Reaffirmation & court of appeals case

[bnkrptinva]

All, when I filed my 7, my attorney told me of a case that's in the court of appeals. You can try and reaffirm your car loan, but it cannot be signed by the court, yet the court will issue an order to your lender (mine is Toyota) that as long as you are current & insured, that they cannot take the car until the case has been resolved.

The letter I got from Toyota is that pay & keep is not an option w/o reaffirmation. I will submit the reaffirmation, but it's not going to get signed.

Anyone have any further info on this? I still owe 71 payments...I want to keep the car...I will continue to pay, but whenever that case is decided..it would really suck if at that point, though I'm current, my car get taken.

Thanks in advanced for any advice/info about this.

[keepmine]

Here ya go.

http://www.georgiabankruptcyblog.com/archives/miscellaneous-cases-arizona-bankruptcy-court-ride-through-still-available-for-secured-debts-after-failure-of-timely-filed-reaffirmation-agreement.html

and:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another case involving ride-throughs.


Limited "Ride Through" Option Remains Post-BAPCPA
A federal district court in North Carolina has held that a limited "ride through" option remained in effect even after enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) to permit pro se Chapter 7 debtors who had done everything they could to reaffirm their $20,000-plus debt on a motor vehicle by filing a timely statement of intent and actually entering into a reaffirmation agreement, but whose reaffirmation agreement had not been approved by the bankruptcy court, to remain in possession of the motor vehicle while continuing to make their regular monthly payments to the motor vehicle lender. The automatic stay remained in effect with respect to the motor vehicle, the vehicle remained part of the bankruptcy estate, and the debtors were not in default on the car loan, despite the presence of an "ipso facto" clause in their loan agreement with the motor vehicle lender. The court rejected the lender's arguments that BAPCPA's plain meaning led to absurd results and that the bankruptcy court's analysis contravened clearly expressed congressional intent in BAPCPA's legislative history. Coastal Federal Credit Union v. Hardiman, 2008 WL 4899529 (E.D.N.C.).

and:

Another court reaches the same conclusion.

Fourth Option" Available After Reaffirmation Denial
The so-called "fourth option," under which a debtor may retain collateral securing a creditor's claim without redeeming it and without reaffirming the underlying debt, simply by continuing to make his regular monthly payments thereon, was not eliminated by amendments that were enacted as part of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA). Accordingly, it could be utilized by Chapter 7 debtors who attempted to reaffirm their debt, but whose reaffirmation agreement was not approved by the court, based on their failure to rebut the presumption of "undue hardship" arising from a roughly $3,000.00 shortfall in their monthly income. In re Hart, 2009 WL 605739 (Bkrtcy.D.Del., Judge Sontchi).

[bnkrptinva]

Thank you for the info.

My attorney says while I make payments and keep insurance..the court will put in an order that the car cannot be taken away...but I guess I was concerned when & if this legal battle about it ever gets resolved...will they then come take it. Hopefully by then, car will be too old for them to bother, and if I'm current....they'll leave it be.