Husband is out-of-country (factoring in his share of money).

[platter]

When my husband's employer finally had to do layoffs because of economy, he was one of the last ones to get layed off, received employment benefits, the time frame gave him a chance to visit his kids and family in Mexico City since June. I do all the finances and he wouldn't understand this BK process.

(I'm planning Chapter 7, filing on 'myself', not together, it's my CC debt) and he told me if I wanted to go ahead and do it, then that was my decision.

In late August when I spoke with an atty in consultation and we were discussing money matters and where some of his money regarding bills, etc, I said that he helps his kids and family in Mexico. She gave me this strange look, that I interpreted as, "...and how are we going to prove this."

From last years income tax, we made a lot of money together and I think she alluded to that. I really don't know what she was thinking but she gave me a wierd look. I never asked her why she looked at me funny. I think it might've been that she was wondering why I was ending up filing bankruptsy now and would have to show what expenses we both have and some of his are more difficult to explain? I dunno!

Can our helping them factor in to our expenses?

[tobee43]

is there an existing court order of child support?? if so, most likely it can be used.

was your husband's divorce here or in mexico???

[platter]

There's been no divorce since they weren't married previously, his kids are Mexican nationals in Mexico. My husband is an LPR (Legal Permenant Resident) here in the U.S. There's no court decrees regarding his kids. (Laws aren't the same as the U.S.) He has always helped them of his own accord. So, basically, there's nothing legal to prove it.

I still can't figure out why the lawyer had the funny look when I told her, "Well, he helps his family in Mexico." She appeared to have a look such as it's a hard one to explain or something, or sort of like she wouldn't want to have to explain. I really don't know. Maybe it was a look representative of a thought such as, "Figures." (You know, like we say we have nothing else to say, "Well, that figures!" Like it is something that corners us because of having to explain it, I really don't know. Just guessing because I saw the look on her face.

[tobee43]

There's been no divorce since they weren't married previously, his kids are Mexican nationals in Mexico. My husband is an LPR (Legal Permenant Resident) here in the U.S. There's no court decrees regarding his kids. (Laws aren't the same as the U.S.) He has always helped them of his own accord. So, basically, there's nothing legal to prove it.

I still can't figure out why the lawyer had the funny look when I told her, "Well, he helps his family in Mexico." She appeared to have a look such as it's a hard one to explain or something, or sort of like she wouldn't want to have to explain. I really don't know. Maybe it was a look representative of a thought such as, "Figures." (You know, like we say we have nothing else to say, "Well, that figures!" Like it is something that corners us because of having to explain it, I really don't know. Just guessing because I saw the look on her face.

ask her...tell you you saw an expression on her face that concerns you. it's very difficult to guess what someone is thinking and sometimes in hindsight we wished we had said something.

follow your instincts....ask her directly, i saw a look on your face and since i don't know you ...was it concern, was it that you had a question....you need to feel as comfortable with your atty as possible during this most uncomfortable situation. no sense in second guessing her thoughts ...be direct....do you have something to be concerned about or not??? if so...tell me what it is...because you don't want to wait until you get in front of a trustee at 341 hearing before you know there may be a problem......

once again...call her...tell her your concerns.

[platter]

I could still schedule some more consultations. At least at another consultation I'll be even better prepared with specific questions.

It was in a consultation and I just blew it off because I figured it might also be an expression of, "Everybody can say that, they're not going to believe it", or something like that. I didn't think quick enough to ask her because you know how conversations run, one sentence on to another and on and on.

In another breath she mentioned after so much time that they (who's they, the court?) could come and get my truck. (My truck is '97 and is paid for so who in heck is going to come and get my truck?) It was as if she was trying to instill a tad bit of fear into me. I then pinned her down and said, "Yeah, but they do certain things at the 30 day, 60 - and 90 day period." She then changed her stand and stated that it would be probably be after the 90 or even much later that they might do something. (Speaking, I suppose, on the basis that if I don't get an attorney to handle my case.) I know she was trying to instill fear in me but she saw that it didn't work.

At the end of consultation she mumbled, "I don't go into the laws about this because people then walk out of here and hire a paralegal." (Best few words she could've ever said to me because it made me start thinking about using a Court Document Service.) She kept her consultations short.

[scorpion35]

When my husband's employer finally had to do layoffs because of economy, he was one of the last ones to get layed off, received employment benefits, the time frame gave him a chance to visit his kids and family in Mexico City since June. I do all the finances and he wouldn't understand this BK process.

(I'm planning Chapter 7, filing on 'myself', not together, it's my CC debt) and he told me if I wanted to go ahead and do it, then that was my decision.

In late August when I spoke with an atty in consultation and we were discussing money matters and where some of his money regarding bills, etc, I said that he helps his kids and family in Mexico. She gave me this strange look, that I interpreted as, "...and how are we going to prove this."

From last years income tax, we made a lot of money together and I think she alluded to that. I really don't know what she was thinking but she gave me a wierd look. I never asked her why she looked at me funny. I think it might've been that she was wondering why I was ending up filing bankruptsy now and would have to show what expenses we both have and some of his are more difficult to explain? I dunno!

