need to be reaffirmed if you are keeping it.

[logansdad]

[AngelinaCatHub]

Well he may think that it is allowed to "pay through' on the house but not on the car. Keep the house and pay through. If things go really bad, you can walk away. I would think the mortgage company would rather you pay through on the car than to have it back. I don't understand some reasoning either. That's why I'm here. 'Hub

[StartingOver08]

Well, in searching around to find a reason why your attorney wants to sign your reaffirmation agreement for the car I came across this blog written by a Michigan attorney that says there is a ride thru provision. Of course, blogs are by nature not necessarily accurate, but it is written by a Michigan attorney so it may have some insight. Please read here if you are interested (house reaff first/then vehicle reaff discussed): http://michiganbankruptcyblog.com/ca...on-agreements/

[logansdad]

Thanks SO08 I find it interesting though we have discussed this prior back in Aug when I retained him but attorneys seem to not remember the fine details. I need to weigh my options especially after that FMC lawsuit which was cited. That BK alone breaches the lending contract and is sufficient means for repossession - interesting. I don't think she would be overly thrilled if she came out of school and found her car gone.