Motion to Reopen Case

[laurannm]

Our case discharged and closed almost a year ago, and today we received a motion from our 2nd mortgage company to reopen for limited purposes. They want to strike some personal account information from one of the documents that was filed as part of our case.

I spoke with our lawyer who had also received a copy of the same document and he had already spoken with their attorney to verify. Apparently a couple of months ago a change to the BK rules (I believe it was MA BK rules and not the federal BK code, but not 100% sure) now requires certain personal information to be removed from public documents. According to our attorney, various creditors\banks are now scrambling as they have to go back and re-open all of these cases in order to strike this personal information. Once it is stricken, the case will be re-closed. Nothing is required from the debtor.

It was a little nerve racking when I first opened the letter, but I wanted to post this for anyone else who may run into this.

[justbroke]

Apparently a couple of months ago a change to the BK rules (I believe it was MA BK rules and not the federal BK code, but not 100% sure) now requires certain personal information to be removed from public documents.

This rule was a national Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure change. It was done by Administrative Order in most Districts. This change was that personally identifying information was to be redacted on all submitted (filed) documents. In my District, they now prompt people when entering CM/ECF (or PACER) to indicate that they are adhering to this requirement.

The actual rule, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP) Rule 9037, was initiated in 12/1/2007. Many creditors did not adhere this rule and have submitted claims and documents bearing debtor's information precluded by FRBP Rule 9037.

It was a little nerve racking when I first opened the letter, but I wanted to post this for anyone else who may run into this.

Personally, I would go back to your attorney. I would have him stipulate that the creditor should pay for Credit Monitoring for at least 12 months at the creditor's cost. I have read other cases where this is appropriate where the creditor violated Rule 9037 and Rule 9011.

[laurannm]

That's a great idea, I may just do that.

Thanks

[justbroke]

I personally had to file an Emergency Motion to Redact for this same problem. I was prepared to file a Motion to Compel the creditor to pay for credit monitoring, but I figured that my credit was so bad now, any identify theft, may actually improve my credit.

In your case, I highly suggest that you pursue getting free credit monitoring since your case is in fact discharged and closed.

[backtoschool]

I personally had to file an Emergency Motion to Redact for this same problem. I was prepared to file a Motion to Compel the creditor to pay for credit monitoring, but I figured that my credit was so bad now, any identify theft, may actually improve my credit.

In your case, I highly suggest that you pursue getting free credit monitoring since your case is in fact discharged and closed.

This is funny. I thought the same thing, which is why I have not been real careful about hiding my SS# or anything any more. I do feel for the poor identity thief that ends up with my credit file though.

[music12]

hey, you should be careful! if your SS# does not seem like an asset today, it could certainly become one later on. also, if someone has your SS# and other info, they could apply for govt benefits in your name (say, unemployment). that won't be very good, would it?!?

[backtoschool]

hey, you should be careful! if your SS# does not seem like an asset today, it could certainly become one later on. also, if someone has your SS# and other info, they could apply for govt benefits in your name (say, unemployment). that won't be very good, would it?!?

Of course you are right music12. I was just kidding, and also just thinking how unpleasantly surprised any ID thief would be if they ended up with my credit report, which is probably worse than their own.

[novayalife]

I just received the same letter in the mail. Motion for protective order to seal info and prohibit electronic access in accordance with bankruptcy rule 9037.

So it sound like this will not impact me in any way right? I am confused. My case has been discharged and closed. What now? This also came from my second mortgage that we surrendered in ch 7.

[justbroke]

So it sound like this will not impact me in any way right? I am confused. My case has been discharged and closed. What now? This also came from my second mortgage that we surrendered in ch 7.

It doesn't affect your discharge. They are just opening the case in order to redact some information. As I posted earlier, I might be inclined to ask for credit monitoring for 12-months!

[laurannm]

I just received the same letter in the mail. Motion for protective order to seal info and prohibit electronic access in accordance with bankruptcy rule 9037.

So it sound like this will not impact me in any way right? I am confused. My case has been discharged and closed. What now? This also came from my second mortgage that we surrendered in ch 7.

It shouldn't impact you any way,according to our attorney. It's simply a matter of procedure\practice

[MSbklawyer]

Remember when people had their social security numbers and their DL numbers printed on their checks so the cashier wouldn't have to ask for it?

[justbroke]

Remember when people had their social security numbers and their DL numbers printed on their checks so the cashier wouldn't have to ask for it?

I heard of the practice in the 1990s but I was never inclined to do it. As a matter of fact, I stopped using paper checks probably in 1992.