Bank took $1100 out of my checking account

[LuciluS]

I don't care about these arguments. This stuff is getting so boring already. My 341 meeting better be fun in a few weeks. That's all I am saying. You people need to get a sense of humor and stop being so serious all the time. Nobody wants ot be around a grumpy person.

Anyway, do the creditors all have to show up on this date as well or can they show up during that 60 days to meet with the UST?

Which one of my creditors is most likely to show? I don't have anything financed by Sears or Discover. It would be neat if the Bowflex people could come because we have no room to put that thing where we are living now.

I think your case is like ours...we haven't paid the CCs in a long time. I don't think you have to worry about any of the Creditor's being at your 341 or filing claims against you.

As for an exciting 341 O Dear! I pray every day ours will be a Boring one...hope the Trustee pushes people in and out like a herd of Cattle! ROFLOL!

[LuciluS]

Umm, what exactly is YOUR legal training? I think you're getting your undies in a bunch because people aren't telling you what you want to hear. You can argue about it here all you want, but it is what it is and there's really no way to know what's going to happen without speaking to a knowledgeable attorney. You can preach it till you're blue in the face to anyone who will listen here and even if you convince all of us, that's not going to get your money back. In the end it's up to the trustee and attorneys to figure out.

Tell me about it. OP accused me of being Sarcastic and I was trying to be Nice. Oh Well

[debtmonster]

LOL @ the bowflex.

I've got a whole garage full of stuff I'd be happy to hand right over to my creditors.

ME, TOO! It's cheaper to give it to them than pay for storage!!!!

It will cost me $262/mo. for a storage unit here. $3,144/yr or $9,000 in 3 years if I let the stuff sit there. I'd rather get rid of it all. All the stuff I have is barely worth a grand or two at flea market value. Granted it's all in nice shape and works well, but it won't do us any good while we sit here in a spare bedroom waiting to move to some apartment in the distant future. Once they foreclose my house and put the notice on the door, I will have to pay $500+ for a moving truck to bring it to the storage place.

[BkinTX]

LOL @ the bowflex.

I've got a whole garage full of stuff I'd be happy to hand right over to my creditors.

[debtmonster]

I don't care about these arguments. This stuff is getting so boring already. My 341 meeting better be fun in a few weeks. That's all I am saying. You people need to get a sense of humor and stop being so serious all the time. Nobody wants ot be around a grumpy person.

Anyway, do the creditors all have to show up on this date as well or can they show up during that 60 days to meet with the UST?

Which one of my creditors is most likely to show? I don't have anything financed by Sears or Discover. It would be neat if the Bowflex people could come because we have no room to put that thing where we are living now.

[DeadManCrawling]

That is one of the unfortunate side-effects of these kinds of boards. Well-meaning people try to help others who simply do not want to hear anything other than what they came here expecting to hear.

Sometimes the truth isn't what we would like, but railing against it, making big noises, and belittling those trying to help won't change that.

I could be as wrong as you claim, but the legal decisions I have looked at tell a different story. In any case, good luck with this.

[hereforinfo]

I dont think there is anything more to say... you have no legal training whatsoever and should not be posting on these boards,

Umm, what exactly is YOUR legal training? I think you're getting your undies in a bunch because people aren't telling you what you want to hear. You can argue about it here all you want, but it is what it is and there's really no way to know what's going to happen without speaking to a knowledgeable attorney. You can preach it till you're blue in the face to anyone who will listen here and even if you convince all of us, that's not going to get your money back. In the end it's up to the trustee and attorneys to figure out.

[DeadManCrawling]

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache%3AwaiHM6s2Ow0J%3Awww.innb.uscourts.gov%2Fopinions_pdfs%2F1112.pdf+In+re+%22Union+Cartage+Co%22&hl=en&gl=us

[2Bshinyandnew]

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff, a debtor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, filed a complaint for the turnover of money against defendant creditor, a savings and trust company.

Wow, its even in the first sentence, it says DEBTOR...


.

Jurisdictional matters?

"OUTCOME: The court found that the debtor could avoid the creditor's setoff to the extent of the amount deposited into the debtor's checking account the day the collateral was turned over to the creditor."



Ok, now I know your not a lawyer... this case is cited as one of the premier cases involving setoffs. And where did you pull "jurisdictional matters" out off?

I mean did you even read the case... here, Ill attach the summary from lexis.

"OVERVIEW: As of 90 days prior to bankruptcy, the debtor was indebted to the creditor on two loans in the total amount of $ 173,456.25, which were secured by 11 vehicles. The debtor maintained its checking account with the creditor. On Feb. 8, 1982, the debtor turned in the vehicles to the creditor, and they were sold for a net amount of $ 88,800. That same day the debtor deposited $ 12,343.77 in its checking account. Two days later the creditor set off the entire balance in the debtor's checking account, $ 33,980.17, and dishonored checks drawn on the account that day. The debtor filed a complaint for the turnover of money. The court ruled for the debtor but entered judgment only for the $ 12,343.77 deposit, explaining that the creditor actually held two claims: a secured claim for $ 88,800, which could not be subject to an insufficiency, and an unsecured claim on the balance of the loans. On the day of the deposit, the creditor knew the debtor was in financial difficulty because it had received the collateral the same day. The creditor accepted the deposit, not for the use of the debtor, but to enable the setoff; thus, the debtor could avoid the setoff in the amount of the deposit."


