My chapter 7 was discharged in April 2004. I have since learned that when a motion is filed by the Trustee it effectively keeps my BK file open and it does not get dismissed. BK attorney never explained this to me.
After the April 2004 discharge, family home was quit claimed to me in June 2004. Late June or early July 2004 I received letter from Trustee. Trustee was going to file motion in BK to request repayment of tax refunds. I went to discuss this with BK attorney. I didn't understand, I thought I was discharged. At this meeting I also told him about family home being quit claimed into my name and that I will put it on market. He said nothing. He didn't tell me I had to tell the court or the Trustee. All he said was that he had spoken to Trustee's attorney and they told him that they didn't think Trustee had right to my tax refunds and not to worry he would take care of it. So, naturally when I got a second discharge letter from BK Court reaffirming my April 2004 discharge, I assumed that everything was now clear.
Again, no one explained that Trustee could keep filing motion to keep my file active.
I never owned home when I filed my BK. I only took title after I thought my BK was over and to protect family home from brother who has gambling problem. It was always in his name and I never was on title to it until this happened.
Feb. 2005 I get a buyer for the house and a letter from Trustee saying he will file a motion again. During this time, many things came out during escrow (buyer walked out last Friday.) Title wanted a letter from Trustee saying it was alright to sell, or some sort of payout document. I consulted with the BK attorneys. The result is:
The BK attorneys advised me to agree to a "stip" with Trustee to repay tax refunds before it goes to court, which I have done. What troubles me is that my BK attorneys do not want the Trustee to know about my having title to the house. They say he can take all proceeds and tie everything up as well as make me repay all my debts that was declared and discharged in BK. Is this true? Makes me uncomfortable that the BK attorneys are telling me to be quiet. I told them I had title to house, I even have a fax which I sent to them which followed up on this conversation. All they have been telling me is that its my fault for not paying the tax refunds.
I didn't do anything wrong. I thought I was discharged and when a decision had to be made about protecting the family home it was done so that a mentally disabled and blind sister as well as an elderly mother who's had a 5way bypass would have a roof over their heads.
If the Trustee finds out about the house being in my name and that there will be adequate proceeds to cover the 45K should it sell, will he demand that all my creditors be repaid?
My sister died last month, I would like to have enough money left to care for my mom at least. It would several years before I could qualify to buy a home, and would like to have savings to build credit back up too.
I really have lost confidence in my BK attorney and think that they are somehow only protecting their own @ss and not working in my interest. This is the same BK attorneys that did not inform me or advise me about a "motion to discharge or avoid lien" to which they were aware of when I first consulted with them. When I mentioned this to them last week one of the attorney said that "you didn't own anything at the time..." somehow I feel wronged.
Should I get another offer on the house and I am still making payments through a "stip" versus having it paid off completely, how does that affect the sale does? Does anyone know what will happen in this kind of situation?
After the April 2004 discharge, family home was quit claimed to me in June 2004. Late June or early July 2004 I received letter from Trustee. Trustee was going to file motion in BK to request repayment of tax refunds. I went to discuss this with BK attorney. I didn't understand, I thought I was discharged. At this meeting I also told him about family home being quit claimed into my name and that I will put it on market. He said nothing. He didn't tell me I had to tell the court or the Trustee. All he said was that he had spoken to Trustee's attorney and they told him that they didn't think Trustee had right to my tax refunds and not to worry he would take care of it. So, naturally when I got a second discharge letter from BK Court reaffirming my April 2004 discharge, I assumed that everything was now clear.
Again, no one explained that Trustee could keep filing motion to keep my file active.
I never owned home when I filed my BK. I only took title after I thought my BK was over and to protect family home from brother who has gambling problem. It was always in his name and I never was on title to it until this happened.
Feb. 2005 I get a buyer for the house and a letter from Trustee saying he will file a motion again. During this time, many things came out during escrow (buyer walked out last Friday.) Title wanted a letter from Trustee saying it was alright to sell, or some sort of payout document. I consulted with the BK attorneys. The result is:
The BK attorneys advised me to agree to a "stip" with Trustee to repay tax refunds before it goes to court, which I have done. What troubles me is that my BK attorneys do not want the Trustee to know about my having title to the house. They say he can take all proceeds and tie everything up as well as make me repay all my debts that was declared and discharged in BK. Is this true? Makes me uncomfortable that the BK attorneys are telling me to be quiet. I told them I had title to house, I even have a fax which I sent to them which followed up on this conversation. All they have been telling me is that its my fault for not paying the tax refunds.
I didn't do anything wrong. I thought I was discharged and when a decision had to be made about protecting the family home it was done so that a mentally disabled and blind sister as well as an elderly mother who's had a 5way bypass would have a roof over their heads.
If the Trustee finds out about the house being in my name and that there will be adequate proceeds to cover the 45K should it sell, will he demand that all my creditors be repaid?
My sister died last month, I would like to have enough money left to care for my mom at least. It would several years before I could qualify to buy a home, and would like to have savings to build credit back up too.
I really have lost confidence in my BK attorney and think that they are somehow only protecting their own @ss and not working in my interest. This is the same BK attorneys that did not inform me or advise me about a "motion to discharge or avoid lien" to which they were aware of when I first consulted with them. When I mentioned this to them last week one of the attorney said that "you didn't own anything at the time..." somehow I feel wronged.
Should I get another offer on the house and I am still making payments through a "stip" versus having it paid off completely, how does that affect the sale does? Does anyone know what will happen in this kind of situation?
Comment