Creditor's motion to reopen Ch. 7 case (Florida)

[kron7777]

I got a discharge in 2008. No asset Ch. 7 case.
One of the creditors I mentioned in the filing was a person suing me for a car accident that happened in 2005.
Don't know why they did not object when my BK case was still going on. I mentioned their home address and address of their attorney in the filing.

Anyway, now they want to reopen the case and there is a hearing scheduled in 2 weeks. They want to reopen the case to permit them 'to proceed with their state court action against debtor (me) FOR THE LIMITED PURPUSE OF ALLOWING PLAINTIFFS TO SATISFY ANY JUDGEMENT ENTERED AGAINST ...(ME) SOLELY FROM THE PROCEEDS OF THE SAID INSURANCE POLICY MAINTAINED WITH THE XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY AND FOR SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF AS TO THIS COURT MAY DEEM JUST AND PROPER".

I have couple of questions:

1. I don't quite understand the meaning of the text in bold. Does it say they only want the money from my insurance company up to my liability limit? What is it about OTHER and FURTHER?

2.
I am suspicious of their true intentions since I do not see a reason for them to reopen the case. Their lawsuit is against my father (who was driving the car and apparently ran a red light) and myself (owner of the car).
I filed for BK and got a discharge, but they still can proceed with the lawsuit against my father who is also covered by my policy . So my insurance company would pay them if they prevail. That's why I don't understand how reopening my BK case would benefit them. Any ideas?

3. What are the chances their request is granted? Do I have to appear at the hearing?

[AngelinaCatHub]

I have couple of questions:

1. I don't quite understand the meaning of the text in bold. Does it say they only want the money from my insurance company up to my liability limit? What is it about OTHER and FURTHER? They are attempting at reaping a lien that would haunt you for a very long time.

2.
I am suspicious of their true intentions since I do not see a reason for them to reopen the case. Their lawsuit is against my father (who was driving the car and apparently ran a red light) and myself (owner of the car).
I filed for BK and got a discharge, but they still can proceed with the lawsuit against my father who is also covered by my policy . So my insurance company would pay them if they prevail. That's why I don't understand how reopening my BK case would benefit them. Any ideas? They are greedy, simple isn't it? They can also go after and above the max limit of your insurance.

3. What are the chances their request is granted? Do I have to appear at the hearing? You certainly best appear. With a lawyer if you can.

I really doubt they can open this case so long after your Bk. Is it possible? I assume it could be. Is it right? They had their chance and blew it. I hope the Court sees it that way. Defense? Why did they not do an Adversary Procedure? That is probably the best defense.

How long ago was this accident? Check your SOL.

[kron7777]

Accident was in 2005. The lawsuit was moving slowly. There is no doubt they are greedy lying SOB. I was present at the deposition and it was something.
The impact was minor but she claims her car span 360 degrees. Ye, right. My car has a minor bamper damage and she claims a major impact that span her car.
Anyway, what is SOL?

[kvangild]

Anyway, what is SOL?

SOL= Statute of limitations

In slang there is also:
SOL= Sh*t out of luck

[Dst1]

I actually less worried about this than 'Hub is. I agree that you need to show up with a lawyer but the truth of the matter is that if the court limits it the way the notice it says is limited it's not a big deal.

If they sue you and win then any amount that is owed to them would first come from the insurance policy. It would only be if there was an court award greater than the insurance policy would you be personally liable. And it that case your argument would be that this personal liability would be included in the BK estate.

I think, of course, that you should resist them opening the BK estate for any reason. But from a strictly neutral point of view the very limited purpose they want to open it for isn't fundamentally nefarious. They just want access to the insurance money if they win.

[kron7777]

I actually less worried about this than 'Hub is. I agree that you need to show up with a lawyer but the truth of the matter is that if the court limits it the way the notice it says is limited it's not a big deal.

If they sue you and win then any amount that is owed to them would first come from the insurance policy. It would only be if there was an court award greater than the insurance policy would you be personally liable. And it that case your argument would be that this personal liability would be included in the BK estate.

I think, of course, that you should resist them opening the BK estate for any reason. But from a strictly neutral point of view the very limited purpose they want to open it for isn't fundamentally nefarious. They just want access to the insurance money if they win.

It is understandable they want insurance money. But as I said, my father is also a defendand in the lawsuit and he is covered by my policy. So even with my BK they still should have access to the insurance money. What difference reopening the BK case would make for them?

