'Ride-through' in CA questions?

[BrokeLoser]

I'm hoping to find someone that has done this and knows for a fact how it all works in CA.
I'd like to not reaffirm the loan, not surrender the RV, continue making payments on it, possibly turn it in later (post discharge) without taking a repo hit to my credit and possibly pay it off later and gain clear title to it. Is this possible?

My attorney is unaware of exactly how this works and the potential repercussions.
Thanks in advance for any help or advice you can offer.

[GIn]

My attorney is unaware of exactly how this works and the potential repercussions.

You need to find another attorney.

[btbeme]

You need to find another attorney.

Ummmm... maybe... From an experience standpoint, it is always better to have an attorney who has "been there, done that" a few times on the stickier issues.

That being said, keeping an RV, which would certainly be considered a luxury item, is a real stretch in a Ch 7. CA has a generous wildcard exemption, so if it fits (and you literally have nothing else to claim) then it MIGHT slide. But unless it is your permanent domicile, you are running into fire. I suggest wearing your very best asbestos underwear.

Your attorney might be saying "are you freakin' crazy?" in a nice way. Simply out, this will become a hot potato with your Trustee, and an attorney who hasn't had a dozen or so previous RV issues before would likely be ill prepared to wrestle with the Trustee. An attorney with a LOT of RV experience would likely have the scars to prove it, and might go in with you for the fight, or might stay on the sidelines because they see it as a losing proposition. I'd say 50/50 at best, but I am not an attorney.

I'll say this much...a ride-through on an RV will require EVERYTHING to go right...the attorney, the Trustee, the UST, lack of other issues in your filing that would toss you into a 13 or a dismissal, a patient and understanding RV loan company, etc. That's a lot. Not saying it could not happen, but you are inviting a world of pain by making the attempt. MAybe some folks here have ridden through on an RV before...anyone?

[BrokeLoser]

Ummmm... maybe... From an experience standpoint, it is always better to have an attorney who has "been there, done that" a few times on the stickier issues.

That being said, keeping an RV, which would certainly be considered a luxury item, is a real stretch in a Ch 7. CA has a generous wildcard exemption, so if it fits (and you literally have nothing else to claim) then it MIGHT slide. But unless it is your permanent domicile, you are running into fire. I suggest wearing your very best asbestos underwear.

Your attorney might be saying "are you freakin' crazy?" in a nice way. Simply out, this will become a hot potato with your Trustee, and an attorney who hasn't had a dozen or so previous RV issues before would likely be ill prepared to wrestle with the Trustee. An attorney with a LOT of RV experience would likely have the scars to prove it, and might go in with you for the fight, or might stay on the sidelines because they see it as a losing proposition. I'd say 50/50 at best, but I am not an attorney.

I'll say this much...a ride-through on an RV will require EVERYTHING to go right...the attorney, the Trustee, the UST, lack of other issues in your filing that would toss you into a 13 or a dismissal, a patient and understanding RV loan company, etc. That's a lot. Not saying it could not happen, but you are inviting a world of pain by making the attempt. MAybe some folks here have ridden through on an RV before...anyone?

I made it through my 341 a month ago without issue with regard to the RV...It's not equitable...in fact I'm a bit upside down on it.

[btbeme]

If you made it through the 341 a month ago, I believe you are too late to file a reaffirmation anyway, so a ride-through is your only choice.

Stay in contact with the lender and make sure your payments land on time. Even if you are upside down they could still try to repo the day after the stay is lifted (the day of discharge).

[alaskathryn]

What we've found at my credit union with regards to California is the courts are denying reaffirmation agreements and issuing an order with the denial allowing debtors to make voluntary payments and the credit union to have to accept voluntary payments barring any other sort of default with the contract. So chances are even if you were to sign a reaffirmation agreement and assuming your attorney didn't as well, the reaffirmation would be denied, you've performed your intent, and would get the ride-through without too much hassle.