Can our helping them factor in to our expenses?

i bet she gave u the look because unless u can prove with paperwork where the money hes sending to mexico goes ,the trustee will conclude that your husband is sending money to mexico to hide it, and in the trustees eyes thats fraud
but this is pure speculation

[platter]

I'm thinking that she knows it was a legitimate response and there's nothing wrong in giving an answer of helping your kids, etc. (It wasn't a great amt of money that he's given, not a questionable amount at all.) He's also helped a lady there that he's known for years that has diabetes with her foot cut off and legally blind (can only see minimally).

I think it was because I spit the response out so quickly. I had sort of thrown her a curball when I answered so rapidly and the answer I gave her wasn't a typical response that 'she expected to hear.' And maybe she'd never had a response like that. (Like well, hmm, what could she say next? I stumped her at that point.) Looking back in retrospect, that's what I'm beginning to think it was.

[tobee43]

I'm thinking that she knows it was a legitimate response and there's nothing wrong in giving an answer of helping your kids, etc. (It wasn't a great amt of money that he's given, not a questionable amount at all.) He's also helped a lady there that he's known for years that has diabetes with her foot cut off and legally blind (can only see minimally).

I think it was because I spit the response out so quickly. I had sort of thrown her a curball when I answered so rapidly and the answer I gave her wasn't a typical response that 'she expected to hear.' And maybe she'd never had a response like that. (Like well, hmm, what could she say next? I stumped her at that point.) Looking back in retrospect, that's what I'm beginning to think it was.

again...i think it's difficult to assume what one is thinking. i would give her a call or drop her an email and get it straighten out.

we all say things we think may have been understood...or type things....LOL!!! i do it all the time. but then, if there feels or seems like there may have been a miscommunication, i would at the least attempt to clarify it.

[AngelinaCatHub]

Platter, I would discount any type of body language. Forget it as a factor.

Here is something to consider; the lawyer knows the letter of the law. As your hubby was not legally married in the U.S. and the children are not under U.S. law, he is legally not entitled to support them and cause bankruptcy exemptions upon the bankruptcy laws. In other words it is moot point legally and he should be paying creditors in this Country and nothing to another Country. Now don't get me wrong. He is morally obligated to take care of his kids. I wish more here in our Country were. But in the law, they do not exist at all since there is no Court order, paternal suit, or citizen issue. "No regulatory authority [Al Gore]". So he has no legal exemption or expense to declare on his bankruptcy forms.

Understand my take? I would probably 'grimace' a bit myself on that issue. This could cause you a bit of a technical (not moral) problem. I'll be interested if 'BKlawyer" chimes in to clarify this. 'Hub

[tobee43]

Platter, I would discount any type of body language. Forget it as a factor.

Here is something to consider; the lawyer knows the letter of the law. As your hubby was not legally married in the U.S. and the children are not under U.S. law, he is legally not entitled to support them and cause bankruptcy exemptions upon the bankruptcy laws. In other words it is moot point legally and he should be paying creditors in this Country and nothing to another Country. Now don't get me wrong. He is morally obligated to take care of his kids. I wish more here in our Country were. But in the law, they do not exist at all since there is no Court order, paternal suit, or citizen issue. "No regulatory authority [Al Gore]". So he has no legal exemption or expense to declare on his bankruptcy forms.

Understand my take? I would probably 'grimace' a bit myself on that issue. This could cause you a bit of a technical (not moral) problem. I'll be interested if 'BKlawyer" chimes in to clarify this. 'Hub

i do...i understand it hub....and excellent perspective for certain!

[platter]

Right, as I mentioned they're MX nationals and nothing legal to prove mandatory assistance to them. I'm not really even certain that it was that important. My background from way back is psychology. Determining affectation and verbal responses in conjunction comes very easily for me but only if and when there's normally enough info to go with it but this point wasn't elaborated on and, of course, this is legalities we're dealing with and unknown territory for me.

It was sort of the rapid fire back and forth conversation that usually is hard to even take notes on. I had a list of questions that I typed out and it was hard to scribble something and answer to each one. I see what a BK consultation basically consists of and before hiring an atty, one can learn a lot from a forum such as this one. If I shedule another consultation with ann atty elsewhere, I'll now be much better prepared with my questions. (I even think that she really didn't like seeing all the questions I had as well, increasing the consultation.) She went over the 15 minute free consultation, by only maybe five or ten minutes, if that, which was far way more minimal that the other two had allotted in their consultations.

It could be a myriad of thoughts she had at that point and most likely just as AngelinaCatHub stated. I really didn't care for her overall attitude (not because of this issue) and I think her cost was a tad higher than most for an individual filing Chapter 7. Around $1,600 vs most around $1,300 total. I would ask again, as tobee43 has suggested, but I'm not considering hiring her.

More than being fearful of the Means Test which I'm quite certain 'I'm' eligible for a Chapter 7, I realize it's the thought of the expense list that is causing me to think it might be more difficult that in it literally is. It's just the initial stress of thinking that I don't have the required expenses that we are going to need and this thought came after I heard about the state's mean wage or Federal allowable expenses or something like that to which you compare your total.

