after 341 hearing can you file on more creditors

[sdunlap]

hi everyone i just wanted to know if you have already had your 341 hearing and you find out later that you had some other creditors that you forget to file on can you still file on them and if so how do you go about it

[AngelinaCat]

You amend your schedules and include the additional creditors. The one time fee for amending is $26.00 whether you add one creditor or one hundred. If you have an attorney, he/she can handle this for you. However, he/she *may* charge you for adding them. Some do and some don't.

Good luck to you!

[music12]

but you don't necessarily have to add them if you are a no asset case (because they would get discharged anyway).

[MSbklawyer]

but you don't necessarily have to add them if you are a no asset case (because they would get discharged anyway).

[music12]

MSbklawyer, this is not bad information, it is based on caselaw, which is the court's interpretation of the bk code, which actually says the opposite of what you wrote. Here is just one example:

http://www.wvnb.uscourts.gov/opinions/2006/05-2137%20In%20re%20Hartley-%20Mem%20Op.pdf

And here is the relevant part (from page 2, omitting citations etc.):

Section 727(b) of the Bankruptcy Code states that a Chapter 7 discharge "discharges the debtor from all debts that arose before the date of the order for relief under this chapter..." No requirement exists in 727(b) that a claim be scheduled before it may be discharged. Thus, motions to reopen a case to add a pre-petition creditor are routinely denied.

page 4:
In this case, 523(a)(3)(A) is not applicable because the Bankruptcy Clerk's office notified creditors not to file claims, and the Debtors' Chapter 7 trustee filed a report stating that no assets were available for distribution to creditors.

it also goes on to say that if a creditor actually objects to a discharge, then you can go get a declaratory judgment from the bk court to shut the creditor up. but in the absence of objection from an unscheduled creditor, the court will deny a motion to reopen as it is unnecessary.

[MSbklawyer]

Yes, where the creditor got notice of the bankruptcy through other means. If unlisted creditors are discharged, then why list anybody?

But I assure you, where the creditor is neither listed nor has notice of the bankruptcy, he is NOT discharged. Constitutional due process demands that a person affected by a court proceeding have notice of that proceeding so that he can participate in the proceeding.

Having filed for bankruptcy does not make you an authority on bankruptcy. Stop practicing law on the internet until you have a law degree and a license. You are giving people bad information.

[AngelinaCatHub]

I am not a lawyer as you are, but..... I have researched this myself, and no I will not take time to go for case law, but I read, there is a "fine line" on the interpretation of this as it on one hand, defeats the original idea of the "new start" and it is still interpreted locally by both state and districts.

I too had this situation and all I did was send a couple of creditors I missed, a copy of my discharge. I have heard nothing more from any of them.

If "Msbklawyer" who seems to be helpful wishes to become a Moderator, I suggest he petition "Laz" the owner of this forum. However, as we all know, the law, albeit "letter of", is fairly interpretable, ie. O.J.. 'Hub

[AngelinaCatHub]

Having filed for bankruptcy does not make you an authority on bankruptcy. Stop practicing law on the internet until you have a law degree and a license. You are giving people bad information.

Other problems notwithstanding, I don't believe you need to address anyone in this un-professional way. I am not a lawyer, but I have seen and been involved with many, and they can spin a mean, vicious web. What works, works. There is no need for sarcasm here. I qualify this with my official legalese in that this is only my personal opinion and you can take it or leave it. 'Hub

BTW, this is not a legal advice Forum, and is more helpful than hundreds of Sharks have been to many in the past. This place is for opinion, experience, and support.

[MSbklawyer]

BTW, this is not a legal advice Forum, and is more helpful than hundreds of Sharks have been to many in the past. This place is for opinion, experience, and support.

I did not intend to be discourteous, sarcastic or unprofessional. But I cannot tell you how many thousands of dollars I have seen needlessly spent because of people who think they can get on the internet and talk to somebody with 10,000 posts on a bankruptcy forum whose only exposure to the bankruptcy system is having filed bankruptcy themselves.

Banruptcy law is not opinion. It's not experience. And it's not support. It is LAW. And as long as I am allowed to post here, when I see such a clear misstatement of the law, I will call it what it is. In no uncertain terms.

[music12]

thank you 'hub...

i don't think moderators are there to delete posts they disagree with.

i would suggest to MSbklawyer not to make assumptions about any poster's exposure to bk law or to law in general. since you have no information about it, you could be wrong!

if MSbklawyer is challenging the term "Guru", which is "earned" merely by somebody posting 1,000 posts, then I actually agree that it is misleading. there should at least be an easy-to-find definition of Guru on this forum, so readers would know that it means only what it means, and nothing more.

anyway, my understanding of the law on this is that in a no-asset case, the issue of due process for a creditor does not usually arise because there was no opportunity to file a proof of claim anyway. only if a creditor challenges dischargeability would the case need to be reopened and the creditor given opportunity to object to dischargeability. but that's extremely rare, as MSbklawyer said once - that no AP's were filed on his clients that he can remember...

also, the case that i gave a link for does not say that the creditor has to have been notified by other means for the debt to be discharged.

i guess we'll have to agree to disagree. that's fine and healthy in my opinion. given that sometimes different appellate circuits interpret the same bankruptcy law in conflicting ways, i think it's obvious that there is no such thing as capital-letter "LAW" - that's unfortunate, but it's the way it is. but we'll have to agree to disagree on that as well.

[Flamingo]

This disclaimer is on the front page of this forum..."Our site provides information about bankruptcy law, credit, foreclosures and so on. This information is designed to help users safely cope with their own legal needs. Legal information is not the same as legal advice.
No advice given on our forums can be considered legal advice. We recommend you consult a lawyer if you want professional assurance that information given to you by other forum members, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation. Everything is strictly informational."

