Any idea why I have to wait 6 months to file?

[tinfoilhat]

Ahhh, interesting observation. If that was the case, you would be in violation of your loan agreement section 2 "your other promises to us". This is pretty standard in Florida. Basically it is your job to keep the vehicle in working/original order. Of course there is a lot of flex area here, such as modifications and upgrades. The point is, if that was actually the case, you would look very shady.

You can be pretty sure that if a trustee (regardless of an appraiser's signature/letter) sees a fairly new vehicle with an extremely low value, it will raise red flags.

You make no sense what so ever. What the hell does a loan agreement have to do with anything? My promise to who?
You mean everyone in the world is required to keep their vehicle in working/original order?

Look I'll make it simple. Lets say I've owned this vehicle for 10 years and ran it into the ground, paid $18,000 cash for it. Got credit cards, ran them up, lost work, filing for BK 7. The car has nothing at all to do with the credit cards. Assume I'm a slob and destroyed an $18,000 car I paid for with cash 10 years ago, wrecked it a few times and never bothered having it fixed.

So, PRESENT SITUATION: I own a POS now worth $3000, I file for BK 7.
NOW WHAT?

[tinfoilhat]

In Fl, the Trustees require the retail value of NADA. which is no where near actual market value today.

In order to get a more realistic value it is perfectly acceptable to have an independent vehicle appraisal.

NO! NO! NO! Teachers paralegal said the car value is determined through averaging the 3 trade in values on KBB.

NOW WHICH ONE IS IT?

[teacher]

NO! NO! NO! Teachers paralegal said the car value is determined through averaging the 3 trade in values on KBB.

NOW WHICH ONE IS IT?

If you know all of the answers, why do you even ask?

I was giving what I was told by a legal professional. It is called "sharing".

If you want to be so critical of everything that you read, maybe you should stick with just asking your attorney.

From your wordage and tone, I wouldn't return your call either.

[tinfoilhat]

From your wordage and tone, I wouldn't return your call either.

You can hear my tone over the internet? weird.

My mistake might be assuming that you know not to take this personally.

What you said made no sense. I think you assumed that I was financing this car. I don't know, but people in general seem to fill in the blanks of what they don't know, instead of asking.

I think you wouldn't return my call because "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer (if you were in a position to take my call)
When I call I am polite, hell I give them money and they give me paper in return, what a deal.

Don't take everything so personally, but first don't fill in the blanks on topics you don't know the specifics, ask or don't reply. This way you won't hear anyones bad wordage and tone in the first place.

[teacher]

I did not think you were financing the car. I was stating what you most likely contractually obligated yourself to when you bought the car. The bank's objection would probably be "this car should have been in working order". It was just a thought in the realm of your "what ifs".

Unfortunately, there is no ignore button on this form. So I will make sure not to reply to your posts and I would ask that you do the same.

[lrprn]

Ok, let's get this thread back on track....

You said earlier in this thread, "I was issued a summons from a CA. I freaked out and gave the car to my dad in exchange for money to cover that problem. (as in blank checks, bank card as needed--not cash)."

So you "gifted" your father (an insider) with a car but took money in exchange for it (making it not a gift) a month ago before you talked to one bk attorney. The bk attorney told you to go get the car back from your dad and you did that.

First question - Did you make a written, witnessed agreement with your dad that he would give you money in exchange for the car?

Second question - Was the money your dad gave you in return for the car a match for the fair market value for the car in the condition it was in on the day you gave it to him?

Third question - Was the car's title transferred to your dad then transferred back to you when you took it back? Or did the title remain in your name the entire time?

[tinfoilhat]

Ok, let's get this thread back on track....

You said earlier in this thread, "I was issued a summons from a CA. I freaked out and gave the car to my dad in exchange for money to cover that problem. (as in blank checks, bank card as needed--not cash)."

So you "gifted" your father (an insider) with a car but took money in exchange for it (making it not a gift) a month ago before you talked to one bk attorney. The bk attorney told you to go get the car back from your dad and you did that.

No, not exactly. I put the car in my dads name in exchange for money needed to settle the collection. It said I owed $7300, I knew I could settle for less, my dad didn't. I didn't take money. The car was put up as collateral in a sense, in case worse came to worse and I had to pay the $7300 he could sell it. The deal was to give him the car and borrow money AS NEEDED. No money was actually borrowed because I sold my other car less than a week after this, so I have money now.

