Where are all the dismissals?

[time4cake]

Based on the supposed intent of the new bankruptcy law I would have expected to see a deluge of people agonizing over their Chapter 7 dismissals on this board.

I have done several searches trying to find reports of dismissals due to the presumption of abuse, but have not seen any.

If your Chapter 7 was dismissed due to the presumption of abuse after the new law went into affect tell us about it.

[SinkingFast]

I have a Dismissals report.

When we met with our attny, he said no Pro Se filer has successfully filed under the New Law in the Court here.

The Trustees and Judges aren't being kind or helping out when they find errors in the petitions. The filer just gets told there's a problem with their paperwork and they have 45 days to fix it. The Court isn't telling the Pro Se filers what needs to be fixed either. So far every Pro Se filer here has had their BK dismissed due to improper filing. Because, within 45 days, they resubmit incorrect petitions and their cases get booted.

I'm anxious to see how we are going to be filed. It was my understanding that only the income in the household that paid household expenses was considered for the filing. In that case, we're well below the Median and a straight, no asset Ch 7. But our attny is gonna show all income coming into the household.

Mom does not contribute to the household. Mom's SSI will be added in up top and then deducted back out as her SSI is exempt any way. The attny even took copies of Mom's last 2 months of bank statements as proof of her income since her SSI is direct deposit.

Attny is also adding son's income. Son, like Mom, does not contribute to the household. He buys his gas to get around to college and work, lunches out, and saves his money to pay next semester's tuition bill. Adding son's income can be a problem for us. Son makes just enough to push us a hair over the Median. We didn't have any proof of son's income with us, and they haven't asked for pay stubs and such either. So we shall see.

[time4cake]

I have a Dismissals report.

When we met with our attny, he said no Pro Se filer has successfully filed under the New Law in the Court here.

That is interesting, but unfortunately falls under the heading of heresay. I am highly skeptical all inclusive comments like the one above by your attorney. The statement sounds self serving, like "I dare you to try and file your case on your onw." Did you end up going with that particular attorney?

Still looking for first hand instances of dismissal.

[SinkingFast]

Yeah we did hire him. But, before this face to face we'd had 2 phone chats with them. First, over an hour with his paralegal. Then a second call over an hour with him. We chatted with him about an hour in the face to face as well. He was answering specific questions we had about specific issues. He had already given us some good advice on the phone. The face to face was to be sure we'd be comfortable working with him.

I don't remember how that came out in conversation. It wasn't like I said I could file BK for us or anything. We were chatting about how the Courts and attnys have been ironing out the kinks to find working ground under the New Law. This was during the part of the conversation where we were talking about whether or not to include Mom. When we started calling in January, attnys either didn't know if we could include her or they just flat out said NO. Since then, a statement has been issued defining dependents for BK purposes. So it was really a casual side comment rather about how things are working now. Not something I dared him into or anything like that.

[djk]

I have a Dismissals report.

When we met with our attny, he said no Pro Se filer has successfully filed under the New Law in the Court here.

The Trustees and Judges aren't being kind or helping out when they find errors in the petitions. The filer just gets told there's a problem with their paperwork and they have 45 days to fix it. The Court isn't telling the Pro Se filers what needs to be fixed either. So far every Pro Se filer here has had their BK dismissed due to improper filing. Because, within 45 days, they resubmit incorrect petitions and their cases get booted.

My understanding is that it is not the trustee's or judge's job to inform the petitioner of a deficiency. It is up to the clerk of the court's office. And it
basically only extends to procedural errors like what forms need to be
filed and not about how they need to be filled out. Usually the notice of
deficiency is put on pacer. The notice usually is specific enough to allow
a petitioner with a brain to correct the issue. There is either a massive
problem with your clerk's office, a massive problem with brainless
petitioners, or your lawyer is being somewhat deceptive.

[SinkingFast]

I don't know. Like Time said, it is anecdotal evidence.

I do know that attnys here don't know regular folk can access PACER. I slipped once and mentioned it to another attny. She was shocked that I had access to PACER. She asked in an accuasatory way how I'd gotten on there??!! I said same way she did. I registered got an ID and a password assigned to me. She asked how that was possible. I said it's Public Access so anyone can use it. So I'm guessing that many regular folk here don't know about PACER. Which I can believe. Before this Forum, I didn't know about PACER. And lots of people don't do good research. Just like selling a house FSBO. It looks straight forward to them. They think the professional's fee is a waste of money. They think they can do it as well themselves and they give it the "old college try".

That female attny I mentioned earlier uses a BK filing software program called Rapid Response. She had me got to a website called StopMyBills.com, enter her password, and complete all the data in an "on-line" interview. I did all that. Stopmybills.com emails her about the interview, she logs on, and the internet interview interfaces with her BK software and automatically prepares a preliminary BK petition. Means Test, Schedules, the whole works. Never heard a word from that attny after completing the interview. I even emailed her that I hadn't given complete address info on somethings as a follow-up, and gave her our email address and phone numbers, hoping to prompt her for a contact. That's been 3 weeks ago. Haven't heard a peep from her since.

One thing I did learn in our Consults and chats with attnys. By and large, BK attnys here don't like to deal with people who've done their homework. I'm guessing that's why we never heard back from the Lady attny. Cause I slipped and mentioned PACER to her.

