Unexpected Vet Expense

[businessisbad]

Ugh, I was planning on filing next Monday and while hiking with my German Shepherd yesterday he severly cut his paw on a broken piece of glass on the trail. I had to take him to the emergency vet clinic, cost was $525 with the prescriptions. I used a mastercard I have not used in about 18 months. It already had $1,800 on it but the limit is $25K.

My attorney is out until Wednesday and I am now wondering if I just prevented myself from filing as the trustee may say abuse. I would have no problem paying the $525 back but I just dont want it to screw up all my other creditors which are mainly retail space lease and advertising agreements I needed to get out of.

Do I know have to wait 90 days?

[jribe]

Ugh, I was planning on filing next Monday and while hiking with my German Shepherd yesterday he severly cut his paw on a broken piece of glass on the trail. I had to take him to the emergency vet clinic, cost was $525 with the prescriptions. I used a mastercard I have not used in about 18 months. It already had $1,800 on it but the limit is $25K.

My attorney is out until Wednesday and I am now wondering if I just prevented myself from filing as the trustee may say abuse. I would have no problem paying the $525 back but I just dont want it to screw up all my other creditors which are mainly retail space lease and advertising agreements I needed to get out of.

Do I know have to wait 90 days?

i feel your pain... My lil boston terrier buddy had to have emergency surgery about 2 months ago; vet bill was $1800! And just found out today he's sick again... there goes another $500... I wouldn't think they would claim abuse- as people say "s**t happens".. I would just say that obviously it was an emergency. I don't know if they're really that heartless? Maybe some others will chime in.. I just understand!

[TEW]

nah that will not change anything. And it would not be the trustee it would be the creditor.

[Flamingo]

Your problem is making the charge knowing you will not pay it back and will be filing (fraud/abuse). It doesn't matter what the situation is (although I understand - a creditor doesn't care as it's abuse of their money). Are you still making minimum payments on your loans/cards? If not, you should have had cash on hand to pay all or part of the vet bill to avoid worrying about your filing and not have to use the card. I don't know if you have spoken yet with an attorney but when you do I would bring this charge to his/her attention if you file in less than 3 months.

[dingdong]

Could you possibly go in and pay cash and ask the if they could credit your CC for the 525.00?

Don't know if this would fly put it might protect you from an objection from the CC company?

[keepmine]

Nobody will object over $500. If by chance they do, that debt will be deemed nondischargeable and you repay it-it'll have no effcet on the rest of your bk.
Flamingo raises a good point. If you've stopped psying all debt you are going to discharge you should have some money for emergencies.

[businessisbad]

Attorney replied to my email early this morning. He said not to worry, if Citibank does object I will simply pay the $525 back. I had to use the card, I was 125 miles from my house and my bank cash withdrawal limit is 300 per day. I have never been to this clinic and as most know they want payment upfront. I didnt like the place at all as they were real pushy about payment but what was I to do? They were the only clinic in the area that was open and his paw was gashed.

Nobody will object over $500. If by chance they do, that debt will be deemed nondischargeable and you repay it-it'll have no effcet on the rest of your bk.
Flamingo raises a good point. If you've stopped psying all debt you are going to discharge you should have some money for emergencies.

[Flamingo]

Attorney replied to my email early this morning. He said not to worry, if Citibank does object I will simply pay the $525 back. I had to use the card, I was 125 miles from my house and my bank cash withdrawal limit is 300 per day. I have never been to this clinic and as most know they want payment upfront. I didnt like the place at all as they were real pushy about payment but what was I to do? They were the only clinic in the area that was open and his paw was gashed.

You are planning to file on Monday and are carrying around the credit cards still that you plan to put in your filing? I'm not saying this to be rude but can you see what I am trying to say? Do you have a debit card that you could have used? What would you have done if you did not have that credit card? You could have also when you got home paid the amount immediately back since it appears you had the cash on hand. I am just trying to make a point here as to the abuse of the situation even though I understand it was an emergency. It's your intent. With what I am stating here as to the situation, you are seeing it through the view of the creditor and why it would be an issue for you. Best of luck to you and I hope your dog heals quickly.