First question - Did you make a written, witnessed agreement with your dad that he would give you money in exchange for the car?

No

Second question - Was the money your dad gave you in return for the car a match for the fair market value for the car in the condition it was in on the day you gave it to him?

He was only going to give me what was needed, it said $7300 on the summons so that was the assumed amount, but he gave me no money. So I guess that would be fair market value. (but it was still transfered as "gift")

Third question - Was the car's title transferred to your dad then transferred back to you when you took it back? Or did the title remain in your name the entire time?

It was put in his name, exactly two weeks later it was put back in my name. Selling price was GIFT each time.

[tinfoilhat]

I did not think you were financing the car. I was stating what you most likely contractually obligated yourself to when you bought the car. The bank's objection would probably be "this car should have been in working order". It was just a thought in the realm of your "what ifs".

Unfortunately, there is no ignore button on this form. So I will make sure not to reply to your posts and I would ask that you do the same.

LOL, I didn't buy a car. And there is no bank involved.

I'm not going to ignore you, but from now on I will respond with care only if I fully understand a question you may have. How or if you respond to me is up to you. You respond a little different than most which could be a good thing, but for me at least, it takes getting used to.

[lrprn]

Thanks for clarifying, TFH - very helpful.

He was only going to give me what was needed, it said $7300 on the summons so that was the assumed amount, but he gave me no money. So I guess that would be fair market value. (but it was still transfered as "gift")

Giving an insider (your father) an asset so close to filing is almost a guarantee that your trustee will petition the court to dismiss your case on the grounds you tried to hide an asset before filing - that's bankruptcy fraud. This is why your lawyer is recommending you wait to file. And it doesn't matter even if it wasn't your intent. It's all in how it looks to the court. And this looks really bad.

It was put in his name, exactly two weeks later it was put back in my name. Selling price was GIFT each time.

Gift or not, this makes things worse. Now there's an official paper trail that you did give your dad the car then took it back before filing. It's hard to imagine a trustee that won't see this as a big red flag, even if you had no intent to abuse.

Did your lawyer know the title had been transferred to your dad before recommending you take the car back?

This has created quite a legal tangle for you, and depending on how the trustees in your local bk court typically handle situations like this, you may have to wait up to a year to file to get some distrance from the car transfer because of it.

If you haven't paid a retainer to this attorney yet, I suggest you interview 2-3 more and share everything you've shared with us here to get their take on what you can do to get out from under this mess.

One possibility - you could surrender the car when you file. Then no one will care what you did with it before filing. But I'm betting you want to keep it - true?

[tinfoilhat]

Well, after I decided to do BK to avoid future summons I researched it online and among endless inconsistant information, Gifting is the one thing that is a big red flag among everything I've read, gifting is the one consistant subject among everything else, so I knew it was the wrong thing to do right after I did it.

And read that carefully, I found out right AFTER I did it. Yet at the time I wasn't thinking of BK anyway.

The lawyer knew I put the car in my dads name and put gift as price.

I would like to keep the car, or sell it. I am not giving it to the trustee.

I'm just going to forget about filing for now.

I'm sick of this bs.

I own the car outright, paid cash for it, never used a cc on anything to do with this car.
I can say I'll sell it, I'll part it out, I'll destroy it.
These are all things I can do with my property, yet some jackass will come on here and argue that I can't.
AGAIN I'M NOT PLANNING ON FILING BK ANYMORE.
And if I do, this site will never know because I really don't think it helps to argue about it and get 50 wrong answers when theres only 1 right answer.

[lrprn]

If you sell the car for a fair market price before filing, then all should be ok. You'll just have to figure out how to get rid of the cash that you can't protect with your state exemptions or roll the money over into another secured asset that can be protected with your exemptions.

If you decide to move on from the forum, that's up to you. Just understand that although you want bankruptcy to be black and white ("one right answer"), different interpretations and case law decisions across the country make much of the bankruptcy law a muddy shade of gray.

If you decide to come back and contribute to the forum again, you will be welcomed back like nothing happened. No matter what, best of luck to you.