[AngelinaCatHub]

I did not intend to be discourteous, sarcastic or unprofessional. But I cannot tell you how many thousands of dollars I have seen needlessly spent because of people who think they can get on the internet and talk to somebody with 10,000 posts on a bankruptcy forum whose only exposure to the bankruptcy system is having filed bankruptcy themselves.

Banruptcy law is not opinion. It's not experience. And it's not support. It is LAW. And as long as I am allowed to post here, when I see such a clear misstatement of the law, I will call it what it is. In no uncertain terms.

If I didn't read it, I would not have assumed it. If your sincerity is true, then I apologize. You come on here with much knowledge, no doubt. However, you assume too much. You do not know that I may be a lawyer as well. I am not, but you do not know my qualifications, experience and even talents.

No Moderator is going to reject you for what your history has been and as I see this on the surface, it has been most helpful to many. What I personally am sensitive to is addressing ANYONE in a degrading way. We are all here under different reasons.

I/we ten years ago were worth 10+ mil in land alone. We had many bucks in retirement Trusts. We now are bk7. Reason, we gifted the property THEN fell into hard times and bad choices. The estate was gone. Are we dismayed? Not at all. It was only property. We preserved for Posterity. Our bad luck, is our own fault.

My point is, you do not know the background, knowledge, history, of any person here. I appreciate what I have learned here and to date, I could well have done a better job than my BK Lawyer with her 28 years experience in which I petitioned the Court to fire after we already were towards discharge.

In my legal travails, I have found that Lawyers are just like me. They have bellybuttons just as much as they have opinions. Every bellybutton is different and every opinion is different. Yours is no better than any poster here. If you can help one, I applaud you. If you degrade one, I will again post this same opinion. You see, I too have a bellybutton, and also an opinion. 'Hub

[lrprn]

But I assure you, where the creditor is neither listed nor has notice of the bankruptcy, he is NOT discharged. Constitutional due process demands that a person affected by a court proceeding have notice of that proceeding so that he can participate in the proceeding.

Interesting. According to the Bankruptcy Lawyer's blog posted Jan 2009 at http://blog.startfreshtoday.com/2009...tten-creditor/, "11 U.S.C Section 523(a) (3) states that a debt not listed in a debtor's schedule is not discharged if the creditor has a claim for the following:
- fraud
- theft
- willful or malicious act against the person filing bankruptcy
- the creditor would have could have received funds from the bankruptcy estate." This would seem to open the door to the debt being discharged anyway if the creditor could not claim one of these criteria.

However, now five months later, according to Bankruptcy Bits (bk lawyer website) posted in May 2009 at http://bwlaw.blogs.com/bankruptcybit...ankruptcy.html, "Prior to a recent ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, it was generally accepted that an erroneously omitted creditor that would otherwise be disposed of in the bankruptcy is still technically discharged. This practice has recently been called into question based on the Colonial Surety Company vs. Weizman ruling in which the First Circuit said failure to list a creditor in the bankruptcy creates an undischarged debt."

That means that right now because of this recent case law decision in the First Circuit, current legal opinion appears to be that if a creditor is not listed on the creditors' list when filing, the debt is not discharged.

We all need to stop posting that a creditor debt left off the creditor matrix that would have been discharged if it had been listed will be discharged without amending the filing to include it.

That would have been correct at one point in the past, but because of a new bk case law decision, that is not correct now.

Learn something new every day. Thanks, MSbklawyer.

[music12]

fascinating! so this is yet another example where different circuits interpret the bk code differently. if i understand correctly, this first circuit decision is binding only on first circuit states. other circuits can continue in their previous ways. and this will go on like this until either the supreme court takes up the issue or the legislature clarifies its meaning. very messy.

an issue that seems disturbing with this recent decision is that if an un-listed creditor is not discharged, doesn't that essentially give the debtor the opportunity to choose which debts to discharge and which not to? the debtor would simply list some creditors and not others. i think that would defeat at least some of the thinking behind the bk code. but i don't know, my brain is fried.

[Amy26]

To me it makes sense that the debt has to be listed... they examine the case based on the assets and liabilities presented in the documentation. If someone for example had a 50,000 credit card they "forgot" to list... and without it, their debts didn't raise any flags but if it was included they would be well over 100,000 and would warrant further investigation by the US trustee. Also, when the trustee posts his "report of no distribution" he specifically lists how much money is being "abandoned" etc... all the "unsecured" debt is listed.

As someone else mentioned, if you didn't have to list them on there to be discharged...what's the point of putting any of them on there.

This is my common lay person's perspective of course... to me it just makes sense that what is on there is what's being discharged. Also, I have a medical bill that I didn't include in the list because I plan on paying it. And, also the trustee asks you (at least mine did) if anything was omitted or left off the petition. You couldn't in good conscience say "yes, but they will get discharged by default". I amended my petition after my 341 to include a few things that were left off and I just feel better piece of mind about it.

For another example, I had 3 chase credit cards. 1 was a business card account that was not reported on my credit report for some strange reason. I also have student loans with Chase. So, when I reviewed my petition with my lawyer I just didn't notice that the business card wasn't there. So, it was omitted. It was a credit card for 10,000. It was good that I added it 1. because it wasn't being reported on my credit and 2. even though it was Chase, it had a completely different customer service phone number and address for bankruptcy notification. I would not have wanted to take the risk with Chase later on and say well these Chase cards were listed I assumed all my cards would be discharged....