Why no credit card expense on Sch J?

[rkm]

Thank you, Peeps, and apology accepted.

My problem was that I received conflicting advice from two different attorneys. I spent some time online looking for answers and I ended up here. Sure, I suppose I should have researched the law myself, but I thought someone here might have a handle on a fairly simple explanation that went beyond "that's just the way it's done" ... which is what I was getting. Was I taking advantage of someone by asking a question? If you say so ...

[rkm]

I think you might be getting hung up on the word "current" because ... “When terms used in a statute are undefined, we give them their ordinary meaning.”

Thank you very very much, Debee. This is starting to make sense (in a bankruptcy sort of way).

I really am trying to understand the conventions. It's much easier for me to remember all the nuances if I understand the rationale. You've been very helpful.

To your last point about not drawing the trustee's attention ... that's why I posted in the first place: so I can understand the trustee's expectations.

Many people have been very helpful here, and I very much appreciate it.

I've been working on BK's since April, slowly at first, but my work has picked up dramatically in the past couple of months. The more I learn, the more I need to know.

[debee]

I've been working on BK's since April, slowly at first, but my work has picked up dramatically in the past couple of months.

My problem was that I received conflicting advice from two different attorneys.

So you are consulting with attorneys for your own bk and also working in a law office as a legal assistant?

Edit: Justice Alito's quote re: "when terms used in a statute are undefined, we give them ordinary meaning" applies to "projected" in projected disposable income and not "current". (fyi in case that wasn't clear from the quote itself)

[rkm]

So you are consulting with attorneys for your own bk and also working in a law office as a legal assistant?

Edit: Justice Alito's quote re: "when terms used in a statute are undefined, we give them ordinary meaning" applies to "projected" in projected disposable income and not "current". (fyi in case that wasn't clear from the quote itself)

No, I'm not doing my own BK. One attorney had a complicated case that was borderline Chapter 13, and we had trouble sorting out some expenses.

I knew you were applying the Alito quote to "projected"; I was trying to make a little joke because of my earlier suggestion that "current" should mean "current" and not "what I hope it's going to be if you guys erase all my debts"

[debee]

I was trying to make a little joke because of my earlier suggestion that "current" should mean "current"

Smart joke. That would explain why I missed it.

Edit: I've read some divergence of opinion on this forum re: schedule J. Some people advocate "actual expenses", others a combination of actual and expected, some say any amount up to the standards used in the means test, one person's lawyer told her to put down what she would spend if she didn't have all the debt (because her "actuals" were distorted by cc poverty), and so on. The only consensus that I am aware of is that whatever you put down, you have to be able to back it up with documentation if need be.

[rkm]

Smart joke. That would explain why I missed it.

Edit: I've read some divergence of opinion on this forum re: schedule J. Some people advocate "actual expenses", others a combination of actual and expected, some say any amount up to the standards used in the means test, one person's lawyer told her to put down what she would spend if she didn't have all the debt (because her "actuals" were distorted by cc poverty), and so on. The only consensus that I am aware of is that whatever you put down, you have to be able to back it up with documentation if need be.

So that was a case of "premature postulation"? Hate that ...

You know, it's actually a relief to know that there is divergence of opinion on the topic. One reason I posted to begin with is that I was seeing a lot of advice that appeared to be lacking in basis (other than "we all have experience and this is the way we do it"). It's really hard for me to remember how to do things unless they make sense.

We have a client who wants to keep a car with a $400 payment. She's trying to discharge some major debt that's attached to an ex-husband's property. The ex- is not cooperative. Ex- also has tax debt that client shares responsibility for. But she's not "actually" paying on any of the ex-husband's bills. So we were wrestling with expenses because we need to show she can afford the car but still qualifies for 7. It's a complicated one.

Anyway ... I think I've bought into the credit card argument. I'll just stop trying to wrap my tiny little brain around it.

Thanks again for your help.

[despritfreya]

But the debt is discharged when it is discharged by the trustee.

Not correct. First the Trustee does not grant a discharge, the Judge does. Second the discharge is effective as of the Petition Date (the date for the Order of Relief) because 11 USC 727(a) provides that the Court shall grant a discharge unless. . ." These are the very first words of that section.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Des.

[rkm]

Not correct. First the Trustee does not grant a discharge, the Judge does. Second the discharge is effective as of the Petition Date (the date for the Order of Relief) because 11 USC 727(a) provides that the Court shall grant a discharge unless. . ." These are the very first words of that section.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Des.

It does, thank you. I see now that that was exactly the element I was overlooking.