What's the big deal?

[yomama]

I've read on here about reaffirming or not reaffirming and people saying to be on the safe side and not lose your vehicle it would be a good idea to reaffirm. Why not just do that and be done with it? I guess I don't understand what the big deal is about reaffirming? Just what are the consequences of reaffirming vs. if you wouldn't reaffirm? I know that by not reaffirming you take the chance of the lender repossessing the car, but what chance do you take by reaffirming? Why do people so reluctant to reaffirm? Unless I don't get the whole picture, it seemed pretty obvious to me that we had to reaffirm because we don't want to lose my husband's vehicle. His is only 2 yr old compared to mine of 13 yr. I wouldn't care so much if I'd lose mine because I'm not working anyway (at least for the time being) and it's only worth about $1000. Mine is paid for, of course, and it's included in the exemptions, so I guess I won't lose it.

[CATCHMEIFYOUCAN]

Mine is paid for, of course, and it's included in the exemptions, so I guess I won't lose it.

It's no big deal to you because yours is paid for. Some people are just unsecure and need positive opinions. This is a positive site no matter what there questions are even if the same question(s) asked in different ways. Always think positive!

Catchmeifyoucan

[yomama]

Oh, I'm sorry, maybe I should have worded it differently. I didn't mean that those people didn't have a legitimate question, and I wasn't trying to put anybody down or anything. I was just trying to express my confusion about the whole thing. I guess I just meant that if there's no difference between affirming and not reaffirming, then why shouldn't a person reaffirm. Well, now that probably didn't even sound right. Nevermind, I'm afraid the more I say it will keep coming off the wrong way. I don't need it explained that badly, I guess. I honestly didn't mean it in a negative way and my apologies if I made it sound that way.

[bezoar]

Mainly because it re-obligates the debtor for the debt. If the debtor's financial situation is tenuous, that may not be the best thing to do. Many attorneys feel that they do a disservice to their clients if they leave them responsible for any debt after the dust settles.

My GF's brother & his wife filed a couple of years ago, used a standing trustee/bk att'y for their BK, and for some reason, she had them reaffirm 1st and 2nd mortgages and their car. They've lost them all now due to more bad decisions, and are being sued for deficiencies now. They pretty much wasted their BK "bullet."

I'd hate to go thru all this, only to have the collection calls/lawyers start calling again. I didn't reaffirm anything on the advice of my attorney - but then I was "old law," and in a circuit that upheld the "retain" option.

[bethe23432]

Yomama, I told my attorney from the beginning I wanted to keep my vehicle and assumed that reaffirmation was a given. Now, as I wait for discharge, he's saying it's not necessary and he doesn't recommend it. I don't get it either. I figured reaffirming was just what you had to do to keep the vehicle, if you could afford the payments, and now I guess I can choose not to, following the advice of my lawyer, and supposedly not lose the vehicle, although that's not what the bank says. Apparently there are nuances involved with reaffirming that are not immediately clear. I'm trying to get info so I do the right thing for me, and whereas I do pretty much trust my lawyer, he's just making me nervous on this issue. I've gotten some good info here and I think I have a better understanding of it now. It appears that I can just keep making the payments and possibly the bank won't want the vehicle back, although it's also possible they will do what they said and require either reaffirmation or surrender. I guess I just have to decide which way to go, and if I decide to reaffirm then I have to figure out how to convince my lawyer to do it.

[SinkingFast]

Mainly because it re-obligates the debtor for the debt. If the debtor's financial situation is tenuous, that may not be the best thing to do. Many attorneys feel that they do a disservice to their clients if they leave them responsible for any debt after the dust settles.

My GF's brother & his wife filed a couple of years ago, used a standing trustee/bk att'y for their BK, and for some reason, she had them reaffirm 1st and 2nd mortgages and their car. They've lost them all now due to more bad decisions, and are being sued for deficiencies now. They pretty much wasted their BK "bullet."

I'd hate to go thru all this, only to have the collection calls/lawyers start calling again. I didn't reaffirm anything on the advice of my attorney - but then I was "old law," and in a circuit that upheld the "retain" option.

That pretty much sums it up.

Many people who go thru BK DO NOT change their spending habits. They don't learn from the past and are doomed to repeat it.

In the case of Medical issues or Job Loss, that too may happen again. Putting the Filer back in the same spot they were in before they filed.

If the Lender does not require a Reaffirmation to retain property, then if need be later, the BK Filer can just turn over the car or house and walk away.

If you sign a Reaffirmation agreement, you're stuck. You'll be responsible for any deficiency balances if you default.

[CindyLou]

Case in point: I was very upside down in my car prior to BK. It was not a car I cared to drive for the long term. I DID NOT reaf. but kept paying. I paid on the car for 6 months after discharge. Once my discharge was done, my credit had improved a lot!! So, I simply gave the car back and purchased another vehicle with a better interest rate. Now I am driving a car I like, lower monthly payment, better interest rate, and I owe nothing on the other car. It was part of my BK planning to not reaf. and Ford Motor Credit was very easy to work with. Hope this answers the OP question.

[CATCHMEIFYOUCAN]

Yomama

YOMAMA

U AIIIGHT

CATCHMEIFYOUCAN