Update on motion to dismiss.

[Kingxray]

Hey justbroke or anyone interested, I spoke to our lawyer today regarding our motion to dismiss. It turns out that the report of no distribution was correct, even though it was thousands higher than we were discharging. That is the amount we entitled to discharge even though we are reaffirming our house. Our lawyer thinks my dad's lawyer is claiming that we will reaffirm our house, go BK, then walk away from everything debt free-not true. But at this point maybe not a bad idea, ha. At least we can argue that we have reaffirmation papers on our house and do not plan to "walk away" after discharge. I hope that is enough to sway the judge.

We have been through the wringer on this thing. I have had enough. Our first hearing is at the end of Oct. I guess I'll know more then.

[justbroke]

Very nice to hear. Good luck with your fresh start!

[shabam]

I just do not understand how he can influence your case like that when technically he is a creditor. Would it be legal for a bank to harass you like that during a bk? Since the answer is obviously no, how is an individual creditor able to do that.

[justbroke]

I just do not understand how he can influence your case like that when technically he is a creditor. Would it be legal for a bank to harass you like that during a bk? Since the answer is obviously no, how is an individual creditor able to do that.

As long as you do so within the defined parameters and the Automatic Stay... yes, you can do that. Creditors are free to show up at your 341 Meeting and claim all sorts of unproven things.

Remember, the 341 Meeting is not a court of law. It is technically a deposition of you, the debtor.

[aces67]

Good luck at your hearing! I really hope you come through and get your discharge!

[2manybills]

Good luck to you! Hopefully you are on your way to your fresh start!

[Kingxray]

I just do not understand how he can influence your case like that when technically he is a creditor. Would it be legal for a bank to harass you like that during a bk? Since the answer is obviously no, how is an individual creditor able to do that.

My dad's lawyer pulled this stunt at our 341 and then called the UST (according to our lawyer), so he is doing it legally.

What I don't agree with is how the UST can assume we are not going to pay for the house we reaffirmed (paperwork filed with the court) and file a presumption of abuse saying we are surrendering a house that we do not intend to surrender. I just don't get how she can win on that assumption.

Thanks to everyone for your good thoughts and words of support.

[aces67]

I don't see how they can win on that either. The reaffirmation is legally binding. Why doesn't the UST wait and see what happens. I know legally you have so many days to take the reaffirmation back but if you don't take it back then the UST should let things go as they are.

[Kingxray]

I don't see how they can win on that either. The reaffirmation is legally binding. Why doesn't the UST wait and see what happens. I know legally you have so many days to take the reaffirmation back but if you don't take it back then the UST should let things go as they are.

I agree. Our lawyer is calling the UST before our telephone hearing to find out why she is stating that in the motion. Our lawyer thinks my dad's lawyer convinced the UST somehow that we would reaffirm on our house and after the chapter 7 foreclose on it and walk away debt free. Soooo not true. Again, how can they assume what we will do? Don't they have to stick with only the facts of the case?

[aces67]

Personally I would think a judge wouldn't side with the UST on that fact. Like I said that is a legally binding agreement.

I really do hope you get through this soon!

[Kingxray]

Thanks. I wish I had a crystal ball to see what they were thinking!