OMG -- does this mean what I think it does?

[sillywalks]

I was checking Pacer and I saw this entered on July 22 -- Chapter 7 Trustee's report of NO DISTRIBUTION, no funds.

Does that mean what I think it means??? Oh please please I hope so! I'm afraid to believe it -- does this mean it's all over but the goodbye?

hope hope hope hope hope...

[sillywalks]

Oh, wait -- does this impact the US Trustee's decision? Since it is the US Trustee who filed the presumption of abuse, does the local trustee's decision make any difference?

[justbroke]

This only means that the Panel Trustee, who is in charge of liquidating the Estate, has found that there is nothing to liquidate. Additionally, this means that you are a no asset case.

However, this does not mean that your case is discharged or closed. The United States Trustee (UST) filed a presumption of abuse in your case, and that's a totally different thing. You must think of the two "people" as separate with different goals. The Panel Trustee is basically saying that his job is done because there's nothing to administer (liquidate). The UST, however, is still working through a presumption of abuse issue.

[sillywalks]

Just Broke --

<sigh> I knew it was too good to be true! Does the filing of the local trustee impact the UST at all?

[daylate]

I don't think so. if I remember correctly your case involves filling out the forms incorrectly which allowed you to pass the means test. Had they been done correctly you would not have passed. That is what the UST is objecting to. In other words you have an income problem(UST) not as asset problem (CH 7 trustee). Sorry.

[sillywalks]

daylate -- Yes, my attorney put in car ownership costs that are not allowed. Thanks for clarifying what the UST is doing.

S

[justbroke]

As correctly stated, the UST doesn't care about whether you're an asset case or not. The UST is responsible for monitoring the program and ensuring that only those individuals who are "deserving" receive a Chapter 7 discharge. In this case, you were over-the-median and the UST "scrutinized" your schedules. The UST immediately noticed expenses that were not allowed -- or expenses that the UST would challenge.

Hopefully, you and your attorney will work through this and find the best strategy going forward. It may include dismissal, then buy a new car (or two) and then refiling. However, your attorney may not "suggest" the purchasing of a new car.

[sillywalks]

Thanks for clarifying -- it makes more sense to me now. It seems (from reading some older posts on the topic) that it is not unusual for the UST to report a presumption of abuse if someone is over the median, which makes me feel a little better. i know when I worked the means test on my own, I did it with and without the ownership costs, and I ended up passing the means test in the second phase/level. I think I am going to ask my attorney for a copy of the means test he submitted to see where our numbers are different. His approach to the means and paperwork in our meetings was very much perfunctory as if he felt there would not be any problems (which I was eager to believe). I really do believe that my numbers show that I do qualify for a Ch 7, after working the means test over and over (and over) and putting figures into the schedules I and J. If I did not believe it, I would not have files. The truth will out, right?

S

[justbroke]

It is what it is at this point. If you are confident in the numbers, I would encourage you to go back through them with or without your attorney. See where it went wrong. Then, regroup and think about where you need to go.

[sunshinepa]

Read all these posts, this is a bummer. My fingers are crossed, my prayers are with you! Please keep us updated, will be watching closely. Hopefully, the corrections can be made, the lawyer will get his $#% together and it will out come out good!

Keep the faith!!

[sillywalks]

Thanks, Sunshine.

[sillywalks]

Update -- Pacer shows that the Judge issued a 'no reason for dismissal' ruling. That's good, right? Does this impact the UST?

[daylate]

Don't know for sure but it can't be bad. Also judges trump UST's. Keep your fingers crossed.

[justbroke]

Update -- Pacer shows that the Judge issued a 'no reason for dismissal' ruling. That's good, right? Does this impact the UST?

No. As I stated earlier, the UST fumbled by trying to do an "end-around" the 10-day notice required for a Dismissal for Presumption of Abuse. The UST must file a statement that a presumption of abuse exists within that 10 days. The UST cannot file a statement like they did in yours; that statement was that they "didn't have time" or "couldn't determine". They must determine. So, you passed that hurdle.

However, the UST's so-called "trump-card" is the Motion to Dismiss under 11 USC 707(b)(3)(B) -- Totality of Circumstances. This is done by complaint and is a much more dragged out process. This is why the UST is best-served determining abuse well before the 10-day limit has passed. (Note, the UST only needs file a presumption of abuse within the 10 days, but not an actual motion. The UST has 30-days from the filing of the statement of presumption of abuse until they need to actually file a motion tot dismiss, or withdraw the presumption.)

So, this could be interesting if the UST is not interested in proceeding under a totality of circumstances motion.

You are not out of the woods.

[sillywalks]

JustBroke --

I'm confused -- just to clarify: the UST DID file a presumption of abuse based on the ownership costs not being allowed.

I have also found in Pacer that the local trustee filed a report of no distribution, and the Judge filed a 'no reason for dismissal' ruling.

I do understand from what you said that the UST has 30 days to either withdraw their presumption, or pursue dismissal. And it seems you are saying that the Judge's decision of 'no reason for dismissal' does NOT impact the UST, right?

I did look over my means test and schedule J, and there were a few potential errors. I emailed and asked if Georgia allows the $200 ownership cost if a car is not financed (that would help a lot!).

Also, on the means test, line 20 result is 0 (my mortgage payment exceeds the local standard) -- I had thought that the difference between the standard and my actual payment should be/would be listed on line 21 ($441) -- but I'm not sure about it, because I know the full payment is listed on line 42.

I pay $120 a month into a SHPS healthcare reimbursement account per month, which seems like it should be listed on line 31. This might also be a place to list what I pay in vet expenses per month?

My attorney did not put any contribution to dependents not living at home, but I provide my son (in college) at least $150 a month (really, more like $250). I think that should be listed on the means test.

I'm hoping some of these things will pan out! With the means test that was submitted, my DMI was -$450. So, without the full ownership costs for two cars, I would need to find about $400 in other expenses. Hopefully, I can get the $200 per car ownership costs, but if not, I think I might can find enough to make things work. I hope!

Thanks for your input and any clarification you can give.

I asked him if what I pay for food for my cats could be listed on line 39?

No. As I stated earlier, the UST fumbled by trying to do an "end-around" the 10-day notice required for a Dismissal for Presumption of Abuse. The UST must file a statement that a presumption of abuse exists within that 10 days. The UST cannot file a statement like they did in yours; that statement was that they "didn't have time" or "couldn't determine". They must determine. So, you passed that hurdle.

However, the UST's so-called "trump-card" is the Motion to Dismiss under 11 USC 707(b)(3)(B) -- Totality of Circumstances. This is done by complaint and is a much more dragged out process. This is why the UST is best-served determining abuse well before the 10-day limit has passed. (Note, the UST only needs file a presumption of abuse within the 10 days, but not an actual motion. The UST has 30-days from the filing of the statement of presumption of abuse until they need to actually file a motion tot dismiss, or withdraw the presumption.)

So, this could be interesting if the UST is not interested in proceeding under a totality of circumstances motion.

You are not out of the woods.