Chapter 7 and 911 Settlement

[despritfreya]

I just got another email from him, after I sent him the letters, this is what he states,

<<I'm in a depo in duluth I get back in town tomorrow. No need for press and hellerstein. All you have to do is object to his petition to reopen. You did nothing wrong. Your wtc case did not exist at the time you filed for bankruptcy so xxxx xxxxx is not entitled to anything. Judge will have to deny his petition. I am sure any judge will be sympathetic given the circumstances. Ill give xxxxxx a call as soon as I'm back>>

Xxxxx is the trustee. I figured I would have to object to re-opening the case, Before I go off half-cocked, I'll see what happens when he speaks to this trustee. It may well be that he is simply trying to see if he can squeeze some $ out of me and when he realizes there will be a fight he may decide it is not worth the effort. Worby, Groner, Edelman & Napoli Bern is a huge law firm, I'm sure they have BK specialists on their payroll, so Im gonna sit tight for now.

While I disagree with your attny's analysis that the claim did not exist when you filed bk (see below), it appears he is not going to let the Trustee walk all over you. If his Firm is "big guns" then you have a very good chance that the Trustee will go away. . .

And he is not going to go away because the claim is not an asset. He is going to go away because HE has to PAY an attorney to fight the "big guns" and since there is no $$ currently in the Estate and the "big guns" are going to Motion him to death, he may just give up.

Now, why is the analysis wrong. . . Let me give you a relatively simple example that can put all of this in perspective. . .

1. Person has surgery.
2. Two months later person files bk
3. One month after bk is filed the person finds out that the surgeon left a scalpel in him. Person now knows he has a malpractice claim.

Question: When did the injury (malpractice) occur? Was it while he was in the O.R. being stitched up or was it 3 months later when he discovered the problem? If it occurred while in the O.R. was is it not an asset (the claim for malpractice - even if unknown for 3more months) that was in existence before the bk was filed? Do you see now why I believe the attny's analysis is wrong?

Keep the faith. It will all work out in the end.

Des.

[Gwenfarr]

Des.,

I understand the theory behind why the trustee can try to lay claim to the money. I got it after I read what I could find on the internet, but thanks for trying so patiently to explain it to everyone here.

I understand the letter of the law, however I do not think the letter of the law in all cases is always right or moral.

Ex: An old lady has demetia and is not taking care of herself very well. She's hungry. She wanders into a supermarket and half-starved, she takes a hunk of cheese, and absently walks out with it. The letter of the law states she has committed a larceny. But, any cop who puts cuffs on her ought to be smacked. Hence, the letter of the law is not always what is right or moral.

I have to go with the prayer that some judge will see it this way if the petitions for and against re-opening the case pass before him/her. If its re-opened then the only ones gaining anything from my settlement will be trustees and lawyers.

I like your last sentence to keep the faith. I'm trying, but everytime you write something you make me more nervous! LOL

Thanks again,
G

[despritfreya]

In response to:

"I like your last sentence to keep the faith. I'm trying, but everytime you write something you make me more nervous! LOL"

By making you more nervous I am doing my job. Too many folks think life is easy. You, for one, know that is not true. We have to fight for every little thing. That is what makes us stronger.

On the other hand. . . If I point out all of the twists & turns and none of them materialize, my clients are pleasantly pleased instead of miserably disappointed.

By the way, your elderly lady example, although not exactly the same, is along the lines of Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables". Now there's a story of the strength and perseverance of humankind.

Des.

Des.

[Gwenfarr]

Des,

I hate to ask this, but now that we've gotten down to brass tacks, is it likely in your experience that the
trustee will prevail?

Oh and I know life is never easy, Im just getting tired of having to fight for every damned scrap, thats all.

Call me silly.

[backtoschool]

Although Des makes some excellent points, and is an attorney, he is underestimating how sympathetic new york judges (and new yorkers in general) are to the suffering of 9/11. In my opinion, in nyc people have not forgotten what 9/11 was like and the suffering that happened on that day. Also, in nyc judges and lawyers alike have more experience with handling the claims of people who suffer after-affects of that day. I really respect Des's opinion, but in my opinion, there is a sympathy and empathy for what you went through that a nyc judge will have whether the letter of the law states the trustee has a legal right to dig for truffles or not.

Of course I am not saying that people who do not live in nyc have forgotten that day or are unsympathetic. I am merely saying that the judge will be sensitive to your suffering and lean towards granting you your request to keep your case closed.

[AngelinaCat]

Oh and I know life is never easy, Im just getting tired of having to fight for every damned scrap, thats all.

Call me silly.

No, it's NOT silly.... It is frustrating to keep trying to fight and 'do the right thing' every step of the way, when seemingly every damned thing--including the law--throws obstacles in your way. We endured a cyberbully and stalker, both by computer, and physical--including lawsuits, for nine years, an AP attempting to overturn our bankruptcy, along with three lost jobs.

