My attorney decided he doesn't want to take my case!

[AngelinaCatHub]

I called my attorney to ask about buying a home and the first time homebuyer tax credit - i.e., whether it would be part of the BK estate, and whether if it would be done in 2009 or 2010, would there be any difference. He seemed to get exasperated and said that with me wanting to "live on the edge" with buying a home, that he did not feel comfortable taking my case. (Actually, I appeared rather nervous when I first met with him because of all the scary talk I had received here - as I mentioned that was worried about the AP's that forum members here were scaring me with.) So, you come here for help then all of your troubles are our fault? Do you know what a mirror is used for? Check it out.

So I decided to start calling a bunch of BK attorneys, and find one that would be aggressive with my case, and fight for the best deal I could legally get. I called one that seemed to not want my business because of the strange situation with my official domicile (i.e., being officially disaster displaced homeless, owning a homesite {that will be sold soon} with legal domicile established in one district, will be buying a home in another district, spending time sleeping over the last 6 months in other districts, etc.) Strange is a kind word. I would have said weird, or you are just insane.

Then I called someone in the district of my current domicile (i.e., where that homesite and my driver's license and car and voter's registration is), and we had a great conversation (he said that I could buy an exempt asset with my cash the day before filing with no problem - something my original attorney said I needed to wait 90 days to make it look "good".) I asked about the question of insolvency, of taking cash advances while not having an income (although reasonably expecting to get back to having such an income), and he said that was no problem. I even asked him about the original question of the tax credit, and while he said that he couldn't guarantee that a trustee would not look at a future tax credit, in all probability, with the BK filing on Jan 5, 2010, the trustee would only look at the 2009 return. So I am going to hire this guy; he is going to send me a big questionnaire, and then we are going to sit still until Jan 5 to file (the home will be bought on Jan 4. )According to your last hundred posts, you own a home, you don't own a home, you wish to purchase a home, you have rental properties, you wish to build a home on property you have, you make big money, you are homeless, you live under a bridge, you have several domiciles, you don't have a lawyer, you have a lawyer, you are looking for a lawyer, you found a good lawyer, your lawyer wants to fire you, need I say more???

Swampwiz: you have been given the benefit of doubt by many posters. They have wasted their time on you, that they could have used to better purposes. You only post here for your own entertainment. You blame this forum, and we have seen your type before. You sir, are a "Troll", one who goes and disrupts people needing real aid, for your own personal entertainment. I shall report my feelings to the Moderators. 'Hub

[justbroke]

Well, I'm beginning to think that my old attorney is somewhat of a piker, and scared of doing anything that might look suspicious in any way, and not knowing that it is perfectly fine for someone to convert cash into an exempt asset right before BK.

I'd be careful, and yes, I'm not a lawyer. Converting non-exempt assets to exempt assets can be done and are frequently done in an asset protection (pre-bankruptcy) scenario. However, you may have oversimplified it.

If you are doing this to defraud a creditor, this just isn't going to work. (Unless you're not caught, of course.) The key here will be where you got the non-exempt funds and why you're converting it to something exempt. For example, if you obtained money from a cash advance, then used the money to buy an exempt item, then filed bankruptcy... that would be fraud.

As I stated in prior conversations on a similar topic... whether anyone would bring forth a fraud complaint in your case, is just unknown.

[backtoschool]

Hmm, so you are saying an unknowledgeable attorney could pretend he knows something just to reel me in? I think in this case, he seemed to be on top of the facts, and had the ability to say my options were more than what he actually said, so I think he's legit. I went out of way to discuss how I took money in cash advances which basically got plowed into the stock market (of course, as I have said all along, I actually made money on that), and detailed all the cash advances I had taken after that to live on and stay current on the debts. And he actually backed off a bit from the stance of my original, careful attorney on the home exemption in real terms (i.e., the real threshold amount that would incur the trustee demanding cash, as opposed to the statutory amount.)

Ask yourself what your brilliant attorney has to lose if you have to pay him $5k an AP and also have a case drag on for months with extra paperwork (which he will charge you for by the hour) because the US trustee is involved. Let's say you get dismissed for abuse and have to file again. He gets to charge you twice. You sound like a goldmine to me.

