Has anyone been able to renegotiate with Santander on an auto / RV loan?

[BrokeLoser]

Your attorney must not have practiced bankruptcy law before 2005. The ride-through is not mumbo jumbo and a simple query in Lexis would yield an abundance of cases that use the same language. I'd actually be wary of any bankruptcy attorney that doesn't know that concept and claims it's mumbo-jumbo.

The fact is, does Santander allow ride-throughs. If so, then you just list on your Statement of Intentions (SOI) that you will "retain" and then under other you list "retain and pay". That's the ride through... nothing more than that. However, if Santander will repossess without a reaffirmation you REALLY need to look at the financial aspect of either reaffirming OR redeeming.

Thanks for being so specific in your information.
My 341 was on Aug 11th...If needed, is it too late to change something in the filing? My attorney may have noted that I intended to surrender the RV.
As of right now I am 2 payments behind on the RV...my attorney instructed me to stop paying. Can I make the payments to catch up without problems?
Should I call Santander (the lender) and tell them what has happened and what I now intend to do?

[justbroke]

Never call your creditor when you are represented by an attorney. Your attorney should be working for you!

[BrokeLoser]

Never call your creditor when you are represented by an attorney. Your attorney should be working for you!

I just checked my filed paper work; the RV was listed that I intend to retain and reaffirm the loan. Does this need to be amended or can I just simply not request a reaffirmation agreement from Santander and continue making payments to them on time?

[justbroke]

I just checked my filed paper work; the RV was listed that I intend to retain and reaffirm the loan. Does this need to be amended or can I just simply not request a reaffirmation agreement from Santander and continue making payments to them on time?

You can simply do nothing. It is very unlikely that Santander will send you a reaffirmation agreement. I had to ask them for one. (Actually, they send everything to Ascension Capitol to deal with the bankruptcy and I had to deal with them.) While I did reaffirm one of the cars, I did so only because the rate was good, I only had 21 months left on the note, and the car was worth more than the balance.

So, simply don't request a reaffirmation. Just make sure your attorney knows that you want to do this and ask him if Santander is known to repossess non-reaffirmed vehicles/RVs if the payments are current.

[BrokeLoser]

You can simply do nothing. It is very unlikely that Santander will send you a reaffirmation agreement. I had to ask them for one. (Actually, they send everything to Ascension Capitol to deal with the bankruptcy and I had to deal with them.) While I did reaffirm one of the cars, I did so only because the rate was good, I only had 21 months left on the note, and the car was worth more than the balance.

So, simply don't request a reaffirmation. Just make sure your attorney knows that you want to do this and ask him if Santander is known to repossess non-reaffirmed vehicles/RVs if the payments are current.

This wouldn't be considered deceptive to the court...filing an intent to reaffirm and then not reaffirming yet retaining the RV anyway?
Thanks again Justbroke!

[justbroke]

This wouldn't be considered deceptive to the court...filing an intent to reaffirm and then not reaffirming yet retaining the RV anyway?

No, because it's the truth. You "intended" to reaffirm, but later decided not to. An intent to reaffirm is not a reaffirmation. The court knows that things change and people change their mind prior to the case being discharged. So much so, that you can even rescind a reaffirmation within 60 days of it being signed!

You do not need to redo the Statement of Intentions.

[disconapper]

And thats exactly what I did with Santander...my paperwork said I "intended to reaffirm"...Santander sent me NOTHING, no agreement, nothing....the intent to reaffirm bought me some time to make a decision that's all. Now I'm just paying the car note as if nothing happened. I haven't heard a peep out of Santander since I filed in April, not a peep, but they are taking my payments.....

[BrokeLoser]

Okay, so I finally had a lengthy discussion with my attorney regarding this.
This is his exact words; "Continuing to pay the payment after discharge IS reaffirming the debt even if you don't execute a reaffirmation agreement pre-discharge. The court sees it the same. It's a common ploy by lenders to allow you to 'ride-through' just to hold you liable for the debt after discharge. Basically they (the lender) gets to 'ride-through' and still hold you responsible for the loan."

At this point I need to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about.....right?
Any idea or knowledge of case law in CA that I can throw at him to make him see the light?
I know I shouldn't have to educate my attorney but I really don't want to tell him he doesn't know law either?
HELP!!

[justbroke]

This is his exact words; "Continuing to pay the payment after discharge IS reaffirming the debt even if you don't execute a reaffirmation agreement pre-discharge. The court sees it the same. It's a common ploy by lenders to allow you to 'ride-through' just to hold you liable for the debt after discharge. Basically they (the lender) gets to 'ride-through' and still hold you responsible for the loan."

I don't know ANY COURT that has ever held that doing a pay and stay is a reaffirmation of a debt. The bankruptcy code is pretty clear on what constitutes a reaffirmation and it is only by following the exact details in 11 USC 524.

Your attorney may work for creditors at times. It may be his opinion that not reaffirming a debt, but continuing to pay it, is a defacto reaffirmation. However, I see nothing in the code that talks about a defacto reaffirmation. For executory contracts, it may be true that continuing to pay is a "assumption" of that contract, but I don't think that applies to retail installment contracts (like the one you use to pay for a vehicle/loan).

It's your attorney's opinion. Ask him for some caselaw post BAPCPA (October 2005) where there was a reaffirmation by continuing to pay. Again, your attorney may be old-school and has a lot of pre-BAPCPA (2005) experience.

[BrokeLoser]

thanks justbroke..
i noticed you're in FL...could the law on this matter be different in CA?
My attorney seems so sure of himself

[justbroke]

Yes, it could be, but I have never read or heard of this problem anywhere in any District. In Florida, we can't technically do a ride-through, only because it's not an "option" in our District. It's not that continuing to pay and retain creates a back-door reaffirmation.

[BrokeLoser]

Yes, it could be, but I have never read or heard of this problem anywhere in any District. In Florida, we can't technically do a ride-through, only because it's not an "option" in our District. It's not that continuing to pay and retain creates a back-door reaffirmation.

Thanks
Has anyone in CA been down this road before?
Can I post a new thread on this titled; ride-through in CA questions?

[justbroke]

Thanks
Has anyone in CA been down this road before?
Can I post a new thread on this titled; ride-through in CA questions?

Yes, you could start a new thread since that would be a more specific question.