Payday Loan three days prior to filing

[OhioFiler]

That certainly can be said of many posts on this forum.

As for singling me out, I think you've been doing that for some reason for the last two weeks in as much as you had to "point" it out in your post.

You're not singled out anymore than any other poster by me. I find some of your posts response worthy. At least I read yours. Many I merely skim or completely skip because I find them boring.

If I've singled you out it's subliminal, perhaps based on your profile name. Who knows, I'm not a psychologist, I just play one on these boards. ;-)

[AngelinaCatHub]

That certainly can be said of many posts on this forum.

As for singling me out, I think you've been doing that for some reason for the last two weeks in as much as you had to "point" it out in your post.

You all know I've been into this thread big time. I don't think OH was singling any one person out. This is a case where a thread is beat to death (as another recent one was) and is doing no good for the OP or the contributors. I believe it has run it's course and should be closed. The OP is welcome in addressing it further BUT with more up front info. That's my opinion. 'Hub

[mountanddo]

This is typical of why I wrote this discussion seems to violate forum policy. I'm not singling out this poster for any reason other than it's a good example of my point. TRhere are several others as well.

The post above includes the use of quotation marks indicating irony. I read this post to indicate this is a way to skirt the law by paying back a portion of the debt to create the appearance of good faith. This type of discussion should not be allowed as others may read this and see that the supposed third party petitioner was successful and thus payday loans 4 days pre-filing are a reasonable strategy.

That certainly can be said of many posts on this forum.

As for singling me out, I think you've been doing that for some reason for the last two weeks in as much as you had to "point" it out in your post.

[OhioFiler]

It sounds like she didn't include this loan in her Bankruptcy but now wants to. I am guessing she paid back the $250 to show that she had "intent" to pay it back. Bottom line is that she took the loan out knowing she was filing BK. Fishy scheme if you ask me.

This is typical of why I wrote this discussion seems to violate forum policy. I'm not singling out this poster for any reason other than it's a good example of my point. TRhere are several others as well.

The post above includes the use of quotation marks indicating irony. I read this post to indicate this is a way to skirt the law by paying back a portion of the debt to create the appearance of good faith. This type of discussion should not be allowed as others may read this and see that the supposed third party petitioner was successful and thus payday loans 4 days pre-filing are a reasonable strategy.

[AngelinaCatHub]

What he said was that it was against forum rules to discuss fraudulent behavior. It's against forum rules to discuss how to commit fraud not to discuss whether a particular situation constitues fraud. There is a difference. I guess one could see discussing it could lead to others doing the same thing however I think that is just semantics

You are absolutely correct. Perhaps I misunderstood this, since we had a bit of a threat relating to such things. Of course we can discuss fraud and bad boy stuff. We just do not teach it, or encourage it. 'Hub

[mountanddo]

Yes I agree with most here as you all see it. I also agree with 'Ohio' in that there can be "If it looks like the duck". The appearance of a situation ruins many people. Our OP sees and is in a bit of "between" and is asking an opinion. He/She is not the person involved. But, the fact of being a friend who likes the person who is in error, puts this person in the middle.

This is why I always say, "do nothing to give the appearance of wrong doing" and I totally agree with Ohiofiler. 'Hub

What he said was that it was against forum rules to discuss fraudulent behavior. It's against forum rules to discuss how to commit fraud not to discuss whether a particular situation constitues fraud. There is a difference. I guess one could see discussing it could lead to others doing the same thing however I think that is just semantics

[AngelinaCatHub]

It seems to me this discussion is about fraudulent behavior prior to filing bankruptcy and such conversations are a violation of forum rules.

Yes I agree with most here as you all see it. I also agree with 'Ohio' in that there can be "If it looks like the duck". The appearance of a situation ruins many people. Our OP sees and is in a bit of "between" and is asking an opinion. He/She is not the person involved. But, the fact of being a friend who likes the person who is in error, puts this person in the middle.

This is why I always say, "do nothing to give the appearance of wrong doing" and I totally agree with Ohiofiler. 'Hub

[LadyInTheRed]

This conversation is different than someone asking for advice before they do something or to give them advice on how to commit fraud. We don't know for a fact that it's fraudulent behavior but I think it's our responsibility to point out that it could be seen this way. I don't see this conversation being against forum rules.

I disagree. By definition, asking about past actions is not requesting information about how to commit fraud, how to "get away with" fraud, or anything like that. Also, it's not even clear that obtaining a payday loan shortly before filing is fraud.

It would really depend on what the loan was for, and whether or not the person intended to never repay the loan, which is not something that is easily proved. It is possible that this person took out the loan because she needed to pay the rent or buy groceries, fully expecting to pay it back in a week or two, but then due to unforseen circumstances could not. We don't know, and the job of this forum is to be as non-judgemental as possible.

Thank you both for your excellent clarrification of how the forum rules apply to the discussion of fraud. Discussing whether somebody commited fraud is not a violation of forum rules.

[bcohen]

It seems to me this discussion is about fraudulent behavior prior to filing bankruptcy and such conversations are a violation of forum rules.