[BKOnce]

Easier way is to... give up your child for adoption.

[CatsInTrouble]

Flamingo, even though you are a moderator, I feel the need to tell you that your posts in the last couple days are coming off as really judgemental--adult to adult. But, I know it's hard to convey things in writing-I am a writer after all--I understand this. So, I'm wondering if you mean "abuse" as in the bankruptcy court would flag this as abuse? Because I don't think that the OP themselves were being purposefully abusive or fraudulent- do you?

[Flamingo]

Flamingo, even though you are a moderator, I feel the need to tell you that your posts in the last couple days are coming off as really judgemental--adult to adult. But, I know it's hard to convey things in writing-I am a writer after all--I understand this. So, I'm wondering if you mean "abuse" as in the bankruptcy court would flag this as abuse? Because I don't think that the OP themselves were being purposefully abusive or fraudulent- do you?

As long as I have on this forum, I have never been known to sugar coat things and I call things as I see posted which many of some long-term posters do and, of course, some posters don't like to hear...In this situation, what occurred can be viewed as fraud/abuse by the creditor if you look at it from a creditor's point of view. I believe the OP knew that could occur as he was worried about it. Could things have been better planned on his part? Maybe/maybe not...but he was carrying a card in his pocket which should not have been there as it was being including in a bankruptcy filing in a few days and he knew it would be included in the filing; hence, his posting. If he called his attorney prior to using it, he would have been advised not to use it. While it appears that it will all work out for him, it's probably not a good thing for anyone to do as it can be viewed by the creditor as fraud/abuse due to its timing. Hope that explains it a bit better to you. That is why the attorney advised him that he might have to pay it anyway.

[2Bshinyandnew]

As long as I have on this forum, I have never been known to sugar coat things and I call things as I see posted which many of some long-term posters do and, of course, some posters don't like to hear...In this situation, what occurred can be viewed as fraud/abuse by the creditor if you look at it from a creditor's point of view. I believe the OP knew that could occur as he was worried about it. Could things have been better planned on his part? Maybe/maybe not...but he was carrying a card in his pocket which should not have been there as it was being including in a bankruptcy filing in a few days and he knew it would be included in the filing; hence, his posting. If he called his attorney prior to using it, he would have been advised not to use it. While it appears that it will all work out for him, it's probably not a good thing for anyone to do as it can be viewed by the creditor as fraud/abuse due to its timing. Hope that explains it a bit better to you. That is why the attorney advised him that he might have to pay it anyway.

FWIW, there is a difference between not sugar coating things and telling it the way it is and being judgmental, abrasive and telling it the way you see it.

The OP later went on to say IF citibank objected, the OP might have to pay it back.

Attorney replied to my email early this morning. He said not to worry, if Citibank does object I will simply pay the $525 back.

You may be right about the Fraud/abuse possibility in theory, but the reality is that according to Section 523(a) of the BK code, the OP most likely does not qualify for the trustees initial presumption of abuse, the 90/70 rules that is looked for when a BK petition is filed. Perhaps if the way you saw things wasn't presented in such an authoritative manner, your posts may be received in the kind spirit I suspect they are intended. You are not an attorney, are you? You can't say for sure that as per Section 523(a) of the BK code a trustee would, without a doubt view a $525 charge for emergency vet care just before filing as fraud, can you? If you must suggest the poster knew better and should not be carrying those cards around, then say so, but the authoritative manner in which you offer your information, by saying:

Your problem is making the charge knowing you will not pay it back and will be filing (fraud/abuse).

as you did, by saying that you implied that what the OP did was in fact fraud (that was the way I read it) and will be seen as such by the bankruptcy court. This isn't telling it like it is, because that idea is simply not true. The truth is, you don't know, and neither do I. Could it be fraud? in the academic and literal sense, yes. Is emergency veterinary care a luxury item? This I don't know. Do you know for sure? For our purposes here will the bankruptcy court absolutely without any hesitation call it fraud? Probably not.

