Bobbi, I agree with everyone who said he's phishing, don't even respond.
I also agree with you 100% on the amendment because he is an atty. If he were just a regular jerk I wouldn't bother, but as an atty if he knows you're bk then he has probably looked up your filing and perused it carefully. His questions look to me more like he is wondering whether going up against you will cost him more than it's worth: sure, he can object at your 341, but then you will be able to get evidence in "on the record" in your responses -- such as your emails, his lack of response to your complaints, probable violation of both building code and housing law -- which could then be used in a different court against him. Now, this won't be argued in bk court, but if he comes to your 341 and says a lot of things to which you have to answer, those statements by both parties are now "on the record" and can be used in later legal proceedings, like if you sued him under your available housing laws, separately from the bk, or God forbid he sued you.
So I totally agree that he is trying to set you up, but if you don't play his game and answer, you're pretty safe.
That, and regardless of what he feels you owe him, he's going to have to come up with a lot more than this to prevent the discharge of that debt. Breaking your lease isn't enough, as far as I know.
Now, you know you can make margin notes on your filing, right? When I listed a debt as disputed on my Schedule F, I put a big long margin note in to explain it. (I'm pro se too, as you're probably aware, and I used Adobe to text box the margin note in a smaller font across the bottom of the page, like a footnote.) It was probably unnecessary, but it saved me from ever having to explain it further. If I were in your shoes, and I did a margin note, I would word it very carefully to avoid making the trustee believe that I could sue the landlord for damages (which would then belong to the bk estate and the trustee!), but if I did one, it would read along the lines of:
"Actual amount of debt unknown; includes fees from breaking lease in October, 2007 [or whatever the date was] plus costs for repairs added by landlord after leaving. However, these added repair costs are currently unspecified and continue to change, even five months after having left the premises, and because of landlord's failure to substantiate any claim with receipts or other documentation, we feel that these charges are retaliatory in nature and not based on actual damage. Thus, the current total is unknown and the amount shown above is an estimate, but the entire amount is currently in dispute and likely to remain so."
The reason I word it this way is because of the slimy way that email was written: on one hand, he writes it as though you were responsible for blowing insulation into the attic yourself, WHICH IS A POTENTIAL CLAIM, but then turns around and talks about trying the water and it works just fine, WHICH IS A POTENTIAL DEFENSE against any lawsuit you may bring. I think he is even more aware than you are of what your legal options are in regard to his behavior and wants to head you off in any way possible while leaving the door open for a countersuit to any legal action you may take against him. So in addition to marking the debt disputed in your amendment, I would also check the unliquified box (that means someone may have grounds to sue you, but has not done so yet).
I see what you're saying about cunning but not smart common-sense-wise, because in the end none of this matters in bk court. He's thinking real estate law, which has nothing to do with bk, and a bk court will not decide the validity of his debt for him, only whether there are grounds for refusing a discharge of that debt, which is a whole 'nother story. Yet he's still thinking in terms of proving claims and defenses, or so it seems to me based on his language, which is stupid. See, if your debt to him is successfully discharged in bk court, it's not just the end of what he says you owe him right now, it's also the end of any future claim he may make against you based on your tenancy (hence the check in the unliquified column). You will have, in other words, successfully Mike Nifong'd him.
I hope someone with more actual legal savvy can step in and add to this (or correct me if I'm wrong). As you know, I'm no lawyer, but if you take a step back and look at his email like a savvy stranger would, I think you'll see it for what it is -- and none of it has any place in bk court, as far as I can tell.
Good luck!!!
I also agree with you 100% on the amendment because he is an atty. If he were just a regular jerk I wouldn't bother, but as an atty if he knows you're bk then he has probably looked up your filing and perused it carefully. His questions look to me more like he is wondering whether going up against you will cost him more than it's worth: sure, he can object at your 341, but then you will be able to get evidence in "on the record" in your responses -- such as your emails, his lack of response to your complaints, probable violation of both building code and housing law -- which could then be used in a different court against him. Now, this won't be argued in bk court, but if he comes to your 341 and says a lot of things to which you have to answer, those statements by both parties are now "on the record" and can be used in later legal proceedings, like if you sued him under your available housing laws, separately from the bk, or God forbid he sued you.
So I totally agree that he is trying to set you up, but if you don't play his game and answer, you're pretty safe.
That, and regardless of what he feels you owe him, he's going to have to come up with a lot more than this to prevent the discharge of that debt. Breaking your lease isn't enough, as far as I know.
Now, you know you can make margin notes on your filing, right? When I listed a debt as disputed on my Schedule F, I put a big long margin note in to explain it. (I'm pro se too, as you're probably aware, and I used Adobe to text box the margin note in a smaller font across the bottom of the page, like a footnote.) It was probably unnecessary, but it saved me from ever having to explain it further. If I were in your shoes, and I did a margin note, I would word it very carefully to avoid making the trustee believe that I could sue the landlord for damages (which would then belong to the bk estate and the trustee!), but if I did one, it would read along the lines of:
"Actual amount of debt unknown; includes fees from breaking lease in October, 2007 [or whatever the date was] plus costs for repairs added by landlord after leaving. However, these added repair costs are currently unspecified and continue to change, even five months after having left the premises, and because of landlord's failure to substantiate any claim with receipts or other documentation, we feel that these charges are retaliatory in nature and not based on actual damage. Thus, the current total is unknown and the amount shown above is an estimate, but the entire amount is currently in dispute and likely to remain so."
The reason I word it this way is because of the slimy way that email was written: on one hand, he writes it as though you were responsible for blowing insulation into the attic yourself, WHICH IS A POTENTIAL CLAIM, but then turns around and talks about trying the water and it works just fine, WHICH IS A POTENTIAL DEFENSE against any lawsuit you may bring. I think he is even more aware than you are of what your legal options are in regard to his behavior and wants to head you off in any way possible while leaving the door open for a countersuit to any legal action you may take against him. So in addition to marking the debt disputed in your amendment, I would also check the unliquified box (that means someone may have grounds to sue you, but has not done so yet).
I see what you're saying about cunning but not smart common-sense-wise, because in the end none of this matters in bk court. He's thinking real estate law, which has nothing to do with bk, and a bk court will not decide the validity of his debt for him, only whether there are grounds for refusing a discharge of that debt, which is a whole 'nother story. Yet he's still thinking in terms of proving claims and defenses, or so it seems to me based on his language, which is stupid. See, if your debt to him is successfully discharged in bk court, it's not just the end of what he says you owe him right now, it's also the end of any future claim he may make against you based on your tenancy (hence the check in the unliquified column). You will have, in other words, successfully Mike Nifong'd him.
I hope someone with more actual legal savvy can step in and add to this (or correct me if I'm wrong). As you know, I'm no lawyer, but if you take a step back and look at his email like a savvy stranger would, I think you'll see it for what it is -- and none of it has any place in bk court, as far as I can tell.
Good luck!!!
Comment