Please explain

[Noelle]

Can someone please explain to me what this means?


"I think that the trustee is looking to go after your creditors for a preferential payments or fraudulent conveyance of the cash advances to one of your family members. This would make your case an asset case and the trustee would benefit financially."

[tobee43]

it means that the trustee handling your case, believes that you paid someone in your family money when you were not suppose to be paying anyone any payments.

in this case the trustee may believe you paid CASH or took cash advances and gave them to a family member....resulting in whatever amount the trustee feels you conveyed...or gave to that family member you must pay back the court.

[free2breathe]

Can someone please explain to me what this means?


"I think that the trustee is looking to go after your creditors for a preferential payments or fraudulent conveyance of the cash advances to one of your family members. This would make your case an asset case and the trustee would benefit financially."

I believe it was in reference to the way you answered a question on another thread. The question was something like "Did some of that cash advance money go to help pay for your childrens weddings?" The trustee can view such a transaction as either a fraudulent conveyance of property (cash) or a preferential payment to a family member. Generally preferential payment would refer to money you paid to a family member (or creditor) you owed in preference over paying other debts.

[tcreegan]

Hi Noelle,

Normally in a preferential payment, the trustee doesn't go after the debtor but the person recieving the payment. To keep the family member out of it, you can pay the amount to the trustee. If not, give whoever got the $$ a heads up that the trustee is going to come a'knocking for the $$

Hope this doesn't throw too big of a monkey wrench into your case....

Tom in Colo

[Noelle]

The thing is that the money that was spent on the weddings was before I lost my job and 2 years before I had to file bk, so there was no intent to hide/pay/convey anything. At that time I was working and would have laughed had someone mentioned bk.
In looking back, I held on too long after losing my job and hoping for a miracle that another one would come along so that this wouldn't happen. The only cash advances that were taken after my job loss were to pay bills.

[tobee43]

Can someone please explain to me what this means?


"I think that the trustee is looking to go after your creditors for a preferential payments or fraudulent conveyance of the cash advances to one of your family members. This would make your case an asset case and the trustee would benefit financially."

well...i think your question was...what does this mean....not so much about what you personally did, but what the preferential payment and or fraudulent conveyance what about?? is that correct?

i understand about the wedding situation etc., you did that prior ....2 years prior so really i would not think one would consider that as a preferential payment...or fraud...the creditor MAY attempt to file an ap...but usually doubtful.

[free2breathe]

"I filed chapter 7 in May 2010 and received my discharge from the court in August 2010 - I have the paper in my hand. Now (in Nov 2010) the trustee is asking questions/wanting information regarding some of my creditors and specifically wanting to know what was charged on a credit card 2 years ago" quoted from Noelle's original post about this situation.

This is why the situation is a little nerve wracking...she received her discharge but is now, 2 months later, getting questioned by the trustee. So, while wanting to know what it means is the question, figuring out the little details is possibly the clue to the answer ;)
So, lest there be any confusion, there isn't any finger pointing going on about how the money was spent, just questions being asked to try to figure out why the trustee would question it all now, after the fact.

In our case, the trustee made no bones about the 341 meeting meaning nothing in the grand scheme of things, and that after the discharge it's still "not over". He pointed out that it could take up to a year for him to close the case. I guess any little thing could cause the trustee to start asking questions.

[tobee43]

"I filed chapter 7 in May 2010 and received my discharge from the court in August 2010 - I have the paper in my hand. Now (in Nov 2010) the trustee is asking questions/wanting information regarding some of my creditors and specifically wanting to know what was charged on a credit card 2 years ago" quoted from Noelle's original post about this situation.

This is why the situation is a little nerve wracking...she received her discharge but is now, 2 months later, getting questioned by the trustee. So, while wanting to know what it means is the question, figuring out the little details is possibly the clue to the answer ;)
So, lest there be any confusion, there isn't any finger pointing going on about how the money was spent, just questions being asked to try to figure out why the trustee would question it all now, after the fact.

In our case, the trustee made no bones about the 341 meeting meaning nothing in the grand scheme of things, and that after the discharge it's still "not over". He pointed out that it could take up to a year for him to close the case. I guess any little thing could cause the trustee to start asking questions.

yes, well the discharge is one thing as we know...to me the most important piece of the paper is the order from the trustee releasing the estate and findings to be that of a no asset distribution situation. that "order" signed is what i was really waiting for.

[debee]

In our case, the trustee made no bones about the 341 meeting meaning nothing in the grand scheme of things, and that after the discharge it's still "not over". He pointed out that it could take up to a year for him to close the case. I guess any little thing could cause the trustee to start asking questions.

The "closed" part is so important. There was a case here in CA where there was an administrative bungle and the trustee didn't close the case. The debtor's house had been included in the estate, but not surrendered. Two years later, the trustee realizes he "forgot" to close the case, pokes around at the value of things, sees the debtor's house had appreciated in value well beyond the exemption amount and so the trustee sold it!

The debtor fought it in court, but he lost.

[Noelle]

How long can the trustee 'drag' it out? As I had posted before - my discharge is dated 8/4/10 - and I had been in contact with my attorney regarding the 'closed' stature due to my car payment. Chrysler won't open up my account online for paying my bill again until it is 'closed'.

[debee]

There are members of this forum who were asset cases and it took a year or two before their cases closed. So if your case is in fact becoming an asset case, you may be in for a long wait yet.