talked to attorney who said I did not need to file 7

[svoboda70]

My mobile home and car are not worth much except to me and my family. Can they move my son out of my house? Or, take the car and sell it? My house is under the exemption for my state and so is my car. Any more thoughts will be appreciated. I was trying to protect the property for my son.

[svoboda70]

I put the home and car in our joint names 6 months ago. It was not intended to befraude. Just protection, I thought....

[backtoschool]

My mobile home and car are not worth much except to me and my family. Can they move my son out of my house? Or, take the car and sell it? My house is under the exemption for my state and so is my car. Any more thoughts will be appreciated. I was trying to protect the property for my son.

There are two scenarios we are discussing in this thread. Scenario 1 is if you do file bankruptcy, scenario 2 is if you do not file bankruptcy and just let your unsecured debt go to charge off and eventual judgment. Here are the possible ramifications for each scenario.

Scenario 1 (filing chapter 7)

Must wait a year to file after putting son on the title to car and mobile home or the trustee will go after the son for a preference.

After waiting a year from transfer to file mobile home and car will be safe from creditors as long as your half is covered by your district's exemptions.

Scenario 2 (not filing bk at all and letting debt go to charge off/judgment)

Creditors can sue you, get a default judgment and put a lien on your half of the car and the mobile home.

What rights the creditors will have under a judgment will also vary by state, etc.

[music12]

is it still considered a transfer even if the OP's name is still on the title?

[backtoschool]

is it still considered a transfer even if the OP's name is still on the title?

The OP just transferred half the equity in the property to the son. Most, if not all trustees would see that as a preference and/or a fraudulent conveyance.

[BKDefender]

Generally when you place a second person's name on title to property (home/car/whatever), that second person is presumed to have a 50% interest in the property absent evidence or written agreement to the contrary.

Because of that, it is presumed to be a transfer of 50% of your property to another person without adequate consideration (i.e. the receiver didn't pay 50% of FMV for the transfer.)

It's not fraud by definition but it is presumed to be fraud absent evidence to the contrary.

Generally in these types of situations, the transfer was intended as an asset protection maneuver - i.e. when the person dies, the person on the title has access to the property and possibly owns it outright (if Joint tenancy for example.) If that is the case, then I have the person provide me with a written statement that says this and is signed by the recipient of the transfer acknowledging that was the intent of the transfer. It gets past the fraud part but doesn't stop the preference transfer problem. Technically if they just transfer it back then the original transfer is still classified as a preference transfer and a subsequent transfer back doesn't fix it. But in reality the combination of the statement and quick transfer back, if the asset normally would be exempt, is treated as solving the problem.

--William

[svoboda70]

I don't intend to file chapter 7, ever. Does that make a difference to any of you? My son will never sell the house, so does it matter if there are liens charged against the house?

[HHM]

I don't intend to file chapter 7, ever. Does that make a difference to any of you? My son will never sell the house, so does it matter if there are liens charged against the house?

Why not? Let me candid, that statement about not filing BK is simply irrational.

The problem you just created for your self is that you just transfered half your interest in the property with the actual intent to hinder, delay, and defraud your creditors.

[svoboda70]

In the first place, I don't have the money to file and in the second place I never intended to defraud anyone by putting my son's name on my house and car. My husband passed away in September last year and I was left with decisions to make re home, car, and various and sundry other matters. I just got to thinking about what would happen if I were to pass on. I put everything in my son's and my name so that he wouldn't have difficulty with my possessions. I wanted to make certain he had access to my things if I were dead.

[wanabath]

Sounds like son took dads share of the house, and svoboda has retained her share of it.

[WhatMoney]

In the first place, I don't have the money to file and in the second place I never intended to defraud anyone by putting my son's name on my house and car. My husband passed away in September last year and I was left with decisions to make re home, car, and various and sundry other matters. I just got to thinking about what would happen if I were to pass on. I put everything in my son's and my name so that he wouldn't have difficulty with my possessions. I wanted to make certain he had access to my things if I were dead.

You are doing the right thing for your situation. It sounds like your son is your only child, in which case he would inherit your assets eventually. Putting property in joint ownership is often called the poor man's probate. You are avoiding the cost and delay of a probate hearing by preparing in advance as you are. This is precisely what my attorney also advised me to do. Joint accounts are extremely common between aging parents and their children.