[kron7777]

Sent email to my BK lawyer. He is adamant they won't be able to go after me , only after the insurance.
So he sees no problems with the reopening the case and advices not to go to the hearing.
I would go myself, the problem is that I live 1000 miles away now. Should I pay the lawyer to appear at the hearing and argue against the reopening of the case.

2.
Can someone tell me if the plaintiffs really have the problem with my discharge. Can it be that they cannot proceed with the lawsuit against my father and me because of my discharge. That would explain why the want the case to be reopened.
Can they still proceed with the lawsuit just against my father?


3.
If the case is reopened for limited purpuses as they want, how will it affect my other creditors? Will it mean the case is returned in the pre-discharge state and all the creditors now can file their objections again?
Thanks.

[Dst1]

Sent email to my BK lawyer. He is adamant they won't be able to go after me , only after the insurance.
So he sees no problems with the reopening the case and advices not to go to the hearing.
I would go myself, the problem is that I live 1000 miles away now. Should I pay the lawyer to appear at the hearing and argue against the reopening of the case.

2.
Can someone tell me if the plaintiffs really have the problem with my discharge. Can it be that they cannot proceed with the lawsuit against my father and me because of my discharge. That would explain why the want the case to be reopened.
Can they still proceed with the lawsuit just against my father?


3.
If the case is reopened for limited purpuses as they want, how will it affect my other creditors? Will it mean the case is returned in the pre-discharge state and all the creditors now can file their objections again?
Thanks.

(1) If you trust your lawyer, no don't go.
(2) Yes, they could do that. All they are doing here is covering all their bases.
(3) No, reopening is done on a creditor by creditor basis. This case has no effect on your discharge or on any other creditor.

[kron7777]

(1) If you trust your lawyer, no don't go.
(2) Yes, they could do that. All they are doing here is covering all their bases.
(3) No, reopening is done on a creditor by creditor basis. This case has no effect on your discharge or on any other creditor.

Thanks.
I trust noone. The attorney handled my case very professionally, but I think I would still ask him to go to court and object to reopening. They want to cover all bases and so do I. I want my peace of mind. I would let them have their way if they really suffered injuries,but the plaintiffs are lying bastards claiming all kinds of disabilities after a minor impact.

2. I see. My father is 77 and the case might drag for years and I see why they might want keep me in the case. Makes sense.

3. That is a good news. Thanks.

[nickifan]

Ok, so this situation has me wondering about one I might face.

Last year I had a glorified bumper fender-bender that was my fault. We both got new bumpers and she got part of a rear panel, I think. Her car was fixed quickly by my insurance. Three other people were in her car and none claimed injury. Only the driver did....the immediate "my neck hurts", etc.

Ten months later it's still an issue. The injury claims rep I've been dealing with has even told me I had the misfortune to hit a hypochondriac....she has had umpteen doctor visits, tests, treatments, chiropractic -- and a recent surgery costing more than $100K!! It is not over yet...and I received a letter from my insurer stating that her costs are going to be above my coverage, if they agree on medical review that they are justifiable and can be "due to" the accident. The woman has acknowledged some prior conditions and injuries.

So...NO LAWSUIT YET...but if she isn't happy with the ultimate offer on her medical costs (and get this, we both have the same car insurer but it hasn't made things any simpler) she could well decide to sue. I'm afraid she will.

If there isn't a suit YET though...is there anything I can do to protect myself when I file??

I would of course ask the attorney before retaining...but just looking for a little advance comfort, if possible!

[kron7777]

I would of course ask the attorney before retaining...but just looking for a little advance comfort, if possible!

If not to get into technicalities (I am not a lawyer), my understanding is that what matters is the date of the accident. You cannot be liable for anything that happened before filing for BK (there are some exceptions). So when you file you of course will include her (and her husband since he is for sure will claim that she cannot have sex with him anymore). YOu might also include other passengers in her car since they have some 3 years to come up with injuries. But even if you didn't and they sue you later you will just send them copy of your discharge letter and they won't be able to go after you.
So they will go only after your insurance to get what they can.
And don't forget that most everyone who sue claims life threatening injuries and your insurance company will be fighting for their money. If they pay everyone who claims their neck hurts $$$$$ - they would be out of business in no time.