You know your case is complicated. You posted literally hundreds of posts just to understand if you should file and what the parameters would be. Any lawyer that says "easy, no problem" is either not getting all the facts, or doesn't understand the complexity of your situation.

[swampwiz]

"I asked about the question of insolvency, of taking cash advances while not having an income (although reasonably expecting to get back to having such an income), and he said that was no problem"

So you plan on taking cash advances up until the day you file? If that's the advice this attorney is giving you, it's beyond aggressive!

I'd be willing to bet that when the TT sees the lump sum of cash being used the day before filing it will raise a red flag. The last thing I want is the TT looking at my case with a microscope.

What does the attorney have to lose by being very aggressive? If you get a bunch of AP's he gets more money or if you get dismissed he still gets paid.

Good Luck to you living on the edge!

No, no. I took the cash advances a long time ago. I haven't had an increase in debt balance with any creditor (more or less) since April 2009 (I was in situation in which I would pay down a creditor a certain amount and then gradually access that amount during the month until September.) I have not had big cash advances since November 2008. The small cash advances I had from November 2008 to June 2009 were simply to feed my belly, pay the rent, and most importantly, service the huge $3K/mo debt payments. My intent was to not spend off my investments in the stock market since at that time, there were really low, and I only started to steadily bleed off from my investments in May 2009.

I am not going to file until January 2010. I still have plenty of cash to live on until then.

[justbroke]

I am not going to file until January 2010. I still have plenty of cash to live on until then.

Time may be your friend.

[swampwiz]

I'd be careful, and yes, I'm not a lawyer. Converting non-exempt assets to exempt assets can be done and are frequently done in an asset protection (pre-bankruptcy) scenario. However, you may have oversimplified it.

If you are doing this to defraud a creditor, this just isn't going to work. (Unless you're not caught, of course.) The key here will be where you got the non-exempt funds and why you're converting it to something exempt. For example, if you obtained money from a cash advance, then used the money to buy an exempt item, then filed bankruptcy... that would be fraud.

As I stated in prior conversations on a similar topic... whether anyone would bring forth a fraud complaint in your case, is just unknown.

Easy in my case. In October 2008, I was given a grant of $63K to buy a replacement home for the one that I had owned that got destroyed in a disaster. When I had determined that my liquid and salable assets got down to that level, I considered myself insolvent and in the mode of looking to purchase that replacement home (actually the quick discussion that I had with my original attorney told me not to spend any of that grant amount until I had purchased that replacement home.) I have an accepted offer for that replacement home of $52K, and all I need to do is to sell my homesite to merge the proceeds from that with cash I have on hand to purchase that home.

So I think that even if buying a home could be considered as fraudulent because there were cash advances a long time ago, I can prove that I received the cash to buy my home. Indeed, I have a contract with the state that compels me to do so.

[AngelinaCatHub]

Originally Posted by swampwiz View Post
I am not going to file until January 2010. I still have plenty of cash to live on until then.

I can't find this post in this thread. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough. This guy has posted that he was living as a homeless person. I am not up to researching his old posts to prove it. I have no personal animosity towards him except he is using this place not only to have us do research that he does not need, but his posts are contradictory to a ridiculous situation, makeing fools of all of us who respond. There are actually people out there that could use our help. 'Hub

[AngelinaCat]

SW: Please build a table (you can do so in Excel) and post extactly what dates you got whatever/monies/grants/whatever and how you used that money along with your expenditures. In other words, post an itemized list of your financial picture for the last three years. That shouldn't be difficult. You have to submit same when you file anyway!!

[2manybills]

I can't find this post in this thread. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough. This guy has posted that he was living as a homeless person. I am not up to researching his old posts to prove it. I have no personal animosity towards him except he is using this place not only to have us do research that he does not need, but his posts are contradictory to a ridiculous situation, makeing fools of all of us who respond. There are actually people out there that could use our help. 'Hub

I'm with you Hub. Question: How are you homeless and sitting on the internet all day?

[LimpDisc]

I have to ask again.

What does the attorney have to lose by being very aggressive? If you get a bunch of AP's he gets more money or if you get dismissed he still gets paid.

I'd read the backtoschool posts again if I were you. As stated earlier....

