

If what you said is as so, they are plainly breaking Federal Law. If you are now pro se' on both suits write a Court Paper stating you are currently in bankruptcy 7, give the date and the docket number of your bk and a reminder that under Federal law the suit is tolled and any action after the date of filing is null and void and cannot be used in a Civil Case as any "discovery" is now taken illegally and cannot be used in a Civil Court of law.
'Hub

So if they want to go after the co-debtor then they have to file again against them? Can I be required to go to court to testify against the co-debtor or testify as to what the situation was?

Why would the civil court send a copy of the change order to the TT?

[AngelinaCatHub]

UPDATE! Continued 341 was concluded yesterday with no problems even though the UST was there. He just had a couple of questions related to the amendments in our schedules. Asked the TT what should I do about the lawsuit in civil court and she stated that the court had sent her a copy of it. Said we did not have to amend the schedules because she knew it was the same as the original just new plaintiff. I told her I would be filing the proof of service on all parties again she said that would suffice. I guess we are done!

Our posts just crossed. This is good. After your discharge the discharge Motion is your gold plated reprieve and you will owe nothing. 'Hub

[AngelinaCatHub]

Thanks 'Hub. that is what I was able to find. Unfortunately I had no time to get an attorney since I was notified so late. Also, the continued 341 did not notify any of the creditors and we received only an "Oral Notice of Continuance" and Pacer shows the only ones who received a copy in the mail was us.

There are few bankrptcy attorneys in MT and from what I have seen and heard they are pretty ummm....well....hand holders, no doers! I don't know if I could get one to jump in now that we have filed pro se.

I think I will deal with this continued 341 first and then deal with the civil suit.

I would have thought that the original creditor would have had to drop the suit and then if the equipment dealer wanted to sue for what they paid then that would be a new suit. Let's say for a moment that the court dismisses this "new original" suit and the equipment dealer then decides to file against us.....would i be correct in saying that he cannot because he was already notified of the bankruptcy on 2 occassions AND the court would not accept a new suit based on the first because they were notified of the bankruptcy?

You have to understand that Montana is a "challenged" state....they kinda do whatever they feel the need to do and the hell with the system!

The court clerk did say that they were aware of the bankruptcy. I wonder if they left the case # and the title of the defendants the same because of the bankruptcy knowing that nothing can be collected? I don't even have contact info for the new Plaintiff's Attorney (I found it online, that is how I served him) but I don't think that is my responsibility. I will try to get an attorney for this one (it should interest somebody to take my $$$)

None the less, bankruptcy is Federal Law. Your Civil law suit should be set aside by Federal Court if it is pursued and they win.

If what you said is as so, they are plainly breaking Federal Law. If you are now pro se' on both suits write a Court Paper stating you are currently in bankruptcy 7, give the date and the docket number of your bk and a reminder that under Federal law the suit is tolled and any action after the date of filing is null and void and cannot be used in a Civil Case as any "discovery" is now taken illegally and cannot be used in a Civil Court of law.
'Hub

[montana59451]

UPDATE! Continued 341 was concluded yesterday with no problems even though the UST was there. He just had a couple of questions related to the amendments in our schedules. Asked the TT what should I do about the lawsuit in civil court and she stated that the court had sent her a copy of it. Said we did not have to amend the schedules because she knew it was the same as the original just new plaintiff. I told her I would be filing the proof of service on all parties again she said that would suffice. I guess we are done!

[montana59451]

Thanks 'Hub. that is what I was able to find. Unfortunately I had no time to get an attorney since I was notified so late. Also, the continued 341 did not notify any of the creditors and we received only an "Oral Notice of Continuance" and Pacer shows the only ones who received a copy in the mail was us.

There are few bankrptcy attorneys in MT and from what I have seen and heard they are pretty ummm....well....hand holders, no doers! I don't know if I could get one to jump in now that we have filed pro se.

I think I will deal with this continued 341 first and then deal with the civil suit.

I would have thought that the original creditor would have had to drop the suit and then if the equipment dealer wanted to sue for what they paid then that would be a new suit. Let's say for a moment that the court dismisses this "new original" suit and the equipment dealer then decides to file against us.....would i be correct in saying that he cannot because he was already notified of the bankruptcy on 2 occassions AND the court would not accept a new suit based on the first because they were notified of the bankruptcy?

You have to understand that Montana is a "challenged" state....they kinda do whatever they feel the need to do and the hell with the system!

