I got copies today of my schedules of creditors from my attorney's paralegal. I'm going through right now looking for typo's mainly, a few of which I have found. I am going to ask my attorney these questions when I see him next, but as always, I prefer getting separate opinions.
On the paperwork I gave to my attorney, I listed an exact date if one date created the debt, for example "05/14/2004". On the schedule they prepared, they instead listed the date as "c.2004".
Question 1: I am not worried about listing a year instead of an exact date, but I am wondering about the notation -- what does the "c." come from or mean?
On the paperwork I gave to my attorney, I listed a date range that created the debt principal, for example "11/05/2004 - 09/27/2005". On the schedule they prepared, instead of listing this they listed the date as "c.2005-2007".
In this case, it is a credit card that had a zero balance on 11/04/2004, and had charges on it from 11/05/2004 to 09/27/2005 that created the debt principal. Since then, interest has been and still is accruing.
Question 2: Is it a problem that the first charge that accounts for the debt principal was in 2004, but is listed on the prepared schedule as 2005?
Question 3: Should the last year listed on the prepared schedule be listed as 2005, or 2008 since interest is still accruing? Where did 2007 come from to get put on the schedule? I would think it would be either 2005 or 2008, not 2007.
BAH rather than create a new thread:
Question 4: I find it odd that they are listing an amount on the schedule of $13,400 if the real debt is $13,300.38. They seem to be rounding up a lot. Seems odd to me that they are typing in cents, and rounding up rather than using exact amounts... And that they are rounding up $100 over $0.38, rather than rounding to the closest.
Question 5: On the paperwork I gave them, for several creditors, I listed multiple addresses as explained to do on this forum and bankruptcy books. They only typed in the first address for each creditor on the schedules and creditor matrix. This is BS and needs to be fixed, right? The only addresses they listed for additional notification was collection agencies, not multiple addresses for the same company.
On the paperwork I gave to my attorney, I listed an exact date if one date created the debt, for example "05/14/2004". On the schedule they prepared, they instead listed the date as "c.2004".
Question 1: I am not worried about listing a year instead of an exact date, but I am wondering about the notation -- what does the "c." come from or mean?
On the paperwork I gave to my attorney, I listed a date range that created the debt principal, for example "11/05/2004 - 09/27/2005". On the schedule they prepared, instead of listing this they listed the date as "c.2005-2007".
In this case, it is a credit card that had a zero balance on 11/04/2004, and had charges on it from 11/05/2004 to 09/27/2005 that created the debt principal. Since then, interest has been and still is accruing.
Question 2: Is it a problem that the first charge that accounts for the debt principal was in 2004, but is listed on the prepared schedule as 2005?
Question 3: Should the last year listed on the prepared schedule be listed as 2005, or 2008 since interest is still accruing? Where did 2007 come from to get put on the schedule? I would think it would be either 2005 or 2008, not 2007.
BAH rather than create a new thread:
Question 4: I find it odd that they are listing an amount on the schedule of $13,400 if the real debt is $13,300.38. They seem to be rounding up a lot. Seems odd to me that they are typing in cents, and rounding up rather than using exact amounts... And that they are rounding up $100 over $0.38, rather than rounding to the closest.
Question 5: On the paperwork I gave them, for several creditors, I listed multiple addresses as explained to do on this forum and bankruptcy books. They only typed in the first address for each creditor on the schedules and creditor matrix. This is BS and needs to be fixed, right? The only addresses they listed for additional notification was collection agencies, not multiple addresses for the same company.
Comment