Can a reaffirmation be denied?

[betterdays]

I'm current on my 1st and 2nd mortgage as well as my auto loan. I plan on reaffirmation for all three. I was just wondering if it is possible for a lender to reject a reaffirmation?

I meet with an attorney tomorrow but I figured somebody knows the answer here so I don't have to worry about it all night.

[justbroke]

I'm current on my 1st and 2nd mortgage as well as my auto loan. I plan on reaffirmation for all three. I was just wondering if it is possible for a lender to reject a reaffirmation?

A reaffirmation agreement, by definition, requires both parties to agree. Generally though, the lender would certainly agree if the terms are the same and you are current.

Now, the question will be if your attorney will sign it. Your attorney is required to make a determination that the re-affirmation is not a hardship on you, and then must file it.

Make sure your attorney would sign the reaffirmation. Also, make sure you ask your attorney if a "ride-through" is better and if they are allowed in your District/State. A "ride-through" is your best option for your secured debt.

[danaf]

Reaffirmations are not in your best interest. If ride throughs are allowed, then I'd stick with that. Basically a ride through is simply that while you continue to pay, you continue to keep. But it's in your best interest because should something happen where you cannot pay, you will not be on the hook for it. You'd eventually have to give up the home, the car but the bank cannot come after you for anything - you would owe them nothing.

But to answer your question, YES - reaffirmations have to be approved by a judge and YES, they can be denied are often are denied by the judge for the same reason I mentioned above. Reaffs are in the lendors best interest, not yours.

[Michigan1951]

Order Approving Reaffirmation by the court on Pacer today?

A reaffirmation agreement came to Pacer today. It was completed, signed, but us (debtors) and the bank. It was 7 pages long.

The 8th page was an Order Approving the Reaffirmation. It said that the court had the hearing and it approved the reaffirmation order. Signed.........BY THE COURT.

This may sound really stupid after I just typed this in, but did we get approved for the reaffirmation? How can I know if the Order Approving the Reaffirmation is approved? Or is the 8th page the proof?

[justbroke]

This may sound really stupid after I just typed this in, but did we get approved for the reaffirmation? How can I know if the Order Approving the Reaffirmation is approved? Or is the 8th page the proof?

Is it actually signed? The Standard Form 240A is for Reaffirmations. You will usually see, on PACER, an Order on Reaffirmation Agreement or similar. The Reaffirmation agreement, having been filed, doesn't mean it was approved.

So, if the last page is an Order on Reaffirmation Agreement (Form 240B), and it's actually filled in, and it did in fact read "BY THE COURT" with the Judges signature stamp there... I'd say it's a done deal.

[Michigan1951]

The last page is the Order on Reaffirmation Agreement (Form 240B), and it is filled in with debtors names and creditor name, but the date is not filled in though. It does in fact read court order approved BY THE COURT, but I don't see the Judge's sig. and/or seal???

Guess it was just a filing along with the Reaffirmation Agreement with the creditor or something. I am puzzled though......

[justbroke]

The last page is the Order on Reaffirmation Agreement (Form 240B), and it is filled in with debtors names and creditor name, but the date is not filled in though. It does in fact read court order approved BY THE COURT, but I don't see the Judge's sig. and/or seal???

Guess it was just a filing along with the Reaffirmation Agreement with the creditor or something. I am puzzled though......

Yes, Form 240A, which is the actual Reaffirmation Agreement, is usually sent with the "proposed order" Form 240B (Order on Reaffirmation Agreement). If that Form 240B is blank (other than debtor and creditor information), then it hasn't been signed yet. It has only been "filed", as required.

[aces67]

Usually the lender is agreeable but they can be denied by your lawyer if the payments will pose a hardship on you.

[Michigan1951]

My lawyer signed all the reaff's. But, listen to this, today I went to Pacer and clicked to read the pages to one of the reaff's. It was all correct, but there was someone else's schedule I and J along with mine. I don't understand how they could file docs like that by mistake. This debtor was way back in Aug.09. Should I alert my attorney, or the attorney for the secured creditor about this?
Ps- it has been quite some time since the 341 and no report from TT's. What would delay a determination, in your opinion? Thanks, and enjoy your posts!!

[justbroke]

I should have asked earlier Michigan, but since you have an attorney, and the attorney signed the document in PART C: CERTIFICATION BY DEBTOR’S ATTORNEY (IF ANY), then it's a done deal. Especially if the box on the top of the first page of 24A is checked, No Presumption of Undue Hardship.

You don't need the Court's signature if your attorney certified it. Your reaffirmation agreement(s) are now active.

I might contact your attorney about the bad "scan" job the clerk's office did. It may be important that they scan those documents onto the right docket! BTW, you sure it wasn't someone who your attorney represented?

[Michigan1951]

Yes, my attorney did sign the reaff's certification sheet, and the box was checked.
About the scan mistake from the clerk's office.......I emailed my attorney and told him about it.

My attorney forgot to bring the signed reaff's to the FIRST 341 on 10/14. So the TT nicely said to bring them to him (continuation) on 10/23. I did not have to be there either.
It is now 11/10, and no report from UST or TT yet. I am so worried here......