[tinfoilhat]

Heres my answer. Quoted below.
To the forum: seems many of you are willing to just bend over and take it with no resistance at all, I'm not. Agressive asset protection, learn about it.

Fraudulent Conveyances
What are fraudulent transfers and conversions?

The most important issue in any asset protection plan is whether or not previous planning transactions constitute fraudulent transfers or fraudulent conversions (collectively, “fraudulent conveyance”) as defined by Florida Statutes. A fraudulent transfer is a debtor’s transfer of legal title to his real or personal property to a third party with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud a present or future creditor. A fraudulent conversion is a debtor’s conversion of non-exempt real or personal property subject to creditor attack to a different type of property, still owned by the debtor, which new property is exempt or immune from creditor attack. Florida Statues provide that a creditor can sue to overturn a transfer or conversion up to fours years after a conveyance was made or obligation incurred. Asset protection planning and transfers become immune from fraudulent conveyance suspicion four years after the planning takes place.

What is the consequence of making a fraudulent transfer or conversion?

Florida Statutes provide courts equitable remedies to undo fraudulent asset protection planning. Fraudulent transfers or conversions may be undone and reversed by a court’s putting the property back in the debtor’s hands where the property becomes subject to the creditor collection process. The Statutes provide several equitable remedies to assist the creditor’s collection of these converted assets including injunctions against further transfers, imposing a receivership on the assets, or imposition of a constructive trust. A creditor alleging fraudulent conveyance may sue not only the debtor transferor but also the transferee who received the property in order to undo the transfer. Consequently, a fraudulent transfer to a friend or family member is likely to make that friend or family member a defendant in a creditor’s fraudulent transfer lawsuit. Fraudulent conveyances are not prohibited and are not illegal. The subject statutes do not provide for awards of additional damages against the debtor, and the statutes certainly do not impose criminal fines or penalties. Florida courts interpreting these statutes have pointed out that a debtor’s monetary liability cannot be increased because the debtor made a transfer or conversion later determined to be a fraud against present or future creditors.

What makes a transfer or conversion a fraud against creditors?

Not all transfers or conversions which move assets beyond a creditor’s reach are fraudulent and subject to reversal. Whether or not a transfer or conversion is intended to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors depends on the debtor’s purpose and his intent behind the transfer or conversion. To ascertain the debtor’s purpose and intent of a property transfer courts look to factors which are often indicative of intent to avoid creditor claims. For example, a court will examine whether any particular transfer was made to a debtor’s family member; whether a transfer was concealed; whether the debtor retained effective use or control over the property transferred; and, whether the transfer rendered the debtor insolvent. All of these above factors suggest that a transfer was a fraudulent conveyance which the courts should reverse.

Defense against fraudulent conveyance allegations.

When a creditor is trying to collect money from a debtor who has previously engaged in asset protection planning and has little or no assets easily subject to creditor collections a creditor will almost always institute an action attacking one or more of the debtor’s prior transfers as fraudulent transfers or conversions. Just because a creditor believes a conveyance was intended to defraud creditors does not mean a court will set aside the conveyance. A debtor can show many legitimate reasons to convey assets other than avoiding creditors.

How the fraudulent conveyance issue impacts asset protection planning?

Just the possibility of a creditor’s allegations of fraudulent conveyance should not deter aggressive asset protection planning prior to time a judgment is entered by a court. People have a constitutional right to control or transfer their property until such time as a judgment creditor obtains a legal interest in the property. This is why the applicable statutes do not prohibit or make illegal fraudulent conveyances. Because a court cannot increase the amount of the judgment damages already awarded against a debtor because of a debtor’s fraudulent conveyance, there is little or nothing to lose by planning to protect your property even if some planning might be subsequently challenged or even reversed.

[tinfoilhat]

Heres more information that might help some people out.

You have probably already paid back your credit card debt through your payments which the credit card companies chose to label as "interest" and "penalties." The credit card companies are equally responsible for your bankruptcy. When you first encountered financial trouble, these creditors probably did not lower your interest rate or allow you to defer payments. The credit card companies are usually not understanding or sympathetic. These companies don't care if you file bankruptcy because they have already recouped any losses through their 18 percent to 26 percent interest rates.