New to Chap 13

[LadyInTheRed]

I qualified for a 3 year plan, and according to my attorney my payments were to be at $200 per month. Then the next day after I signed the papers, I noticed one of my business credit cards had been left off. My papers were quickly redone, and my payments were to be almost $300 per month. At that time, I didn't know about this forum, so I asked for an additional year (I was not forced) and was able to keep my payments back at $200 per month. I now know the % doesn't matter, but I guess my attorney seems to think it "looks better" to the trustee if the the unsecureds get something.

Sorry, but IMO your attorney sucks. The addition of unsecured debt should not have increased your proposed plan payment.

[lillymarlene]

Sorry, but IMO your attorney sucks. The addition of unsecured debt should not have increased your proposed plan payment.

Maybe, but another attorney I consulted with was trying to force me into a 7... Another "free consult" also said he could only help me remove my personal debt, none of the business debt which a good portion of my debt was. I'm one of these strange people that wanted to do a 13 hoping to retain a few non-exempt assets. Most of my debt is unsecured, and because of my low income I was told the unsecureds would get nothing, which just wouldn't "look good."

Then, don't people have to payback at least what the creditors could have received if a 7 was filed?

[karm43]

When we have a emergency we take from our grocery amount, and it seems every week something comes up. My attorney pretty much told us the national standards is what their gonna give you. So you could say it come out of entertainment for example but it comes out of the standard where your grocery are on that schedule. Some are able to take from their gas money, if I worked close that would have worked. It is not a walk in the park, have to sacrafice and pray nothing big breaks! Even if you put 20 dollars of your grocery money away. All chap 13 are different some allow cell and cable some don't, but you do have to find a good attorney who will fight for you and answer your questions.

[dmc-2008]

My atty told me an EF was " not allowed"! I was/am shocked! I think you get a certain amt for food and clothes and u need to go ynder that amt a month and save the diff. Good luck, I need it to and really understand!!!

[LadyInTheRed]

Maybe, but another attorney I consulted with was trying to force me into a 7... Another "free consult" also said he could only help me remove my personal debt, none of the business debt which a good portion of my debt was. I'm one of these strange people that wanted to do a 13 hoping to retain a few non-exempt assets. Most of my debt is unsecured, and because of my low income I was told the unsecureds would get nothing, which just wouldn't "look good."

Then, don't people have to payback at least what the creditors could have received if a 7 was filed?

Yes, you have to pay secured creditors at least what they would receive in a Chap 7 liquidation. Are you sure the reason for the $100 increase was the additional creditor? Maybe when your attorney went to add the creditor to your petition, he realized that the lower plan payment didn't cover the value of your non-exempt assets. You can't file a Chap 13 and keep non-exempt assets and pay nothing to unsecured creditors.

ETA: What "looks good" is irrelevant. What is important is that the plan complies with the law. The law does not require that your payment be based on the amount of unsecured debt you have, except that your plan is complete when you pay 100% of claims. A trustee may look more closely if a plan pays less than a certain percentage of unsecured debt. But staying above that percentage is not a good reason for an attorney to draft a plan with a payment that is hire than required by law.

[lillymarlene]

Yes, you have to pay secured creditors at least what they would receive in a Chap 7 liquidation. Are you sure the reason for the $100 increase was the additional creditor? Maybe when your attorney went to add the creditor to your petition, he realized that the lower plan payment didn't cover the value of your non-exempt assets. You can't file a Chap 13 and keep non-exempt assets and pay nothing to unsecured creditors.

ETA: What "looks good" is irrelevant. What is important is that the plan complies with the law. The law does not require that your payment be based on the amount of unsecured debt you have, except that your plan is complete when you pay 100% of claims. A trustee may look more closely if a plan pays less than a certain percentage of unsecured debt. But staying above that percentage is not a good reason for an attorney to draft a plan with a payment that is hire than required by law.

Actually it would have been a $70 difference, and even that made me nervous. I felt comfortable being closer to $200 than $300. I am trying to keep certain non-exempt assets. For example at the time I filed, my state's automobile exemption was only $750, and I didn't think I could have anything that would actually run at that price

Then too, I think I read here in other posts (even though according to law you don't have to pay anything) don't some trustees in some districts sort of "frown" on filers who pay nothing to unsecured creditors?

[LadyInTheRed]

Actually it would have been a $70 difference, and even that made me nervous. I felt comfortable being closer to $200 than $300. I am trying to keep certain non-exempt assets. For example at the time I filed, my state's automobile exemption was only $750, and I didn't think I could have anything that would actually run at that price

Then too, I think I read here in other posts (even though according to law you don't have to pay anything) don't some trustees in some districts sort of "frown" on filers who pay nothing to unsecured creditors?

The trustee can frown as much as he wants. If he objects to the plan, he has to have a valid basis on which to object. The plan not paying at least the value of the debtor's non-exempt assets to unsecured creditors is a basis for objection. Unreasonable expenses being included when calculating DMI is a basis for objection. The plan not paying a high enough percentage to unsecured creditors is not. If a trustee objects to a plan without a valid basis, it is the debtor's attorney's job to go to either convince the trustee he is wrong and to withdraw the objeciton or go to the confirmation hearing and fight the objection.

I understand the desire to submit a plan that the trusee will not object to. But, when you have a trustee that objects to any plan that doesn't pay a certain percentage of unsecured claims, an attorney is not providing adequate representation if he recommends a plan that will satisfy the trustee but that is not a fair and reasonable plan for his client.

[lillymarlene]

O.K.^ but I did have a lot of non-exempt assets to cover. Then at the time I filed I didn't know about this forum, and could have misunderstood. All I saw was my payments going up, and I can't believe I suggested the additional year. But, now at least it's more than 50% over.

[LadyInTheRed]

O.K.^ but I did have a lot of non-exempt assets to cover. Then at the time I filed I didn't know about this forum, and could have misunderstood. All I saw was my payments going up, and I can't believe I suggested the additional year. But, now at least it's more than 50% over.

Sounds like you needed the additional year if you wanted to keep the non-exempt assets. The longer plan was probably a smarter decision than a payment you would have to struggle to make.

I would take back the comment that your attorney sucks now that it appears the additional unsecured creditor may not have been the reason for the increase in plan payment. But, I read some of your earlier posts about the way your attorney treated you and I still think he sucks.

[lillymarlene]

Sounds like you needed the additional year if you wanted to keep the non-exempt assets. The longer plan was probably a smarter decision than a payment you would have to struggle to make.

I would take back the comment that your attorney sucks now that it appears the additional unsecured creditor may not have been the reason for the increase in plan payment. But, I read some of your earlier posts about the way your attorney treated you and I still think he sucks.

Yeah, he (not on this site where you can't mention names) got a fairly negative review... that he's unfriendly, snobbish, irritable, doesn't go over important points and the biggest item: that he expects a person to walk in there being totally knowledgeable about bk. Unfortunately I tend to agree with that assessment.

But, the reason I chose him over two other free ftf consults, and a couple of phone consults, over all of them he seemed the most "intelligent" and would work the hardest. I also took one look and thought WOW, I think I'd hate to have to go up against a person like that, but he's just the type of person I'd like to have on my side in this type of "battle." He also was a law professor and was recommended to me by another attorney that I know.

For the most part I've been happy with my choice. At my 341 he painted such a fantastic picture of me, I practically didn't recognize myself I was able to keep my answers short to yes or no, and basically sit back and let him take the lead.