The court clerk did say that they were aware of the bankruptcy. I wonder if they left the case # and the title of the defendants the same because of the bankruptcy knowing that nothing can be collected? I don't even have contact info for the new Plaintiff's Attorney (I found it online, that is how I served him) but I don't think that is my responsibility. I will try to get an attorney for this one (it should interest somebody to take my $$$)

[AngelinaCatHub]

I see: Everything looks on the up and up. The "Suggestion of Bankruptcy" IS the notice to the Court that tolls any action. Either the Judge and attorneys are bk stupid or they are breading the law. This is a Civil case, yes? If it were criminal your Plaintiff would be a DA and that is not tolled.

I have read the legalese of section 362 regarding the automatic stay. Although it is difficult for a non lawyer I glean out of this that unless for fraud or a motion to the Court for good cause, they cannot continue your suit. The only way is basically for three reasons, such as marital judgment (alimony, child support, etc.) fraud, or willful and malicious. You might submit a Court Paper to the Judge with a copy of your Civil docket listing the "Suggestion of Bankruptcy" with the case law section number as reference. Perhaps search Google for case law reference for a similar anomalie as you are having. The bk clearly stops all civil action except for domestic (divorce, etc.) both on Plaintiff's part and Defendants part.

Something is definitely being misused and this could be to your benefit as if you get a Judgment during this Automatic Stay, and the Court has been properly notified as well as re-notify the Plaintiff, you could get it thrown out with prejudice. I would not go pro se' in this case though. It could work for for your benefit in the long run. 'Hub

[montana59451]

The equipment deal must have cross claimed you in the lawsuit, therein becoming effectively a Plaintiff as far as you are concerned. This action would explain exactly what has happened here.

Relative to your Bk filing, you should have already named the existence of the suit on Form B7, question 4: Suits and Administrative proceedings. If not you should mention the suit to TT and amend your filing; (after obtaining legal advice, because I am not a lawyer).

The original suit WAS listed on form B7 (and it was an unsecured debt because the equipment was already repossessed)

[montana59451]

OK, a reread, you are pro se'. You need a lawyer at this time in my opinion. You stated this is a 341 continuance, and that sends a red light in my eyes. Then you have an active suit still in progress. So what has happened? Have you filed outside of the automatic stay due to a failed attempt at bk and outlived the stay?

More info for help would be needed by all to get any advice or opinion here. 'Hub

Have not filed outside AS. No previous attempt at BK. Have not outlived the stay.

too late for attorney right now, did not get notified of this change in the case until Friday at noon when the mail came.

[montana59451]

The stay is still in place and no motions to lift the stay have been filed. I don't think the continuance is a big deal as they really did not want anything but '09 tax returns and the P&L which the TT did not ask for prior to the original 341. the district court clerk said that this was fine. I forgot to mention that there was another co debtor (member of LLC) but this LLC was dissolved last Nov. The original suit dealt with equipment that was purchased by the LLC and guaranteed by the 3rd member. BUT now the co-signor should be out of the deal since the finance company is out of it. Maybe they are looking to go after the other co signor? I don't think they can since the equipment dealer and the co signor had no direct dealings. The co signor only dealt with the finance company which the equipment dealer paid off to become the plaintiff

[montana59451]

well this does not seem right to me either so at our continued 341 I will talk to the TT. we filed pro se but this is NOT an AP, it is simply in the district court where the original suit was filed.

I may have to consult with an attorney over this as it seems to me that this violates the AS. It does not give me an opportunity to Answer it as a new suit, it just gave the new plaintiff the right to take over any pleadings and filings etc. I think they have done something wrong. I called the clerk of court and they said that they had received our suggestion of bankruptcy so I do not know why this is being done. No objections or filings in the BK so far. Our original 341 was 4/5 and continued until 4/19 because TT wanted 2009 tax return and P&L (ours is non consumer Ch 7)

[AngelinaCatHub]

OK, a reread, you are pro se'. You need a lawyer at this time in my opinion. You stated this is a 341 continuance, and that sends a red light in my eyes. Then you have an active suit still in progress. So what has happened? Have you filed outside of the automatic stay due to a failed attempt at bk and outlived the stay?

More info for help would be needed by all to get any advice or opinion here. 'Hub

[AngelinaCatHub]

This does not ring right. Your bk should toll all sue-able actions in any and all cases. It is too late to do much as tomorrow you have a 341, but after the 341, it would not hurt to either ask the Trustee or better your lawyer, why is this suit in progress?

It does not seem to be an Adversary Procedure that could be done during the bk, but this is not the case.

Unless you have info that could explain all this, I am at a stop as this goes against all that I have learned here and in the laws (the little bit I know). 'Hub