What finally derailed this psychopath was a massive heart attack on the most *exquisite* of days--the 'Feast of All Fools', April 1, 2009.

Now, we have peace.

[despritfreya]

Although Des makes some excellent points, and is an attorney, he is underestimating how sympathetic new york judges (and new yorkers in general) are to the suffering of 9/11. In my opinion, in nyc people have not forgotten what 9/11 was like and the suffering that happened on that day. Also, in nyc judges and lawyers alike have more experience with handling the claims of people who suffer after-affects of that day. I really respect Des's opinion, but in my opinion, there is a sympathy and empathy for what you went through that a nyc judge will have whether the letter of the law states the trustee has a legal right to dig for truffles or not.

Of course I am not saying that people who do not live in nyc have forgotten that day or are unsympathetic. I am merely saying that the judge will be sensitive to your suffering and lean towards granting you your request to keep your case closed.

What B2S doesn't know is that I am a NY'er. Born and raised there. Can't tell you how many x-mass concerts I/with my school band performed in The Towers. Can't tell you how I felt having known that just days before 9/11 my brother was servicing a client there, that client and all of the employees are now gone. Can't describe what it was like returning on September 13, 2002 for my Uncle's funeral (who passed on 9/11/02) and asking my brother to drive the lower deck of the bridge but ending up on the upper deck. Can't tell you what it was like to have the eulogy at my Uncle's funeral given by the ex-NYC police chief. Can't tell you how I feel right now typing this with tears in my eyes.

So yes, for those of us who were not physically present on 9/11 we all were NY'ers that day.

Now, as to the empathy of the judge. . . you are probably correct and that is the hope that we are looking for.

And with that I will leave this particular thread to others.

Des.

[AngelinaCatHub]

Des, do not ever misunderstand. WE ARE ALL NEW YORKERS, RE: 911, and also AMERICANS. I saw live on TV as a pilot myself knew what was about to happen in open cries to STOP IT, STOP IT, and yet I saw it happen. I WAS THERE. Not in the physical but in the spirit. I was on a trip to Chi, and I could go no further, canceled and drove home.

This person (did you read her link) was a thousand chance survivor and in my opinion a true heroine. (sp).

I suggested she write the Judge in that article that seems to be watch dog over the 911 settlement. I am sure she is savvy. as we have spoken off this place and she by no means is a dummy.

IF you have any pull my friend, pass this on as I for myself feel very strongly about this situation. I have been to zero and it would leave a sane person in tears as it did me.

Not saying I'm sane, (LOL) but once seen will never leave your heart.

I have a gross of DVD's about this and I cannot say that except for the place I heard about Kennedy assassinated, (many here would not remember) this will never leave my mind until my passing.

So I close.

[Fallonedward]

Path, thanks for the info.

Gwen, my heart just breaks for you and you really are a hero, you were one of the responders to the worst terrorism act our country had seen. Fight this tooth and nail

Fallonedward

I do not think that would be the case. It is I believe 181 days after your Discharge

[backtoschool]

What B2S doesn't know is that I am a NY'er. Born and raised there. Can't tell you how many x-mass concerts I/with my school band performed in The Towers. Can't tell you how I felt having known that just days before 9/11 my brother was servicing a client there, that client and all of the employees are now gone. Can't describe what it was like returning on September 13, 2002 for my Uncle's funeral (who passed on 9/11/02) and asking my brother to drive the lower deck of the bridge but ending up on the upper deck. Can't tell you what it was like to have the eulogy at my Uncle's funeral given by the ex-NYC police chief. Can't tell you how I feel right now typing this with tears in my eyes.

So yes, for those of us who were not physically present on 9/11 we all were NY'ers that day.

Now, as to the empathy of the judge. . . you are probably correct and that is the hope that we are looking for.

And with that I will leave this particular thread to others.

Des.

I certainly was not questioning your compassion or empathy Des. In fact I made sure to say that in my post. You gave excellent logical arguments for why the OP should be concerned for the settlement. But having been in Tower 2 on 9/11 myself and having lived there for eight years after 9/11, I can tell you, that no one who was physically in the area at the time is going to be sympathetic to that trustee. I am very appreciative of your contribution to this thread and certainly didn't mean to imply that you had no feelings regarding 9/11. I was simply stating that the decision that the judge makes will be influenced by more than logic.

I simply do not see it as an issue that will go in the trustee's favor.

[dumpinmydebt]

OP, thank you for your service. You are a true hero.

I don't have any advice to offer but I pray that everything goes your way. It's such a shame that you are having to go through this.

[AbbeyA]

Is there any update Gwen?