341 today, did screw it up?

[Rudolph]

Ok, I had my meeting with the trustee today, and before we went in, my atty took me and another of his clients outside to explain to us what the trustee was going to ask, basically yes or no questions, and he asked us the questions to see how we would answer. He asked me if I had sold any assets, like cars, etc in the last 4 years, and I said yes, I sold a car in January for 1400.00. My atty then said it was no big deal and not to worry about it. So, when I was asked that question by the trustee, I said yes, he asked what and when, and what did I do with the money. He then asked if this was a surprise to my atty, and he said yes, it was. Then he looked on a computer screen and pointed something out to the atty, and my atty said the presumption of fraud wasn't even close, but the trustee said it was close. Then the trustee said something about an ammendment, and said I could leave. My atty followed me outside, and told me he had to file an amendment, and it wold cost me another 250 dollars, but I told him I had told him about the car, and I did, and I told him before today even. So then he said he would take care of it. My quetion is, did I just screw myself up over a 1400.00 car sale? Since there has to be an amendment, does this slow things down? This is supposed to be a no assest chapter 7 case, and according to the means test, I'm ok. Close, but ok. Anyone ever have to do an amendment like this?

[HeatherB]

Sounds like the attorney threw you under the bus. I'm sure it was unintentional but I would be upset that I would have to pay an extra 250 to my attorney. I would feel like he should've asked me if I had sold anything BEFORE the 341 meeting.

I'm not sure why you had to add the amendment, but I hope things work out for you. I can understand why you would be concerned, too.

Good Luck

[Rudolph]

Sounds like the attorney threw you under the bus. I'm sure it was unintentional but I would be upset that I would have to pay an extra 250 to my attorney. I would feel like he should've asked me if I had sold anything BEFORE the 341 meeting.

I'm not sure why you had to add the amendment, but I hope things work out for you. I can understand why you would be concerned, too.

Good Luck

I took it that after I objected that I already told him about this, he said he would just do it, no fee. That is what I expect, anyway. I'll give it a few days and see what happens. But is this any big deal? Should I have just said no? Couldn't this just be considered exempt property anyway, since I don't really have much stuff?

[HeatherB]

Let's hope that the trustee was disappointed in the lawyer for not having that information ahead of time. It could be that since it was in January that you sold the car, they are amending the original paperwork to add this in to "protect" you from the other creditors saying that they wanted a portion of the sale price.... meaning, maybe the trustee thinks that a creditor will try to object and take that money somehow. Really, I'm not sure. But what was done and said is done and said. No need to worry yourself about it too much as of yet.

Perhaps someone with better knowledge and experience with something like this will chime in shortly for you.

[jp2861]

Do they really look back 4 years to see what someone has sold? That seems like a long time to look back.

[B12]

Same question. Do they?

[lrprn]

Do they really look back 4 years to see what someone has sold? That seems like a long time to look back.

If the trustee suspects fraud, they can look back as far as they need to in order to investigate it.

[JRScott]

Good Luck

We've had other members that had issues turn up and they got smoothed over so hopefully yours will .

(If they suspect fraud its not unusual for them to look back as much as 7 years....but I don't think that's the case here)

[PaKettle]

If the trustee suspects fraud, they can look back as far as they need to in order to investigate it.

I don't understand what sellling a car for $1400 has to do with fraud. Can someone enlighten me on this?

I sold a car also in January or so, and told my attorney about it, it also was for around $1500, and I used the money towards buying a new car. What's the big deal? Would it help if I bring the bill of sale with me to the 341? Are they suspecting the car was worth much more than that and was sold to a friend or something? I don't get it.

[CoCoChanel]

I just read your post and I felt so bad for you. I am one of the many pro se filers on this board and when I first started reading all this great information before filing, I was glad I did it. I do not post a lot, but I read a lot and I will say this for as long as I have to. Filing pro se was a good thing for me. It may have cause some others problems, but for me it was a good thing. I knew somewhere deep down inside myself that nobody knows me better than I know myself. I also know that lawyers make mistakes and this has been stated here on this forum a number of times. Each and every time I see a person posting about how their lawyer caused them some problems, I just remember my pro se filing and I feel better.

This may be incorrect information, but one time I was in the hallway of the court building. I mentioned to someone nearby that I was filing pro se and that I felt like I should write a manual or create a website of some sort with my experience. The person nearby simply said to me that this would be illegal. I can not say for sure if it is or not, but the way I figure it is like this, if we can post here and trade information, then we should be able to post on a website and trade information kind of like shared files on music. We all know its not legal, but we do it anyway.

[B12]

Hi Coco

We share stories and info here, we cannot give legal advice unless we are lawyers. Reason being, it is against the law to give legal advice if you do not have a license to practice law.

Ever notice the disclosures at the bottom of some posts? Ever notice how we word things? I can give RE advice since I have a license to practice. I would never dream of giving legal advice. Any time I relay information to a client regarding the law or accounting, I firstly disclose that I am not a lawyer or an accountant.

There has to be some accountability so that bad info is not relayed to the consumer. Hence, the license. Now, as we all know, the license to practice does not guarantee the right advice!

Especially with the advent of the internet forum, you have to be careful with what is posted and not take it as truth unless you check it out with a professional.

Congrats on the pro se, sounds like you did a good job.


I am not a lawyer or accountant, these are just my opinions. LOL

[CindyLou]

the thing is you could not give any advice in exchange for any type of compensation. that is where you would get in trouble.

[Rudolph]

well, sent an email to my atty, and he replied right away and said it was no big deal, and he would make the ammendment. I guess if the trustee wanted more info, wouldn't he have said something right then and there? I'm not going to worry about it, but if something comes up, I'll be sure to let you all know.

[PaKettle]

the thing is you could not give any advice in exchange for any type of compensation. that is where you would get in trouble.

What if one wrote a book and then had an attorney "co-author" it? It seems this is what some of the legal books do, so it must be alright as long as an attorney does participate in it. I was wondering, if you wrote a book and then just had a contract with an attorney to make sure everything was accurate according to the law, and then the attorney "co-author" got only a fee for his help. I wonder if something like that could be worked out?