[Flamingo]

as you did, by saying that you implied that what the OP did was in fact fraud (that was the way I read it) and will be seen as such by the bankruptcy court. This isn't telling it like it is, because that idea is simply not true. The truth is, you don't know, and neither do I. Could it be fraud? in the academic and literal sense, yes. Is emergency veterinary care a luxury item? This I don't know. Do you know for sure? For our purposes here will the bankruptcy court absolutely without any hesitation call it fraud? Probably not.

Fraud occurs in BK when you make a purchase prior to knowing you are going to file and do not intend to repay it. It's the "intent." That has been posted a zillion times on here in response to similar situations by many other posters. That is what the OP did. It bothered him and he asked if he could repay it. The creditor will or could state that the OP's intent was not to pay the amount back which was charged just several days prior to his filing. I don't know how that can be viewed in any other way. Emergent care or not because the creditor will not care what the charge was for. It's the entire issue of the matter and you can't pretty it up.

You may be right about the Fraud/abuse possibility in theory, but the reality is that according to Section 523(a) of the BK code, the OP most likely does not qualify for the trustees initial presumption of abuse, the 90/70 rules that is looked for when a BK petition is filed. Perhaps if the way you saw things wasn't presented in such an authoritative manner, your posts may be received in the kind spirit I suspect they are intended. You are not an attorney, are you? You can't say for sure that as per Section 523(a) of the BK code a trustee would, without a doubt view a $525 charge for emergency vet care just before filing as fraud, can you? If you must suggest the poster knew better and should not be carrying those cards around, then say so, but the authoritative manner in which you offer your information

Well, I and other posters can start by saying we can all hold hands and sing before we offer any information or insights, but sometimes to get a point across you can't draw daisies around an answer when you think someone should have done something differently or planned better. Of course no one wants to hear what they did was probably wrong. Intentions of most posters' answers to situations are in the hope that it will prevent others from putting themselves in the same position. Experience is the best teacher. Also, when one consults an attorney to file BK, one is told to not use the credit cards anymore and we were told to cut ours up...that means one has to start planning to live without them for a certain time period and it frees up cash one did not have before. Most people utilize that cash to pay their attorney or hold it for other reasons to tide them through the BK until times are better.

FWIW, there is a difference between not sugar coating things and telling it the way it is and being judgmental, abrasive and telling it the way you see it.

In my first posting, one poster confirmed I made a great point as to the situation. In my second posting directed to the OP, I stated to him that I did not want to come off as "rude" but told him what I saw/felt. That was not directed to anyone else posting on this forum. Everything pointed out to him were things concerning the situation that could have or should have been done and how it would be viewed through the eyes of a creditor. It was not directed to you or any other poster. I am sorry you and other poster found all that authoritative when I actually indicated to the poster I did not want to come off as "rude" to him and hoped that his dog quickly recovered. I could have PM'd him about it but thought the information coming out as to this experience would benefit other posters who could find themselves in the same situation.

Someone also posted above suggesting an easier way is to give the "child" up for adoption. I would sense that means that the OP would not have to worry about vet expenses but that is something I would have never suggested to the OP.

[2Bshinyandnew]

Fraud occurs in BK when you make a purchase prior to knowing you are going to file and do not intend to repay it. It's the "intent." That has been posted a zillion times on here in response to similar situations by many other posters. That is what the OP did. It bothered him and he asked if he could repay it. The creditor will or could state that the OP's intent was not to pay the amount back which was charged just several days prior to his filing. I don't know how that can be viewed in any other way. Emergent care or not because the creditor will not care what the charge was for. It's the entire issue of the matter and you can't pretty it up.

The way you stated you POV above is a lot different than when you said:

Your problem is making the charge knowing you will not pay it back and will be filing (fraud/abuse).

