Vehicle repossession-Huntington Bank-Please need advice!

[kellysmum]

We don't know what to think. Huntington Bank, who holds the loan for my husband's 2009 Volkswagen Jetta, wants to reaffirm the loan. We still owe $11,000 on it (only bought it in March 2012 used). The bk trustee refuses to let my dh reaffirm the loan b/c even after the bk, we are still in the hole 1k a month for bills. Huntington wrote our attorney a letter stating that if dh does not reaffirm the loan, they may exercise their right to repossess it. The payment for this month is due NOW and I was going to pay it on Friday. Now I don't know whether to pay it or not. When did Huntington become so hard line on auto loans? The car is worth slightly less than we owe. We NEED it for him to drive to work (doesn't matter to anyone-trustee or bank). Should we just let it go back to the bank? How do we go about getting a loan for another car? (Our discharge date is July 12-no problems so far other than this.) Please, need advice.

Thank you.

Candace

[LadyInTheRed]

Huntington very well may be bluffing to try to get you to reaffirm.

What does your attorney suggest? One strategy that has worked for others is to sign the reaffirmation agreement and have the debtor's attorney file it with a statement that he believes it causes the debtor undue hardship. At the reaffirmation hearing, the attorney explains why it is a hardship and the judge refuses to approve the reaffirmation. The debtor has done all he/she can do to reafirm and the lender allows them to keep the car as long as they keep up payments. See what your attorney thinks of doing that.

If you are $1K in the hole every month, you really don't want a reaffirmation approved. Better to risk a repossession now than to reaffirm and risk that you won't be able to make payments later.

I'm not sure your trustee has the standing to object to a reaffirmation. He really has no interest in whether or not you reafirm. But, in this case, it sounds like he is doing you a favor.

[malf1204]

Why don't you ask the judge for a Chimm order. Here is a copy of mine

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at Greenbelt
In Re: *
XXXXX
* Case No. 11-XXXXXX
* Chapter 7
*
*
Debtor(s) *
ORDER DECLINING APPROVAL OF REAFFIRMATION AGREEMENT
This bankruptcy case under Chapter 7 came before the court for approval of the
Debtor's proposed Reaffirmation Agreement with Ally Financial, f/k/a GMAC. The
court held a hearing on June 30, 2011. As a result of the matters developed at the
hearing and from the Schedules, the court finds as a fact that the presumption of 11
U.S.C. § 524(m) that this debt is an undue hardship has not been rebutted to the
satisfaction of this court. However, as in the case of In re Chim, 381 B.R. 191 (BC MD
2008), the Debtor has performed his duty under 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(6) in that he timely
filed a Statement of Intention and timely entered into the Reaffirmation Agreement.
The Debtor is not required to surrender the 09 SMRTFORTTWO to the Creditor, and
as pointed out in In re Chim and In re Belanger, 962 F.2d 345, 348 (CA4 1992), the
default-on-filing clause in the installment loan contract is unenforceable as a matter of
law.
The court declines to approve the Reaffirmation Agreement. The provisions of
11 U.S.C. §§ 362(h), 521(a)(6) and 521(d) are inapplicable to this case. The vehicle
remains property of the estate, the automatic stay remains in place with respect to the
vehicle until such time as the stay terminates under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c) or (d), the
Debtor is not obligated to turn over possession of the vehicle to the Lender, and the
Lender may not exercise remedies as a result of default and any ipso facto clause
contained in the loan agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

[LadyInTheRed]

Why don't you ask the judge for a Chimm order. Here is a copy of mine

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at Greenbelt
In Re: *
XXXXX
* Case No. 11-XXXXXX
* Chapter 7
*
*
Debtor(s) *
ORDER DECLINING APPROVAL OF REAFFIRMATION AGREEMENT
This bankruptcy case under Chapter 7 came before the court for approval of the
Debtor's proposed Reaffirmation Agreement with Ally Financial, f/k/a GMAC. The
court held a hearing on June 30, 2011. As a result of the matters developed at the
hearing and from the Schedules, the court finds as a fact that the presumption of 11
U.S.C. § 524(m) that this debt is an undue hardship has not been rebutted to the
satisfaction of this court. However, as in the case of In re Chim, 381 B.R. 191 (BC MD
2008), the Debtor has performed his duty under 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(6) in that he timely
filed a Statement of Intention and timely entered into the Reaffirmation Agreement.
The Debtor is not required to surrender the 09 SMRTFORTTWO to the Creditor, and
as pointed out in In re Chim and In re Belanger, 962 F.2d 345, 348 (CA4 1992), the
default-on-filing clause in the installment loan contract is unenforceable as a matter of
law.
The court declines to approve the Reaffirmation Agreement. The provisions of
11 U.S.C. §§ 362(h), 521(a)(6) and 521(d) are inapplicable to this case. The vehicle
remains property of the estate, the automatic stay remains in place with respect to the
vehicle until such time as the stay terminates under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c) or (d), the
Debtor is not obligated to turn over possession of the vehicle to the Lender, and the
Lender may not exercise remedies as a result of default and any ipso facto clause
contained in the loan agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

That would basically be the result of the strategy I refer to, assuming it will work in Ohio. Chim is a Maryland District Court case and Belanger is a 4th Circut Appellate case. Ohio is in the 6th Circuit, where neither of those cases must be followed. The law might be different in Ohio and/or the 6th Circuit.