I dont think there is anything more to say... you have no legal training whatsoever and should not be posting on these boards,

Reread the PROCEDURAL POSTURE. The DEBTOR is a PLAINTIFF in a CH 11 case. The DEBTOR in the above referenced case is a bank.

this caselaw doesn't really apply. Different chapters.

[debtmonster]

Let me guess, you went to a third tier toilet, flunked out the first year?

LOL!!!!!!!

[California]

Man, you are RANKING hard on that dude. Chevy Ridin' High! Yee haw!

Let me guess, you went to a third tier toilet, flunked out the first year?

[debtmonster]

I dont think there is anything more to say... you have no legal training whatsoever and should not be posting on these boards,

Man, you are RANKING hard on that dude. Chevy Ridin' High! Yee haw!

[California]

You,or someone, misread this case so badly it is nearly impossible to figure out how you arrived at these conclusions.

This had to do with a gentleman (investor, NOT debtor)

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff, a debtor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, filed a complaint for the turnover of money against defendant creditor, a savings and trust company.

Wow, its even in the first sentence, it says DEBTOR...

The crux of this case had more to do with jurisdictional matters than anything, and as to a recent debtor (who had now made himself a creditor) and the application of setoff, but in a totally different manner than the OP's situation

.

Jurisdictional matters?

"OUTCOME: The court found that the debtor could avoid the creditor's setoff to the extent of the amount deposited into the debtor's checking account the day the collateral was turned over to the creditor."

If you took this in to court as a case-law reference, you probably would not get far, since it relates to different legal questions and probably a different District.

Ok, now I know your not a lawyer... this case is cited as one of the premier cases involving setoffs. And where did you pull "jurisdictional matters" out off?

I mean did you even read the case... here, Ill attach the summary from lexis.

"OVERVIEW: As of 90 days prior to bankruptcy, the debtor was indebted to the creditor on two loans in the total amount of $ 173,456.25, which were secured by 11 vehicles. The debtor maintained its checking account with the creditor. On Feb. 8, 1982, the debtor turned in the vehicles to the creditor, and they were sold for a net amount of $ 88,800. That same day the debtor deposited $ 12,343.77 in its checking account. Two days later the creditor set off the entire balance in the debtor's checking account, $ 33,980.17, and dishonored checks drawn on the account that day. The debtor filed a complaint for the turnover of money. The court ruled for the debtor but entered judgment only for the $ 12,343.77 deposit, explaining that the creditor actually held two claims: a secured claim for $ 88,800, which could not be subject to an insufficiency, and an unsecured claim on the balance of the loans. On the day of the deposit, the creditor knew the debtor was in financial difficulty because it had received the collateral the same day. The creditor accepted the deposit, not for the use of the debtor, but to enable the setoff; thus, the debtor could avoid the setoff in the amount of the deposit."


I dont think there is anything more to say... you have no legal training whatsoever and should not be posting on these boards,

[DeadManCrawling]

Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code says the opposite. A Bank cannot take the money if there purpose was to obtain a right of setoff against the debtor.

Under cases such as In re Union Cartage Co., 38 B.R. 134, the Bank had to give the money back to the debtor,

WHY?



Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code will not allow a bank to take recently deposited money to satisfy a debt owed to them and it will let the trustee get the money back if the Bank took the money and as a result "improved there position" as to other creditors.

[/I]

You,or someone, misread this case so badly it is nearly impossible to figure out how you arrived at these conclusions.

This had to do with a gentleman (investor, NOT debtor) who deposited over $400k in a bank that later filed Chapter 11. He bought CD's, in the same value range that would cover a debt he owed at the same bank.

They converted his preferred deposit certificates to cash, when they matured, in order to repay loans the INVESTOR still had outstanding to SIBC (the bank).

The crux of this case had more to do with jurisdictional matters than anything, and as to a recent debtor (who had now made himself a creditor) and the application of setoff, but in a totally different manner than the OP's situation.

If you took this in to court as a case-law reference, you probably would not get far, since it relates to different legal questions and probably a different District.

As others have pointed out, you cannot rely on anyone's advice from these forums for your specific case. You can however, learn some better questions to ask of your attorney and get a better feel for the law in general.

Good luck in all this.

[Amy26]

You love my location and you know it!! My house was only $120,000.

You need to make like $80-125k to live in the city and most jobs don't pay that. So it's a double-negative to live there. Everything is expensive and no jobs to pay. NOT GOOD.

I think it really depends on the job sector... hell I got a new job in DC before I was even back in the country. Got hired after 2 phone interviews...