Do you see the difference? And truthfully, I don't see how anyone, moderator or not has the right to assume that anything someone did or didn't do was intended to be fraud. We can all discuss what fraud is til the cows come home, but ultimately I think the OP needs to know how their actions MAY be seen as, and not be told by another poster, especially a moderator that there actions ARE seen as



Well, I and other posters can start by saying we can all hold hands and sing before we offer any information or insights, but sometimes to get a point across you can't draw daisies around an answer when you think someone should have done something differently or planned better. Of course no one wants to hear what they did was probably wrong. Intentions of most posters' answers to situations are in the hope that it will prevent others from putting themselves in the same position. Experience is the best teacher. Also, when one consults an attorney to file BK, one is told to not use the credit cards anymore and we were told to cut ours up...that means one has to start planning to live without them for a certain time period and it frees up cash one did not have before. Most people utilize that cash to pay their attorney or hold it for other reasons to tide them through the BK until times are better.

I'm not saying that we should all sing Kumbaya each time we answer a post, I'm saying that as a moderator, you postings are viewed as being "trustworthy" and by saying that for a fact what the OP did IS fraud is not responsible of you because you do not know that for a fact, and the Bankruptcy Code doesn't even support your claim. You are not a judge, a trustee or an attorney. telling a poster they

you should have had cash on hand to pay all or part of the vet bill to avoid worrying about your filing and not have to use the card.

is presumptuous of you. How do you know, and what gives you the authority to say what someone should or should not have?


A few strategically placed "may", or "could" or "in my experience" or a link to the bankruptcy code you are referencing may prevent the problem posters seem to have (notice the use of the word "seem", and not "do"). You say that all the old timers are the same as you, and yet, I personally have not seen that.





In my first posting, one poster confirmed I made a great point as to the situation. In my second posting directed to the OP, I stated to him that I did not want to come off as "rude" but told him what I saw/felt. That was not directed to anyone else posting on this forum. Everything pointed out to him were things concerning the situation that could have or should have been done and how it would be viewed through the eyes of a creditor. It was not directed to you or any other poster. I am sorry you and other poster found all that authoritative when I actually indicated to the poster I did not want to come off as "rude" to him and hoped that his dog quickly recovered. I could have PM'd him about it but thought the information coming out as to this experience would benefit other posters who could find themselves in the same situation.

You say in one sentence you don't want to be rude and then in the next sentence you are rude and condescending. As I said a few strategically placed, "may", "could" "if I were you", or even "in this situation I have seen many people", negates the need to even apologize in advance for being rude

Someone also posted above suggesting an easier way is to give the "child" up for adoption. I would sense that means that the OP would not have to worry about vet expenses but that is something I would have never suggested to the OP.

The post referenced above about giving up a "child" I took as sarcasm. I did not take that post literally. Did you?

[dingdong]

I don't want to get into the semantics of what is rude and what isn't, I know we all have diffrerent ways of getting our message across and we all here in BK world are probably living in high stress situations and may be a bit sensitive at times, but..

If the OP just went to the vet and paid for the bill in cash and then asked for a credit on the CC, wouldn't that just take care of the problem?

There wouldn't be a need to pay back a creditor, there wouldn't be a chance of the creditor claiming fraud, and since the OP may have to pay it back anyway, wouldn't it be killing to birds with one stone so to speak?

I don't know , seems like an easy fix to me, unless the OP just doesn't have the cash, but vets are usually pretty understanding, maybe she could make a payment plan with the vet and then ask for the credit before she files?

Also, just a side note for the OP, in California you can ask to have a prescription written for you for your pet and filled at a local pharmacy. Most pharms fill vet prescriptions unless it is an animal only drug ( Like Rimadyl) You save tons of money over what the vet charges you for simple things like antibiotics. My vet tried to charge me 56.00 for a simple antibiotic, which I had filled at Walgreens for 6.00!

Ask for a script and fill it elsewhere. (Sorry, I know this is a little off topic, but not a lot of people know this! :-)