bank account activity; looks funny? PLEASE help

[henris69]

good evening all. i posted yesterday about the credit card question and the responses were very helpful. i am soaking this in. what a great bulletin board. thank you all.

[AngelinaCatHub]

Hen69: From what you described, I would go for it and be honest as you have been to us. We cannot harm you, so I do believe you. Those who could are the important ones. Have receipts if you have them or get them if you can. Look, we were 10 mil on paper, and are C7. Now. Long story, so there will be more long stories if you own a TV. Do not multiply a problem by a health worry. You are fine. Go for it and GET THEE BEHIND ME………… ‘Hub

[happy_ira]

I'm going to tag along and read this thread, but I'll let the more experienced folks comment. Here's my two cents though:

Based on what I went through at the 341 (when my case essentially moved from nearly done with the BK Trustee to the world of US Trustee), these people can do whatever the heck they want (within reason) and they can ask for whatever proof they want. Unless you get a particularly nice Trustee, based on what I saw, they will make up a scenario as to what took place.

You can show them receipts if it comes to it, and try to layout the papertrail of where the money went. Although your case of bank account looks odd, you have a plausible reason. But I wonder about a general point I'd like to ask the forum: Basically, it comes down to yoru word (to the extent you are lacking additional proof) versus their word. So THEN what happens? Is that when it goes before a Judge?

Terrifying, in a way.

[FreshLikeADaisy]

Well, it's more like a tennis match, at least to me. They present their stuff. You present your stuff. They say your stuff is not sufficient (or go on another tack entirely with wanting entirely different stuff). You present your further and additional stuff. They either find it satisfactory or move to dismiss; that's when you go to court and see the judge, and they present their stuff, and you present your stuff *again*. But it's like very very slow tennis, because a great deal of it is done in writing and it's them, then you, then them, then you, then them, then you...

But there is no point before a judge's ruling that you lose the right to defend yourself against any specific charges, or address the trustee's (or UST's) concerns directly, so no one makes any unilateral decisions behind your back. You pretty much see what's taking place, even if it's not a pretty sight.

That's my understanding of it, anyway.