Judgement can't go into bankruptcy

[eli4625]

Today I was sued for a CC debt. I claimed the debt was over 6 years old and thus could not be collected via court action. The judge didn't agree and awared the judgment to the plaintiff and a payment plan was set up avoiding a garnishment. However I plan on filing chapter 7 next month and was told later in the day that this can not be discharged via bankruptcy since a judgement was entered. Is this true?

[backtoschool]

No its not true. All your credit card debt can be included in a bankruptcy whether they got a judgement on it or not.

[2manybills]

How soon do you plan on filing? It is important to get your BK file before they are able to place a judgment lien on your property (that's assuming you own property).

Read the below thread:

http://www.bkforum.com/showthread.php?t=43417

You can get the lien set aside, but there are definately more hoops to jump through. Good luck.

[MSbklawyer]

How soon do you plan on filing? It is important to get your BK file before they are able to place a judgment lien on your property (that's assuming you own property).

Read the below thread:

http://www.bkforum.com/showthread.php?t=43417

You can get the lien set aside, but there are definately more hoops to jump through. Good luck.

It's really no trouble at all to get the judgments set aside once bankruptcy has been filed. If the judgment impairs an exemption to which you would be entitled but for the judgment, it's a simple motion that is never opposed.

In fact, it's usually a judgment or a garnishment that precipitates a bk.

There is a creditor's atty right across the street from me and I can tell when she's coming to work regularly, because my bk business picks up dramatically. When she starts sending out writs of garnishment, I start getting a flood of clients.

I've called her a number of times to offer the service of my secretary at no charge to assist in getting those writs of garnishment out. She's yet to accept.

[music12]

judgments are dischargeable. who told you that it's not, the same judge who ignored the SOL?? what was his explanation for that?

[JRScott]

So long as the judgment is not for back alimony or child support then yes it can be vacated.

If the SOL has run out in your state, then you might could appeal the judges decision. However assuming not the above then yes you can have it vacated.

[2manybills]

Hopefully you will be filing sooner rather than later so you don't incur more legal expense than is necessary.

[Chowder]

i've called her a number of times to offer the service of my secretary at no charge to assist in getting those writs of garnishment out. She's yet to accept.:d

lmao!!

[dingdong]

Today I was sued for a CC debt. I claimed the debt was over 6 years old and thus could not be collected via court action. The judge didn't agree and awared the judgment to the plaintiff and a payment plan was set up avoiding a garnishment. However I plan on filing chapter 7 next month and was told later in the day that this can not be discharged via bankruptcy since a judgement was entered. Is this true?

Did you have solid proof that the debt was past SOL in your state? If you do, I would appeal the decision. Did they sue you in small claims or superior court( or your states version of Superior Court?) Or motion to have the judgement vacated due to the debt being out of SOL.

If you are certain about your dates and your state's SOL, you could probably fight it


If they sued you in a court other than small claims, did the plaintiff have a lawyer?

[eli4625]

The process

I am hoping to have the money to file next month, coming up with $350 is tough. I own no property, my debts are CC and a car loan. This debt was from a CC I got back in 2000. In 2002 I lost my job and stopped paying on it. And to be honost never really thought about it again. Sometime in 2003 I started getting notices from a collection agency about, again I admit, I ignored them. All of this info the attorney for the collection agency had correct. Then on June 12 of this year I find out my bank account is frozen and that on May 21 there was a small claims judgment against me. I never got anything from the court, so I filed a motion for the judgement to be set aside for non notification. The judge approved that, then this past Thursday I stated that according to Indiana law the SOL had expired. The lawyer for the collection agency said it had not because in Jan. of 04 a 1 time payment had been recieved. I questioned the lawyer on his info and told the judge I know I didn't because I don't pay collection agencies. She believed the attorney.

As for my bankruptcy I thought this was dischargeable, and figure fighting it out with the judge and lawyer wasn't worth it, since BK is in my near future.

[music12]

so the attorney did not provide any evidence other than her word? any documentation? proof? amount? anything???

if you are filing bk regardless, then yeah, no point wasting your time. but i would file a notice of appeal so they won't keep garnishing you (if your state has stay pending appeal). you have a very limited time to file a notice of appeal if you want to do that.

[eli4625]

No garnishment

Outside of the 150 from my checking, we "set up" a payment plan where I would send them 60 every month.

He just read off some paperwork he had stating the payment.

[music12]

ok, those 60 would stop when you file.

it's unbelievable that they completely ignore rules of evidence in small claims court. they are allowed to "relax" the rules in most cases, but the idea is to allow non-lawyers to have a meaningful opportunity to present their case, not to let lawyers who know better say things with no foundation whatsoever. and when you said you never paid it, you had first hand knowledge of that, whereas the lawyer read it from something he got from his client (if at all), which is hearsay. they are not supposed to decide facts based on credibility of some lawyer's hearsay statements. it's just wrong.

anyway, it will stop with bk.

[MSbklawyer]

Here's what probably happened on the statute of limitations issue:

When you make a payment on a debt, no matter how old it is, the statute of limitations clock resets.

For instance, if you charge $100 on a credit card in 2000 and never make a payment on it. Then, 10 years later you make a payment, even though the SOL has expired, that payment sets the SOL clock back to zero. The card company then has another 3 years or 7 years or whatever your state statute is to pursue you.

It's only a guess, but I think that's why the judge rejected your SOL argument.

[music12]

that would have been the case IF the OP actually made that payment in 2004. but the judge decided that such a payment was made at that time based on absolutely no evidence but just solely on the creditor's lawyer's hearsay statement. the judge ignored the OP's first-hand knowledge statement that he never made that payment. and i bet the OP didn't get a chance to cross examine that lawyer - because hey, a lawyer is not a witness, so you don't get to cross examine them, plus it would be futile anyway because they don't know what happened, they were just reading a piece of paper they know nothing about, so how could they possibly answer any question about it?

can you tell i am annoyed at the system???