Boy the calls have started with a vengance

[Bandit]

I hope this pissing contest is now over.

It is not a pissing contest.
It is a conversation.
Everyone here is a volunteer & can post & learn from everyone else. No one has to read or post if they choose not to.

I would dread to think that there are only a few people here who have all the answers which is why the more people who view things from different angles will get a bigger picture of everything.

If one person does not know, then someone else will.

[Bandit]

I feel you are doing more a disservice to those on this forum to post case law that has no bearing BK discharge that doesn't involve fraud.

If you think people cannot learn & get a btter grip of their situation from studying other cases, then you are sadly mistaken. Every person here has learned from everyone else & their case & through viewing the law applied to each individual case is how many people get through it & help each other out.

I got ahold of my situation by reading & learning through the many cases of the members here as well as valid cases online.

People can also learn how to avoid fraud & how not to make mistakes by reading from other peoples mistakes.

To just sit there & rattle off a bunch of law (like you do) with no real circumstance to attach the law to it, is not going to help anyone better understand what they need to do. Anyone can read the BK CODE but it is not until it is applied to their situation does it mean anything.

Unless someone here in authority tells me not to post other real & valid BK cases, than I will share other cases in hopes that someone in distress can figure out the best way to go & I do not care how ugly or how wonderful or how easy or how difficult their path may be.

[Bandit]

So what you are really saying is everyones case here because it is in a different state & because it is over with & past tense does not matter & when people share their case & experience it is foolish.

I see no difference in learning from cases through the members here or cases from others online. I do not view learning in any way possible as foolish.

I have seen so much online that one does not need a forum like this to figure out where to go. I have gone state to state & learned so much by taking the time to step outside of my own problems & learn it from many POV. This forum to me is more for comforting each other & sharing a few laughs & helping get people in the right direction.
I do not need to to listen to you or anyone read the same old hum drum law with no case to attach it to. That to me is pointless. There are books & FAQ all over the place to do that.

People come with a question & they learn to apply the many laws to their case & they also use many examples & experience that is here to figure out what is the best thing for them to do. There is not a single person here who does not worry about possible problems at some point & they need the whole truth. Not just what one person wants to say about it.

You seem to think you can laugh at things & dance around things no big deal & everyone has it easy. But you are wrong. If you dont like reading other peoples cases which are public record & there for anyone & if you find them foolish then dont read them. No problem.

I do not read your entire posts any more because they are too long & too repititious. I dont have a problem talking to you as long as it remians respectful & you do not have to like the way other people are. But you have a habit of making it sound like everyone & everything is EASY & people have no problems along the way trying to get discharged. Maybe that is just your way of dealing with stress, I dont know. But when you dont tell the whole story & all the possibilities then someone else will.

Rapping off the law without attaching it to a real situation is pointless to me & that is why I think you keep seeing things in black & white & expect every answer to be black & white. You will figure out soon enough that the law is not always black & white I dont care how well you can repeat it from memory or copy & paste it. The law does not change but the way it is applied can change & it can also change the outcome because every case is vastly unique.

YOU are not the only who has to go thru this.

Just because other cases are pointless to you, does not mean that something from someone elses case will not help someone else to get to a better situation by making the right decision along the way. That is one very big reason people come here.

[Bandit]

this is laughable. I share links here ALL THE TIME!

just because they are not informational to you, they are very informational to me.

anyone can google & find anything out they need to know. I did not put those links up there to show my ability to use google. I place 5 different links to 5 different types of case to show you the end result (because you keep saying everyone gets a discharge like it is some joke) It is not the same for everyone & why they get no discharge there are many reasons.

Good Grief!

You do not need a law degree to understand what is happening in each & every case. You do not need a law degree to understand when the judge says you pay, you pay.

Now, about the sun not shining. If the sun does not shine tomorrow, it is not because I say it wont. It is because it just is. There will always be days when it rains & when the sun does not shine- quite frankly, there is nothing you can do to change it except wait for it shine again.

[Bandit]

If your not going to take the time to read all the lovely points I make why bother to respond at all?

because they are not lovely to me. there is no rule that says we have reply to your entire post! and there is no rule that says I can't reply to only what I wish to just as there is no rule that says I have to read all the stuff you write and I don't & I wont.
There is also no rule that says I cannot form & voice my own opinion. You clearly voice yours over & over so why can't others.

Sorry that is not black & white but you will have to deal with a little gray now & then.

