Trustee digging deeper now than 4 years ago??

[angles]

for you long time BK forum supporters, have you seen a scrutiny increase with the trustees since the peak BK filings a few years ago? I’m just curious, since the BK filings have decreased are they taking a closer look.

i filed a few years ago and found this forum very helpful. Turns out i was (like many others) worried about all the details when i really did not need to. Financially we are doing well now and our eyes are wide open when it comes to banks and credit card companies.

[justbroke]

The Trustee has a fiduciary duty to determine the current and former assets of the debtor(s) and to determine whether there is anything to administer non-exempt assets on behalf of creditors. Having wrote that, nothing that I have read or heard (anecdotally) has changed. Much has to do with the individual Trustee, the general "attitudes" in the District, as well as the individual debtor him/herself.

Too hard to gauge! Many times it is fact specific (debtor filed before or a casual review of the public record shows that the debtor did not list all their property!). It can be location specific (debtor lives in apartment, no need to probe). It is highly debtor specific (debtor lived in McMansion yet claims only $2,000 in furniture).

Anecdotally speaking, I think the (Chapter 7 Panel) Trustees were worse when there was a boom! They were trying all sorts of weird things like the "carve-out" on surrendered homes.

[bcohen]

I guess it just depends if your trustee is an A-hole or not. Most trustees won't bother you for less than $1000 in non-exempt assets, but apparently there are some real chiselers out there, who would go so far as to demand the surrender of an old laptop, camera, TV, or other item, which might only sell for $100 or less.

I know that when I filed, I had about $700 in non-exempt assets, including about $200 in bank accounts above our state's pathetic exemption amount, and the trustee didn't try to squeeze it out of me. With over $45,000 worth of debts included in my BK, it's not like $700 would have helped the creditors any. Who knows, maybe I just got lucky? I do live in a rental apartment, though, and not a very big one at that.

[AngelinaCat]

Every so often, the UST will pick a case at random to do an audit on, and it can be daunting. I remember that when 'Hub and I first joined in 2008, that one particular poster was having to submit far more paperwork than other posters were talking about having to submit. This went on some while, until either she figured it out, or her attorney told her that this was a UST audit. She made it through and was successfully discharged.

I believe that then, every 1000 case or so, one was picked for audit. But with the number of BKs that were being filed at the time, that this number was pushed to 10,000. Justbroke can probably remember back that far.

I have not seen anything in recent years that suggests these audits are continuing. They probably are, but perhaps the debtors haven't found this forum....

[LadyInTheRed]

I am sure random audits are continuing because law mandates that a certain percentage of BK cases be audited. But, I've seen (read??) no evidence that trustees are digging any deeper than than they were 4 years ago when I first started paying attention to such things.

[tobee43]

it's hard to really say. i know many of us in the middle district of florida underwent years of scrutiny by many of the trustees especially, it appeared, kif you were a chapter 7 asset case.

the stories people use to post here were unreal. that all started after our bk was done and over, although we were a no asset chapter 7 we remember very well those attys who tried to use our EI SSI and pension to trap us into a 13. (all exempt funds). florida was crazy in one county your EI counted as income while the next county (in the same district) it was exempt.

now that the "rush" seems to be dying down, maybe trustees have more time. however, the bottom line is this. if you are honest and truthful there isn't a thing to ever worry about, even in a bk court. the truth never changes and those that usually are up front and honest fly right through.

[LadyInTheRed]

however, the bottom line is this. if you are honest and truthful there isn't a thing to ever worry about, even in a bk court. the truth never changes and those that usually are up front and honest fly right through.

This is an important point. Extra scrutiny may be a PITA. But, besides the work to respond to request for information, it is nothing for the honest debtor to worry about.

[angles]

Thanks for the posts. i believe (perhaps naively) that filers are honest when submitting their information and if you follow the requirements there is nothing to worry about. The question i posted was more directed to the gray areas, where some trustees "push" the limit of the law to gain a few more chits for the case rather than giving the benefit of the doubt to the filer.

It’s nice to see all the experienced posters from this site shed some light on the question and it seems that it’s more a random thing than a trend in one direction or the other.

[blockhead]

Having a lot of credit card debt (like > 100K) seems to be something they almost always look into ( the US trustee).
(3 yrs post Ch 7 discharge)

[BobMango]

however, the bottom line is this. if you are honest and truthful there isn't a thing to ever worry about, even in a bk court. the truth never changes and those that usually are up front and honest fly right through.

Hmm, maybe a little too "Pollyanna" for me, based on recent experience. While being honest and truthful should keep you out of legal trouble, it doesn't guarantee that an aggressive trustee won't try to strip every dime you have. Believe me, they can make trouble (via objections, for instance) even without a real case to make.

[spidge]

The judge in our case retired and the new judge is a bit more demanding so may effect the trustee decisions.