reaffirmation hearing...

[TBA]

UGH! Thats how i want to start off, just UGH!

I am an asset case (non consumer) where i decided to buy the equity in my car to keep it (yes, i have equity in a depreciable asset, how the hell does that happen?! LOL) - i was given a pay advance by my employer, gave the check to the trustee, and thought i was done.

The car i just paid to keep has a lien with USAA that i am reaffirming. I submitted the paperwork on the same day as the check, and on pacers, i see that i have a hearing scheduled on oct 19th for the reaffirmation...

If i paid the trustee to keep my car, and my reaffirmation gets denied, can USAA take my car? I assume the answer is yes. So if USAA takes my car, will the trustee give me the money back that i paid to keep the car (or back to my employer?) or am i just screwed?

I have an icky feeling about this.

Oh, as an aside, to top it all off, i am pregnant and due oct 22nd. Not that babies come when they are due, but who knows where i will be on the 19th, or if i will be stuck on bed rest, or whatever else can happen~ (I am hoping that we can do a phone conference instead, but i doubt it...)

[justbroke]

I don't know how you give up an entire employer pay advance to the Trustee... but that's a question of law. (I would think that only 25% of it is subject to the Trustee's wrath.) If I were head of household, in Florida, I'd try to claim F.S. 222.11 on wages. (It's not a loan. It's an advance of wages; you still have to work for those wages.)

Just my opinion.

[TBA]

It was a lump sum payment i negotiated with my employer. She cut the check directly to the trustee, so I would avoid having to make payments to the trustee and could just be done with this whole thing. Now i am thinking i may have made a mistake.

When i questioned my attorney about the hearing, his response was, "They dont usually require hearings to reaffirm. its always something new." Like i said, UGH. LOL.

[justbroke]

Ahhh... you took an advance in order to buy assets from the Trustee. Okay, that's a different circumstance! Phew! I'm assuming that you had more than $1,000 in equity in the car and that's why you had to pay the Trustee?

As for the hearing, it's usually not necessary if your attorney marked that the reaffirmation is not a hardship on the debtor. If the attorney marked the "hardship" box (that it is a hardship), then it will always requires a hearing.

[TBA]

Ah yes, sorry for the confusion - i was over the 1k exemption - by almost 5k. Sorry for that confusion. Its a bit confusing to me as well

I have no idea what he marked. I know it isnt a hardship as we can afford to keep it. I will stay on my attorney, and hopefully we can get it resolved. Thanks for the info.

[Freddy03]

sorry to jump in here but do all reaffirmation agreements have hearings?

[AngelinaCat]

I don't think they always do. At least I know that we didn't have to go to one when we reaffirmed our car loan and overdraft account. We couldn't have anyway, as our CU is headquartered in Dayton, Ohio, and we are in Florida.

[Freddy03]

I don't think they always do. At least I know that we didn't have to go to one when we reaffirmed our car loan and overdraft account. We couldn't have anyway, as our CU is headquartered in Dayton, Ohio, and we are in Florida.

Thanks! I guess I don't have to go to one either..lol

[justbroke]

sorry to jump in here but do all reaffirmation agreements have hearings?

The general conditions that require a reaffirmation hearing are:

• Attorney marked "Presumption of Undue Hardship" (you can prove that your circumstances have changed)
• Attorney marked "Presumption of Undue Hardship" (you can rebut the hardship because you have equity)
• Attorney refuses to sign the Reaffirmation Agreement (attorney refuses to "get in the middle")
• The debtor is not represented by an Attorney (Pro Se) (debtor does not have an attorney for advice)

[Freddy03]

The general conditions that require a reaffirmation hearing are:

• Attorney marked "Presumption of Undue Hardship" (you can prove that your circumstances have changed)
• Attorney marked "Presumption of Undue Hardship" (you can rebut the hardship because you have equity)
• Attorney refuses to sign the Reaffirmation Agreement (attorney refuses to "get in the middle")
• The debtor is not represented by an Attorney (Pro Se) (debtor does not have an attorney for advice)

Thanks!