Over unsecured limit.

[filingin08]

So... PACER has unsecured claims of $346,083.29. Atty is ready to argue that part of that is student loans and shouldn't be unsecured anyway since they can't be discharged. We'll be a test case, if it comes to it (geez).

Anyway... some of the debt is listed twice. Hope this makes sense... Discover is listed and has filed a claim. Also, husband's ex-wife also filed a claim against us for the amount we owe Discover. So... it's kind of like the same debt is listed twice... although if it's not paid 100% in the BK (and it won't be), she becomes liable for it and then we owe her (or potentially owe her).

Anyone have this type of double dipping and should I be concerned or just wait it out?

[Tbornetun]

Wait it out. It could be possible that all the creditors will not file claims. If they do and your attorney is prepared to argue the point, let him have at it.

[filingin08]

The deadline for non-government claims has passed. $346k in claims have been filed. Will wait. Seems to be all we do. Wait. Wait. Wait. Could be worse, I suppose.

[HHM]

Another option for dealing with over limit 13-if you are a married couple-is to file separate 13's and simply request to have them jointly administered. This seems to only work if some of the debt is separate debt.

[catleg]

Have your attorney challenge all of the claims and see if any of them go away.

[justbroke]

Let me throw myself into the mix here.

I am actually over the 11 USC 109(e) limits myself. Different courts have reached different conclusions on whether 109(e) applies and when it applies in these cases.

Some courts believe that the 109(e) limits apply to what is on the Debtor's Schedules. Others fell that the 109(e) limits apply to what has actually been filed as claims. Then, the third camp believe that it can be determined based on how the Judge feels (Judge can look beyond the schedules and claims). There is good caselaw to suggest that the latter (looking beyond the schedules) is permissible.

First, someone would have to raise a 109(e) limit objection. Yes, the Trustee or party in interest would have to raise an Objection to Confirmation and the reason would be 11 USC 109(e). Otherwise, if you get to confirmation without that objection, then it would be considered res judicata after that point.

So how do you fight the 109(e) objection to confirmation... exactly what has been stated here. First, you just ignore it. Hope that the Trustee and no one else raises the objection.


Second, you can try to object to as many claims as possible... however, remember that judges should be looking beyond the schedules and looking at your true financial picture at the time you filed. This means that this does NOT take into account creditors who do not file claims, or on claims that you objected to and won the objection. It's what you actually owed at the time of filing. So it's harder, in some cases, to beat that one.

Third, you fight it on whether the claim is disputed, contingent or unliquidated. The only thing that counts for 11 USC 109(e) are undisputed. liquidated and non-contingent claims! So, this could be an area where you could win.

My strategy was the third one. I did not have to use it, because the Trustee never brought up an Objection to Confirmation based on 11 USC 109(e) (or any objection for that matter). If I were to use the third one, I would have claimed that my lien strip was contingent and unliquidated because it required a hearing to determine that value of the claim!

Other than that, I have looked into this alot (and should probably update my blog with what I typed here).

I am actually at over $346K myself. However, I'm now confirmed, so no one can bother me with 11 USC 109(e) objections.

Also, good luck to your lawyer trying to claim that non-dischargeable student debt is not part of the 11 USC 109(e) calculation. Just like IRS taxes, student debt, is... well... unsecured debt. I don't see how you -- your lawyer -- claims otherwise. Will be great caselaw!