I disagree. By definition, asking about past actions is not requesting information about how to commit fraud, how to "get away with" fraud, or anything like that. Also, it's not even clear that obtaining a payday loan shortly before filing is fraud.

It would really depend on what the loan was for, and whether or not the person intended to never repay the loan, which is not something that is easily proved. It is possible that this person took out the loan because she needed to pay the rent or buy groceries, fully expecting to pay it back in a week or two, but then due to unforseen circumstances could not. We don't know, and the job of this forum is to be as non-judgemental as possible.

[mountanddo]

It seems to me this discussion is about fraudulent behavior prior to filing bankruptcy and such conversations are a violation of forum rules.

This conversation is different than someone asking for advice before they do something or to give them advice on how to commit fraud. We don't know for a fact that it's fraudulent behavior but I think it's our responsibility to point out that it could be seen this way. I don't see this conversation being against forum rules.

[TeacherMomma]

yeah I think it is fishy too - even though I don't think she used it to do anything that wasnt nessescary - in fact I personally think she used some of it to FILE for BK - but I would just think that a PD loan company WOULD try to fight it because it is such a high amount.

[OhioFiler]

It seems to me this discussion is about fraudulent behavior prior to filing bankruptcy and such conversations are a violation of forum rules.

[AngelinaCatHub]

jst4f--While you are right that the payday lender could attempt to challenge the discharge of their debt, the likelihood that this will happen is almost slim to none.

First of all, payday loans carry such high usurous interest that even making a few payments on the loan covers most or all of the principal.

Second, suspecting fraudulent intent, and proving it are two different things. Assuming that the money was used to buy essential non-luxury items, such as food, medicine, or to pay her rent, I'm not sure that obtaining the loan so close to filing for bankruptcy would prove fraudulent intent. After all, even some attorneys have advised that it is ok to use credit cards to buy groceries, medicine, etc, up until the date of filing; the lookback period is for non-essential or "luxury" purchases.

Third, payday lenders in general are not very well-liked by the public, or by the courts. I just don't see a judge agreeing to stick a bankrupt person with this kind of debt unless the alleged "fraud" is so blatantly obvious that there is no possible other explanation.

I understand your explanation and in the light of the world, perhaps it's justified. HOWEVER, in the "letter of the law" she "worked the system". This is called fraud if indeed it happened the way it has been explained. No Cohen, how is our law to work? Justice weighs the scale with a blind on her. The letter is drawn by words to be lived by. Sometimes it may not be fair, but justice is served by intent, not mistakes. What was the person's intent and then could she/he have fone without that loan at the time of bk? 'Hub

[mountanddo]

I am trying to gain information for my co worker, who is in the process of filing. A payday loan within 3 days of filing - sounds totally fishy to me and like it would raise a red flag. It was for 750 and has been paid down to 500 now, so the intent to repay was there, it just has changed a bit. Is this an issue? It is a no asset chap 7 below median, no other issues.

The OP was suspicious of this co-worker to begin with so I highly doubt she took the loan out for medicine or food or she would of said that. She also made it a point to highlight that the friend intended to pay this back. My take is that she took the loan out knowing she was going to file BK and wants to know what the chances are she is going to get away with it.

[LadyInTheRed]

jst4f--While you are right that the payday lender could attempt to challenge the discharge of their debt, the likelihood that this will happen is almost slim to none.

True. But, if any creditor would challenge it, I would bet it would be a payday lender

First of all, payday loans carry such high usurous interest that even making a few payments on the loan covers most or all of the principal.

This was a $750 loan and only $250 was paid.

Second, suspecting fraudulent intent, and proving it are two different things. Assuming that the money was used to buy essential non-luxury items, such as food, medicine, or to pay her rent, I'm not sure that obtaining the loan so close to filing for bankruptcy would prove fraudulent intent. After all, even some attorneys have advised that it is ok to use credit cards to buy groceries, medicine, etc, up until the date of filing; the lookback period is for non-essential or "luxury" purchases.

In this case, it sounds like the debtor took the loan 3 days before filing and then didn't include it on the petition. I think that is evidence that she thought she had something to hide.

I'm not certain, but I think this is more a cash advance in which case what it was used for is irrelevant. Any cash advance within over $750 within 70 days of filing is presumed to be non dischargeable under BK code section 523(2)(C). The fact that this loan is exactly $750 may avoid the presumption, but you could argue that it is also evidence that the debtor knew exactly what she was doing when she decided on that amount.

Third, payday lenders in general are not very well-liked by the public, or by the courts. I just don't see a judge agreeing to stick a bankrupt person with this kind of debt unless the alleged "fraud" is so blatantly obvious that there is no possible other explanation.

Even if the judge finds that the loan is dischargeable, he wouldn't be too happy about the debtor leaving the debt off her petition and then saying under oath at her 341 that the petition is accurate. That's what I would be worried about if I were the debtor. Yes, the chances of the creditor objecting is low and they would have to prove the debt is non-dischargeable. But, the possible consequences of this debt coming to the court's attention could be severe.

Even if she fully intended to pay the debt, intentionally leaving it off her petition was a bad idea. All debts that exist on the day of filing should be included on your petition, even if you intend to pay them.