reaffirmation of vehicle hearing

[ahall]

We reaffirmed two vehicles with our atorney filing the paperwork. This hearing paper I got reads:

to consider act on the following matter:

Reaffirmation agreement between Debtor and Joint Debtor and Credit company with Attorney Approval filed by Credit company.

Why? Does anyone have any ideas -We reaffirmed our other car and did not recieve a hearing notice on it?

[justbroke]

Is this car with a Credit Union?

[BCA2009]

We reaffirmed two vehicles with our atorney filing the paperwork. This hearing paper I got reads:

to consider act on the following matter:

Reaffirmation agreement between Debtor and Joint Debtor and Credit company with Attorney Approval filed by Credit company.

Why? Does anyone have any ideas -We reaffirmed our other car and did not recieve a hearing notice on it?

Does the attorney file the re-affirmation or does he/she send it to the finance company and they file it? Are you sure the second re-affirmation was filed? Is it on Pacer?

[justbroke]

Reaffirmations are signed by the attorney (or debtor) and returned to the creditor. The creditor counter-signs it and files it with the Court. This is to prevent the debtor-attorney/debtor from modifying it before it reaches the court.

At least that's my thought. I have to return my reaffirmation to the creditor, regardless of whether I had an attorney or not.

[ahall]

Car is with Finance company

We financed the car with a local finance company that gives people with not so good credit car loans. We did hAve to make corrections but I don't know if my attorney actually did a new one or made corrections to the old one. The attorney handled the whole thing. I don't know how to look on pacer and am scared of fees. My case status says "waiting for 341" which we already had. I just don't know what to think. The other car affirmation is not included in this hearing -only the one car?

[justbroke]

We financed the car with a local finance company that gives people with not so good credit car loans.

Yep, the problem is that it's not a traditional bank. There are checkboxes on the reaffirmation forms. Perhaps your attorney checked the "undue hardship" box. Smart move by him if this is a "local" finance company.

The Court has to make sure that you are not being taking advantage of. Perhaps the clerk saw something that they didn't like and now require a hearing.

[Brazzy]

Its possible simply that the first car does not cause an undue hardship while adding the second does. Right on the reaf on the first page(disregard any cover pages that some districts make the creditor fill out) and look see if the undue hardship box is checked. If it is, odds are thats why there is a hearing.