I think I read where tobee43 commented in another thread that to look forward is the way to calculate the expenses and not calculate as being on a lower income as such with employment benefits. (tobee43, please clarify, it was a good comment but I forgot exactly where it is.) For both of us together, it's $2,178/month. With my not paying 'my' credit cards, there's extra money, of course. Do we list the expenses as they are 'when we have the normal, previous income'. I know to list all expenses and pay attention to those extra ones such as AAA Plus towing, Sam's Card, etc. so that we don't forget some.



Your comments are much appreciated.

[tobee43]

platter:I think I read where tobee43 commented in another thread that to look forward is the way to calculate the expenses and not calculate as being on a lower income as such with employment benefits. (tobee43, please clarify, it was a good comment but I forgot exactly where it is.) For both of us together, it's $2,178/month. With my not paying 'my' credit cards, there's extra money, of course. Do we list the expenses as they are 'when we have the normal, previous income'. I know to list all expenses and pay attention to those extra ones such as AAA Plus towing, Sam's Card, etc. so that we don't forget some.

i'm not certain which post your referring to...so i will do my best to just let you know what we did.

what we did was we used actual expenses...real ones...however, you need to leave room for an example....the electric, we moved here were told the electric was x...and the electric company got a increase which doubled the bill....we used actual cost, however, we did leave room with maintenance cost etc., to allow for unseen rate increases etc. also food cost...in one part of the country they are higher than others..so even tho many use the federal guidelines...the trustee's in your general area know what's what. another example of that was we were questioned about why our food cost were so low...and actually i had based them on our "old" budget, not realizing where we moved our food cost again...over doubled! even tho we had lived here frankly for the first 6-9 months we spent almost nothing on actual food because we were living on just local veggies and what we boxed up...so i really didn't have actual costs. so these are the areas which you can adjust...but keep it as honest as possible..it's far easier to remember the truth than a lie....

now...in as much as UI...it will depend on your district..in our case it depended on the county in our district. our UI was protected under the ss act, however, one county over it is NOT...so it will depend on where you live.

i do know there was a dispute with the trustee's office in reference to our atty arguing the fact about adding back in what we were paying on our charge cards. the trustee's office says that amount needs to be added into our dmi...where as our atty argued for the purpose of the means test it cannot be removed since until it is discharged it is still owed....ok...whom am i to argue what i thought was a moot point.

our dmi was @ -approx. 3k...and even if they added back the cc's payment we were at a clear negative because of expenses.

best of luck, i'm sure everything will turn out fine. it might not be an easy go of it, but you will get through it.

[tobee43]

Right, as I mentioned they're MX nationals and nothing legal to prove mandatory assistance to them. I'm not really even certain that it was that important. My background from way back is psychology. Determining affectation and verbal responses in conjunction comes very easily for me but only if and when there's normally enough info to go with it but this point wasn't elaborated on and, of course, this is legalities we're dealing with and unknown territory for me.

It was sort of the rapid fire back and forth conversation that usually is hard to even take notes on. I had a list of questions that I typed out and it was hard to scribble something and answer to each one. I see what a BK consultation basically consists of and before hiring an atty, one can learn a lot from a forum such as this one. If I shedule another consultation with ann atty elsewhere, I'll now be much better prepared with my questions. (I even think that she really didn't like seeing all the questions I had as well, increasing the consultation.) She went over the 15 minute free consultation, by only maybe five or ten minutes, if that, which was far way more minimal that the other two had allotted in their consultations.

It could be a myriad of thoughts she had at that point and most likely just as AngelinaCatHub stated. I really didn't care for her overall attitude (not because of this issue) and I think her cost was a tad higher than most for an individual filing Chapter 7. Around $1,600 vs most around $1,300 total. I would ask again, as tobee43 has suggested, but I'm not considering hiring her.

More than being fearful of the Means Test which I'm quite certain 'I'm' eligible for a Chapter 7, I realize it's the thought of the expense list that is causing me to think it might be more difficult that in it literally is. It's just the initial stress of thinking that I don't have the required expenses that we are going to need and this thought came after I heard about the state's mean wage or Federal allowable expenses or something like that to which you compare your total.

I think I read where tobee43 commented in another thread that to look forward is the way to calculate the expenses and not calculate as being on a lower income as such with employment benefits. (tobee43, please clarify, it was a good comment but I forgot exactly where it is.) For both of us together, it's $2,178/month. With my not paying 'my' credit cards, there's extra money, of course. Do we list the expenses as they are 'when we have the normal, previous income'. I know to list all expenses and pay attention to those extra ones such as AAA Plus towing, Sam's Card, etc. so that we don't forget some.



Your comments are much appreciated.

oh....and i need to add...this is not a complicated situation....this IS what i posted...it's just simply expenses vs income equals dmi....people so over think the means test.

if you fail it...review it and see what you can do to adjust it as honestly as possible.

fact is, it may be possible that it's not meant...i really doubt that for you....really. do not worry, i see your monthly income and not even knowing your expenses it seems like you should work it out.