Just Got Letter from the BK Judge HELP!

[Mi Bankruptcy]

you're going mad

[olivies]

Good G*d, and once again another post begs to question: what is the point of having received a discharge if a trustee can go and open it back up because you find a $100 bill on the sidewalk. And since the OP filed after the Apr 15 tax deadline I'm thinking they had to file their tax returns before filing- right? So wouldn't the trustee have known about the refund all along?

[Mi Bankruptcy]

:o)

[justbroke]

Good G*d, and once again another post begs to question: what is the point of having received a discharge if a trustee can go and open it back up because you find a $100 bill on the sidewalk.

It's not that simple, and the Trustee wouldn't re-open a case to administer $100.

Most Trustee's don't know what your refund will be until you file. The case may be listed as "No Asset" simply because that's the state of affairs. Not all Trustees immediately make the case "Asset" because there "might" be something to recover from a tax refund. Many Trustees want to just be DONE with a case because they only make $60 on a no-asset case.

Now, in this particular case, it would appear that the Trustee already has the money, but I, for one, don't know when he received the money. Also, there is absolutely nothing that says that the Trustee must do this super fast or as soon as he knows! A Trustee can keep and certainly have kept cases open for 9-12 months just to wait for a tax refund or to see if there is one. That this Trustee is slow, could just mean that they are swamped.

The main reason people spend too much time worrying about the case closing, is because they think that it affects their discharge... and it doesn't. I would like for everyone to just worry about the 60-days after the first schedule 341 Meeting at most. At best, people should only worry about getting through the 341 Meeting!

When the actual discharge order is entered or when the case actually closes, is administrivia... but I do understand the significance of actually seeing the discharge order, having received one myself!

[oregonpilot]

NOW I"M SCARED
S.O. and i are thinking about getting married next june (after I turn 60). Because we are even contemplating it(when i filed), could the trustee re-open my case and go after the assets that will then be 1/2 mine. ACK

[backtoschool]

NOW I"M SCARED
S.O. and i are thinking about getting married next june (after I turn 60). Because we are even contemplating it(when i filed), could the trustee re-open my case and go after the assets that will then be 1/2 mine. ACK

I do not think that the trustee can go back for circumstances like that. First of all, trustees move on to the next round of cases, secondly, life circumstances change and although the trustee could try to open the case, the trustee would probably lose, unless you are marrying a millionaire that you were dating at the time you filed, etc....If that could be proven, the trustee might reopen the case, but its a long shot in my opinion.

[justbroke]

NOW I"M SCARED
S.O. and i are thinking about getting married next june (after I turn 60). Because we are even contemplating it(when i filed), could the trustee re-open my case and go after the assets that will then be 1/2 mine. ACK

Absolutely NOT. The Trustee can only go after things that were part of your estate at the time you filed! (In rare cases, they go after things that you become "entitled to" within 180 days of filing... mostly inheritances... and not lottery winnings.)

Don't worry about this stuff. The number of people that have these issues is so small, it's not worth even "contemplating" that it will happen to you!

[backtoschool]

Absolutely NOT. The Trustee can only go after things that were part of your estate at the time you filed! (In rare cases, they go after things that you become "entitled to" within 180 days of filing... mostly inheritances... and not lottery winnings.)

Don't worry about this stuff. The number of people that have these issues is so small, it's not worth even "contemplating" that it will happen to you!

I totally agree with you justbroke, but in the odd chance that someone married a millionaire within 180 days of filing, there might be reason that the trustee would reopen the case. This would be rare and the trustee would probably lose anyway.

[justbroke]

I totally agree with you justbroke, but in the odd chance that someone married a millionaire within 180 days of filing, there might be reason that the trustee would reopen the case. This would be rare and the trustee would probably lose anyway.

No, that won't happen. The code is VERY specific about the events that would cause your "new property" to become property of the estate as if it existed at the time your filed. Those are, inheritances, insurance proceeds as part of a death benefit, and certain property that was part of a dissolution of marriage. Nowhere does it read "lottery", which I would call marrying a millionaire... winning the lottery. LOL!

justbroke's study guide: read 11 USC 541(a)(5)

[backtoschool]

No, that won't happen. The code is VERY specific about the events that would cause your "new property" to become property of the estate as if it existed at the time your filed. Those are, inheritances, insurance proceeds as part of a death benefit, and certain property that was part of a dissolution of marriage. Nowhere does it read "lottery", which I would call marrying a millionaire... winning the lottery. LOL!

justbroke's study guide: read 11 USC 541

I agree with you actually. There was this debate on the 9/11 thread about a trustee that is trying to open a closed case and claim the settlement proceeds. I thought that even legally that sounded suspect, and emotionally of course it is abhorrent on the part of the trustee, but I thought that if that's allowable, maybe being engaged to a millionaire and then marrying after discharge can also reopen a case. But, I agree with you, the trustee would have no basis in the marriage scenario for opening the case back up.

[justbroke]

No, a 9/11 settlement would be property of the estate, if it occurred within 180 days of filing. Even if the person becomes entitled to it, and it's actually not even paid within the 180 days, would be legal. While it's legal, it may not be... popular, but it's the law. There is no law pertaining to marrying a millionaire, but there is one for divorce.

So, hypothetically speaking, if you married a millionaire right after filing, but divorced them within the 180 days... hmmm... can you say "juicy"?

[backtoschool]

No, a 9/11 settlement would be property of the estate, if it occurred within 180 days of filing. Even if the person becomes entitled to it, and it's actually not even paid within the 180 days, would be legal. While it's legal, it may not be... popular, but it's the law. There is no law pertaining to marrying a millionaire, but there is one for divorce.

So, hypothetically speaking, if you married a millionaire right after filing, but divorced them within the 180 days... hmmm... can you say "juicy"?

You know all the intricate angles justbroke. I would love to grab some popcorn and watch the proceedings of someone in your above example

I still think the trustee in the 9/11 case is a slimy, greedy, creep.

[oregonpilot]

LOL he wishes.
He's on SS and a small retirement. He does have assets though. New house with no morgage and an antique car, motorhome.