Reform's Impact on Consumer Lenders

[bkfiler]

Reform's Impact on Consumer Lenders The time between Chapter 7 filings is extended from six to eight years, and a debtor must wait two years between Chapter 13 filings, and three (i think its supposed to be 4) years after receiving a discharge under Chapter 7, 11 (mostly for businesses), or 12 (for family farmers).

http://www.collectionsworld.com/cgi-bin/readstory2.pl?story=20050701CCRC033.xml

[bkfiler]

creditors point of view regarding bk law changes.


this article above says 3 years before i can file chapter 13 after a chap 7 but most others say 4 years - see two cases below.

----------------------------
TIME BETWEEN FILING CASES
These provisions apply to cases filed both before and after October 17, 2005.

You will not be eligible to receive a discharge of your debts in Chapter 7 if you received a prior discharge within 8 years of the new filing. You will not be eligible to receive a discharge in Chapter 13 if you have filed a Chapter 7, 11 or 12 bankruptcy case within the 4 years prior to the date of filing of the pending case, or if you have filed a Chapter 13 case within 2 years of the pending case.
----------------------------

6. Serial Filings (Chapter 20)

A discharge will not be granted in Chapter 13 if the debtor obtained a discharge in Chapter 7, 11 or 12 within the 4 years prior to the date of filing of the pending case, or in a Chapter 13 case filed within 2 years of the pending case. This provision, though, does not prevent the debtor from filing a Chapter 13 case and receiving the benefits of the stay, including the ability to cure arrearages on secured claims over a period of time.

[FoolAndHisMoney]

You just made my case for healthcare reform we were discussing earlier. In trying to fix a problem all it is starting to look like is congress not only can't prevent people from filing, but it looks as if they made a mess of those they are trying to help. With no more cramdowns, unsecured creditors that lobbied for reform will get less, if the economy slows down as it always does millions will file and the courts will be backed up and they don't have the funds or the staff to enforce the current, more difficult law. They just created another "unfunded mandate" without giving it a second thought. Once again thumbs up for the lawyers! They can now double fees and justify it.

I think they just should have investigated fraud and abuse more effectivly, exempted more retirement accounts and left the old laws alone. Again I can't find any winners except for lawyers charging more.

[bkfiler]

well then can i delete my post then. i didnt mean to help you out!

i still dont think i did though. i dont see how they come together. but maybe im doing that out of ignorance so i cant see your point. the mind works in strange ways to protect what is dear to us.

the laws were changed to benefit the creditors at first. cuz they were the ones to get involved to get it changed. but then others jumped in and started mucking with it. and then everyone had to work with eachotehr to get it passed. nothing ever works like it was supposed to imo. to many give and takes.

of course the attorneys made out. most of the people involved in all the wrangling were attorneys regardless of side - so as attorneys they had a stronger underlying majority to work it that way maybe

[FoolAndHisMoney]

I meant everytime the government tries to "fix a problem" not matter what it seems that they are not capable of doing so. Children need access to health care as everyone agrees. If congress provides this rest assure we will all be out of work trying to pay for it. Congress tried to fix the bankruptcy system on behalf or the credit card industry and court system and I don't even see how they will benefit from it. Other then a few more people in chapter 13's that's about it. Besides debtors the courts also have more work to do and they have no resources to do it. My point is be carefull you don't make a problem worse in trying to fix it.

[bkfiler]

i agree about the gov. too many people involved. maybe thats the evil we have to deal with for the good we get from it.

if i was tasked to fix the bk problem i could. i wouldnt have touched the laws. i would have restricted the creditors from giving so much credit to everyone. they would be allowed secured loans and 5% max of credit card limits. period.

you cant pay anymore? fine. the creditors take your stuff and set you up with payments over the next 10 years for the credit card balance you have.

its not the laws that are a problem, its the people using the cards. we owe that money back. nice to not have to pay it imo. we are lucky. but if you want to fix it, then fix it where the real problem is. its obvious to me that giving me $200K unsecured credit line is not a good idea if i dont own a business that is making money.

what on earth would i need that for? it just makes it easier for me to come up with other ways to not solve my real problem so to speak.

medical should be paid by the government at half imo. cant pay anymore? medical debt should be bk'ed and then paid a portion of the half owed over 30 years. make it easy and make so they get something back.

these are just simple and quick numbers. use whatever makes sense.

this is how id fix it. not change the bk laws. thats for sure lol. that was done/started as a favor to big(huge) business/credit companies as we all know.