[djk]

I don't know. Like Time said, it is anecdotal evidence.

I do know that attnys here don't know regular folk can access PACER. I slipped once and mentioned it to another attny. She was shocked that I had access to PACER. She asked in an accuasatory way how I'd gotten on there??!!.

the clerk also is required to send a letter of notice to the debtor. pacer is not required. you mentioned that the lawyer said they are being notified so I guess
the clerk is sending the letter and the petitioner is just not able to understand.

[SinkingFast]

The attny said the Pro Se filers are notified that their petitions are not filed properly, but they either aren't given specifics on what needs fixed, or they don't know how to fix the errors. Not sure which.

If he was telling us that to scare us into hiring not just him, but any attny, it didn't matter. We'd already decided we were not gonna tempt fate going in without an attny. I didn't wanna get blind sided by a willy Judge or Trustee on some fine point of law and not know my ground. That's the attny's job as far as we're concerned.

I'm just researching and trying to be an informed consumer. After all, it's not the attny's butt in the noose for whatever mistake he makes. It's mine.

His paralegal said she'd worked for a couple other BK attnys before coming to work for this guy. She assured us that we'd chosen well. She said he's good. So I do hope she's right.

[Rover]

That is interesting, but unfortunately falls under the heading of heresay. I am highly skeptical all inclusive comments like the one above by your attorney. The statement sounds self serving, like "I dare you to try and file your case on your onw." Did you end up going with that particular attorney?

I couldn't agree more. It's obviously nothing more than self-serving BS. How could any attorney possibly know what has been happening to Pro Se filers? Is someone spending all day sitting in 341 hearings taking down the data? I think not.

However, most attornies are liars, so the guy is probably a good BK attorney. But one should keep in mind when dealing with him that he is a BS artist.

[time4cake]

Answer to my own question

Met with my attorney today. As I have mentioned in prior posts he has over 6,000 cases on Pacer. That translates to about 800 cases per year. A conservative estimate would mean that about 700 of them per year are Chapter 7 cases.

I asked him if he has had many cases dismissed and he stated that he has not had a single case dismissed under the new law. As a matter of fact he is currently only dealing with one objection.

If we further assume that the 700 chapter 7 cases he files every year are evenly distributed it would mean that he has 1 objection out of his approximate 117 current/active cases.

He went on to state that he is absolutely sure he will prevail against the US Trustee's objection, and even had a conversation with the US Trustee stating that he doesn't believe it is worth the trustee's time and effort to pursue this objection.

This type of record would indicate that there are very few dismissal's as long as the paper work is properly filed, and in addition that my attorney is not pushing through Chapter 7 cases that do not qualify.

Feel free to way in, and I apologize in advance as this post was hastily drafted.

[djk]

i've noticed that as a breed most lawyers seem to think they impress people just by being a lawyer. if close to 90% of the cases are chapter 7 with this particular lawyer and he has only had one objection and no dismissals since 10/2005, then I guess you are correct in your assumptions that your lawyer
knows how to fill out paper work and does not take any significantly challenging 7 cases, all the signs of a great lawyer, since his underlings probably do the paper work. what it all says to me is probably 90% of his chapter 7 clients could have done a successful Pro Se. Oh, and the jab about telling the trustee he would be wasting his time? ha ha. My guess is you could have saved whatever you paid this guy and done it yourself, if you know how to do paper work.

[LostOne0069]

Met with my attorney today. As I have mentioned in prior posts he has over 6,000 cases on Pacer. That translates to about 800 cases per year. A conservative estimate would mean that about 700 of them per year are Chapter 7 cases.

Where the hell does this guy find the TIME for all these? I mean, discounting weekends and holidays, there are about 250 "working" days in the year... with 800 cases per year, your attorney would need to attend an average of 3.5 341 meetings EVERY DAY. I know 341 meetings don't take long, but who says all his clients are assigned times right next to each other? The scheduling is done by the court, and NOT to the attorneys convenience!

Has he mentioned how he keeps so much going at the same time and how he manages to get to all those 341 meetings?

[Minnymouth]

Under the old laws, attorney used paralegals for everything - all legwork, and often sent them to 341 meeting also.....

Now the attorney has to verify everything in the petition, sign off on it and attend the 341 himself.....

Under the old laws the attorney had you fill out a packet, you signed it, he submitted it and his work was done till the 341 meeting.

Many bankruptcy attorneys have up to 8-10 hearings a day..... of course all they do are bankruptcy cases.

YEP, 800 cases a year at $2-$3,000 a pop is good pocket change...................

[djk]

oh, one more thing. is this the guy that is arguing that you don't have to do the means test because most of your debts in this PERSONAL chapter 7 are
from a LLC business? how is that arguement going? or was that the one objection the lawyer seems to think the trustee is wasting his time on?

[time4cake]

Has he mentioned how he keeps so much going at the same time and how he manages to get to all those 341 meetings?

He has not mentioned how he does it, but I can speculate that it is an assembly line, and very efficient.

1) He talks a bit like a tour guide, his voice rises and falls in waves and the changes in tone seem to have little to do with the words being said. Basically, like he has said the exact same thing 10,000 times.

2) He is regimented in regards to filings. Chapter 7 cases are always filed on Friday and in mass. This probably facilitates theh hope that the 341 meeting will be assinged sequentially.

3) It does appear that his staff does nearly all of the leg work.