Reaffirmation

[IBroke]

There is also a lot of caselaw that says, all the bk code reuires is, you offer to reaffirm. If a judge does not approve it, you've met your urden under the law and the lender can't repo.

IMO, this is actually the most important thing we need to talk about...

[Dorsey]

IBorke, I think that's a great option...IF...IF...IF you're in a jurisdiction that adheres to that ruling. It only binds the district that issued the opinion (I think it was Arizona?). Others may following it, and I'm not sure about my district (Maryland).

[rjmwx81]

The thing is, from what I understand, in the VAST majority of cases, even if there's not case law requiring it, a lender will prefer a ride-and-pay to a repo anyway.

[Dorsey]

I would love a ride-through!! I created another thread asking if anyone had heard of BMW Financing doing a ride-through. Some lenders have a standing policy against it. I thought I read a few days back (somewhere here) that GMAC has a policy against it. Maybe it was another firm like Ford Financing.

[rjmwx81]

I would love a ride-through!! I created another thread asking if anyone had heard of BMW Financing doing a ride-through. Some lenders have a standing policy against it. I thought I read a few days back (somewhere here) that GMAC has a policy against it. Maybe it was another firm like Ford Financing.

Well, as I said, in the majority of cases the lender will do it, but there are exceptions. Ford, I've heard, is one of those. No idea about BMW.

The thing is, if a lender's policy is to repo without reaffirmation, telling them "oh, I'll just sign a new loan with you after discharge" probably isn't going to keep the tow truck away. They'd have no legal way to enforce that agreement.

[debee]

IBorke, I think that's a great option...IF...IF...IF you're in a jurisdiction that adheres to that ruling. It only binds the district that issued the opinion (I think it was Arizona?). Others may following it, and I'm not sure about my district (Maryland).

There's been backdoor ride-through in MD. Lower court decision so persuasive but not binding. That's my understanding.

[Dorsey]

They'd have no legal way to enforce that agreement.

Sure they do, they just give you a deadline (sometime post discharge) to agree to sign the new agreement. If you fail to make a payment before signing, fail to sign, or miss a payment after signing, all bets are off and they take the care. They always have the lien to rely upon.

This has my point through this thread. It's win-win for any debtor and lender in a situation where reaffirmation is opposed by the judge, and where a ride-through is not comfortable for the lender. IF the debtor likes the deal they got on the car when they first purchased it, it seems to me there would be somebody with first hand knowledge of it here in the Forum.

As I mentioned, the case law suggests that people try to do this all the time. There must be many more success stories than there are lawsuits over it.

[Dorsey]

debee....thanks!! You're to the rescue again!!

[Dorsey]

debee...this is the case I believe you're referencing.

http://www.legalconsumer.com/bankrup...CitationID=603

[debee]

That's the one. I have some others on my list (from when I did the research back when I needed it for my own case) from the 4th circuit, but all lower court decisions in the other states.

[rjmwx81]

Sure they do, they just give you a deadline (sometime post discharge) to agree to sign the new agreement. If you fail to make a payment before signing, fail to sign, or miss a payment after signing, all bets are off and they take the care. They always have the lien to rely upon.

"Agree to sign the new agreement" would essentially be a reaffirmation, wouldn't it? Just playing devils advocate here...I see no practical difference between what you've described, and a reaffirmation agreement.

[Dorsey]

Rj, no practical difference but that it's post discharge so it doesn't have to be approved by the court. That's my whole point. For those who can't get their reaffirmation approved by the court because of "undue hardship" or because the brand of the vehicle is deemed luxury it seems a viable option. That's why I would love to hear from someone who's done it.

[Pandora]

Pandora, I don't think you're reading this thread correctly. I am not speaking of a redemption, I am speaking of a post-discharge reaffirmation-like lending agreement. Redemption takes the original lender completely out, that's not what I am speaking about.

No I was reading it correctly - and understand perfectly what you're wanting to do - I even understand what parts in 11 U.S.C 521 apply *gasp!* Bottom line is you're going to have a hard time convincing the lender, of which you currently desire to discharge the debt - to sign a new agreement with you when you show no "good faith" with reaffirming it initially. That is the main issue - and as others have pointed out, essentially its the exact same thing as a reaffirmation. What do you think I'm not understanding at this juncture? The more probable (and likely) outcome will be given you are dealing a luxury car and are currently unemployed, they will not go for what you're asking and will require reaffirmation/redemption/surrender prior to discharge. There is no benefit to BMW to do it "after the fact" regardless whether you think its in your best interest or not since you can "make the payments". In the case listed, the debtor signed reaffirmation papers in the Statement of Intentions and therein lies the difference - i.e., "good faith". Could it be amended after the fact...sure it could, but the sticking point is that the intentions were in place prior to deadlines however given that you're "pro se" and section 524(c)(6) applies..... uphill battle.

By the way - regardless if you're an attorney or not - as there are many on here as you know - no real barring whatsoever regarding your belief of if I understand what it is you're seeking to accomplish; and in all honesty, I'm taken aback that you would infer I have no understanding of the process. Attorney or no - what you're seeking to accomplish after discharge is going to be hard to do given what you have stacked against you (luxury car / unemployed). However since you felt the need to bring up being an attorney (why..I've no idea) to justify that you have a "pretty good grasp of terms..." then use them correctly - as you so carefully noted to me "cramming down is only available in Ch. 13".... with all due respect, then dont interchange the terms willy-nilly.

As daddy always told me... "if someone steps across that line.. step right along with them" .....

Wishing you all the best.

[Dorsey]

Pandora...

The case law (not just Arnold) clearly illustrates that people often repurchase their vehicles from their original lenders POST-discharge. I am simply looking to hear from one of those people here. If you're not one of those people, please refrain from commenting further. I know you are eager to give me 10 reasons why this will NOT work, but I'm not interested in what won't work...I'm interested in what will work. We know for a fact that this does happen post-discharge and it's certainly not bad-faith to enter a Statement of Intention looking to reaffirm and then discover that such a reaffirmation can't be approved by the court. In fact, there is a lot of scholarship out there that suggests that a preponderance of the reaffirmation agreements submitted to courts are done so knowing that the agreement is likely to fail. No court, to my knowledge, has ever issued a statement or opinion that such behavior exhibited bad-faith. The right to submit a reaffirmation agreement is statutory and is not qualified by a need for the debtor and lender to determine their probability of success in achieving a reaffirmation.

To the Forum Community: So, one more time, if you are a person who's done this, let me know. (If you've not done this, please don't comment.)

[Pandora]

Pandora...the comments you're providing aren't helpful or relevant. Since I posted the thread looking for information seeking information relevant to the question I asked, please stop posting to this thread. I'm afraid, despite your confidence, that you aren't really grasping what I'm suggesting.

LOL! yeah...okay..... as i said..good luck!