Do not be intimidated by the posters here claiming you are doing anything fraudulent. You are not considering Ch 7 BK, so there is no fraud or time limit after the "transfer" to joint ownership. You have not been sued or even threatened to be sued yet, so there is no asset transfer fraud. Anyone who tells you just because you have an unpaid debt that you cannot set up joint ownership, or sell your assets for a fair price, without committing fraud, just doesn't know what they are talking about.

The ONLY reason YOU might have for the expense, around $2000, for a Ch. 7 no asset BK, would be the old "peace of mind" argument. At your age peace of mind comes a lot easier than for all the younger posters that are advising you here. Remember this is the BK board, and most members here think BK is the solution for everyone. It is just not so, particularly for retirees with ONLY exempt assets and income. Listen to your attorney.

As far as the phone ringing off the hook - there are several solutions. Change the number to an unlisted one. Get caller ID and an answering machine (or a phone that has it all built in) and have the machine answer after two rings. You never have to talk to any number you do not recognize.

There are more exotic solutions with computer software or voice mail routing as well. Possibly your son could look into this and help you out. I have survived 5 YEARS without ever talking to a single creditor, OR ever having to hear the phone ring more than twice. And the ring I hear when a creditor calls is a silent "poof", as in vanish you pest.

And after the first year, they mostly stop calling anyway. Right now I'm getting two calls per day, from two new persistent junk debt buyers. They will give up in a few weeks and I may not get any calls for another 3 months. That is something you can live with.

Keep a bank account for direct deposit of social security and exempt pension money ONLY - no mixed funds. If you get a judgment (and you will have warning this is coming) simply keep little cash in the account. If they seize it, it is a SIMPLE process to get the funds released when the funds are all exempt. As a retired widow living on SSA you can find free legal assistance should any creditor try to illegally take your money. Most of the time they can discourage the creditor from proceeding if you inform them of your collection proof status.

If you have $2000 or more to burn and you can't handle two ringer calls directed to your answering system, which you erase every day, then help out some BK attorney feed his kids.

If you think you are going to win the National Lottery, then that's another reason to file when you have no assets. But you might want to check out the odds of winning before you spend money you can't afford for a Ch.7.

[svoboda70]

Thank you, WhatMoney, for your very thorough and detailed reply. My feelings are exactly as you pointed out. I'm just glad you were there to clarify.

[HHM]

That may ALL BE TRUE, but what exactly is the downside of filing BK. I think that is where the rationale breaks down here. Yes, you may be judgment proof, and yes, there are steps you can take to frustrate your creditors, my question is, if you have an option that brings "certainty" to the situation with absolutely NO DOWNSIDE; what exactly is the objection to filing BK? What do you think BK is going to do to you such that the other option is somehow "better" (whatever it is, it is probably a myth).

As for no fraud; keep in mind, fraudulent transfer is not just a BK thing, that applies in the civil setting as well.

[BCA2009]

As for no fraud; keep in mind, fraudulent transfer is not just a BK thing, that applies in the civil setting as well.

I'm not going to wade into the file or don't file argument. But as far as adding you child to your deeds and your bank account being fraud, give me a break!

Making independent decisions regarding your finances occurs ever day. Every one of us does and so do all businesses.

The problem you just created for your self is that you just transfered half your interest in the property with the actual intent to hinder, delay, and defraud your creditors.

Everytime we spend a dime on anything other than paying down our debt is intending to delay payment to our creditors.

It is nowhere near fraud to make financial decisions that don't benefit our creditors. Maybe the creditor could sue you and win. But that doesn't mean what you did was fraud. People lose civil suits all of the time and haven't "commited fraud".

[HHM]

I'm not going to wade into the file or don't file argument. But as far as adding you child to your deeds and your bank account being fraud, give me a break!

Making independent decisions regarding your finances occurs ever day. Every one of us does and so do all businesses.



Everytime we spend a dime on anything other than paying down our debt is intending to delay payment to our creditors.

It is nowhere near fraud to make financial decisions that don't benefit our creditors. Maybe the creditor could sue you and win. But that doesn't mean what you did was fraud. People lose civil suits all of the time and haven't "commited fraud".

All were saying is that there is a "risk" that these transactions can be construed as fraudulent under certain circumstances. It's a matter of understanding the risks. If you put your son's name on an asset immediately before filing BK, the BK court can undue that transfer.