"Any lawyer that says "easy, no problem" is either not getting all the facts, or doesn't understand the complexity of your situation"

[AngelinaCatHub]

"bs"

[AngelinaCatHub]

I have to ask again.

What does the attorney have to lose by being very aggressive? If you get a bunch of AP's he gets more money or if you get dismissed he still gets paid.

I'd read the backtoschool posts again if I were you. As stated earlier....

"Any lawyer that says "easy, no problem" is either not getting all the facts, or doesn't understand the complexity of your situation"

B S is not directed at you. This guy has been a time waster and his stories do not jibe. You figure. 'Hub

[swampwiz]

According to your last hundred posts, you own a home, you don't own a home, you wish to purchase a home, you have rental properties, you wish to build a home on property you have, you make big money, you are homeless, you live under a bridge, you have several domiciles, you don't have a lawyer, you have a lawyer, you are looking for a lawyer, you found a good lawyer, your lawyer wants to fire you, need I say more???

I used to own a home prior to August 2005 that was destroyed in a natural disaster, which became a carcass of a destroyed home at that time, and became a lot with a slab sometime in 2007, that was sold to the state in October 2008. I have owned a homesite (i.e., an unimproved subdivision lot) since January 2007. I continued to use the address of the destroyed home until it was sold as my legal domicile, and then switched to the purported address of my homesite (even though I had slept in many temporary places since then), which I will continue to do until I will have purchased a new home, at which time, I will use that as my domicile (even though I will need to sell the homesite first before purchasing the new home.) I will not be filing BK until I have completed that purchase.

I have never owned rental property. I have speculated that at some time in the future (no earlier than October 2011), I may convert my new home into a rental.

I used to make big money as an software consultant (over $60/hr) years ago, before taking a sabbatical / early retirement that segued into the disaster, and made a strong effort to get back into the field since about April 2008, but have been unsuccessful in finding a proper client.

As I have no permanent home situation, I consider myself homeless. I have always been able to find a place to stay, either as a conventional apartment, a sublet of a room from someone on Craigslist, staying with friends or relatives, or staying in hotel.

I had a BK attorney that supposedly was good on the advice of a attorney (who does not do BK) who is the brother of a friend of mine. It turns out that for many years prior, this first attorney was a fellow member of a social club, and we had actually met about 15 years ago. This first attorney carefully listened to my situation and seemed at first to think that it was not a difficult case, although by my asking a lot of questions and wanting to do things as "close to the edge" as possible that would result in my benefit, that he felt like he did not want to continue (interestingly, the only "close to the edge" aspect was the purchase of the new home and the treatment of a tax credit based on that purchase - obviously I wanted to have this aspect go in my favor as much as legally possible.)

I called around to talk to other attorneys, and wanted to get an attorney that would not be scared of doing something that is a little out of the ordinary, but that has the knowledge and confidence to say objectively that something can be legally done, and that as it would be a benefit for me to do so, I should go ahead and do it. I seemed to find a guy that had no problem with the facts of my case, and what I want to do pre-BK.

[Kingxray]

I can't find this post in this thread. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough. This guy has posted that he was living as a homeless person. I am not up to researching his old posts to prove it. I have no personal animosity towards him except he is using this place not only to have us do research that he does not need, but his posts are contradictory to a ridiculous situation, makeing fools of all of us who respond. There are actually people out there that could use our help. 'Hub

I agree with you 'Hub. I am one of those people who could actually use the forum's help! The "gurus" and moderators are generous with there time on this forum and we all should appreciate that. I hope that they will take a minute to look at my thread, which is an "actual, real-life" scenario instead of wasting time with this Bozo. Thanks again gurus and moderators! You are not told that enough.

[AngelinaCatHub]

OK, I read your epistle. Your own stories are either too complicated for any bk Forum, and you need a whole company of bk attorneys, or you are just plain full of Stit.

Your very complicated case is, either above us, or, a fallacy. I tend to believe it to be a fallacy.

You have waffled too many times, and also have contradicted yourself many times. I really and truly feel you are a farce. If not, we cannot help you in your very irregular situation. You truly need to cough up some of that money you have and do it right. Get a good lawyer team. You will need a team of them, with what you have stored in your head, or a very good psychiatrist. 'Hub