I would not go around in circles with you on every issue you make just because you think I should or to satisfy your agenda, so get used to that and Your name calling does not justify your position.

[Bandit]

The thread is all yours, Chief, & you even get the last word so that will be nice.

ok Big? I am going to bed now & going out of town tomorrow for 4 days so you have a nice weekend.

Chat at you later!

[FreshLikeADaisy]

LOL
Agreed & that is a very extensive list that you cannot just blow off.

But I am not just in reference to having a judgment removed I am also talking about an objection for the same debt in the same case using those 20 points that would move the judge toward not giving you a discharge. Just getting the judgment removed is not enough to gaurantee you wont have to pay some money back. You may also have to go thru the objection.
Removing a judgment does not remove an objection that follows the judgment on the same debt. Does it?

Do you follow at all what I am trying to say, FreshLikeADaisy ?

Yes, I do. I think the terminology was throwing me off. When you say "judgement", I think "final". But the case you quoted in return to my post was heard by an appellate court. In other words, it is an appeal to have a judgement overturned. So yes, in that sense, you're absolutely right.

But appeals are not by any means guaranteed, or even easy to get, so while you see it as common I see it as more uncommon... which is cool, that's not a matter of fact as much as it is opinion.

Also, in a lawsuit, any lawsuit, if your opponent moves for summary judgement, that's not the end. You respond to that motion with an objection that includes why your lawsuit (or defense) is actually a matter that the law can resolve. If the judge buys it then you're good to go. And if you do get a judgement -- ANY judgement -- it can be appealed and potentially reversed, just as you pointed out.

The thing that makes bk a much more guaranteed thing, as far as not seeing future appeals on judgements that were discharged in the bk, is that the discharge makes the preceding claim moot: in other words, yeah, you ran over your neighbor's porcupine with your grandaddy's big ass motorized golf cart style wheelchair and inflicted tremendous pain and suffering to your neighbor by doing so... but Chapter 7 specifically discharges pre-existing claims, provided that the pre-existing claim does not fall into one of those non-dischargeable types. If there was alcohol involved in your decision to run over the porcupine, well, that might not be dischargeable, I dunno.

This is why Mike Nifong filed Ch7 up in North Carolina when all those Duke lacrosse students started suing him: he doesn't have to wait for all the suits to come in, he can just guesstimate who *might* sue, list them on Schedule F (which he did) and even if they win, so what: the pre-existing claim was discharged in the Ch7. So it is meaningless. They won't get a penny.

And if he left someone off his petition that sues him later, thinking they'll get something because he happened to leave them off? Doesn't matter. All he has to do is reopen his case, add that creditor, and be done with it, because the claim itself pre-existed his Ch7. Bk doesn't judge the nature of any pre-existing claim, it just makes its value zero (assuming it's dischargeable to begin with). The bk court doesn't think that you running over the neighbor's pet porcupine, or why, has anything at all to do with giving you a discharge. That's why it's so incredibly hard for a creditor to *successfully* appeal anything after a Ch7.

They try, but if you know what the discharge means you can nip it in the bud.

And yes, it is absolutely true that bk cases have been reopened and discharges revoked; you're 100% right on that too. But again, that is a very small minority of cases, at least til now. While I do honestly believe that we are heading into a time where bk's are going to be increasingly harder to get, *right now*, today, chances are VERY good that if you have a bk discharge in your hot lil hand, that's the end of the line for any creditor of dischargeable debt that you listed in your bk. That's not true of ALL lawsuits, but it is absolutely true for lawsuits (or potential lawsuits) discharged in a bk.

The 60 day period for objections has a great deal to do with this: your creditors all had two full calendar months to either s**t or get off the pot, as the saying goes. And if they didn't, too bad. There's not a whole lot that gets by that requirement, as far as a creditor getting a bk reopened.

From what I understand (and I will defer to you in this, as this is where my understanding gets fuzzy) cases being reopened generally involve one of two things: a debtor who wishes to add a creditor after discharge, or a trustee that suspects fraud (i.e. finds assets that should have been disclosed, or clear evidence that assets were hidden from the court). But no creditors. A creditor cannot have your bk reopened by filing an independent lawsuit, and in fact the filing of such a suit is an action in direct contempt of the order to discharge debt.

So yeah... I *think* I understand what you were getting at. Sorry, I didn't mean to add to your frustration. I always enjoy what you write and didn't want you to walk away thinking that there's little to no chance a debtor cannot be freed of a judgement by bk. Yes, the courts are stacked in favor of business, I can't deny that, but it just doesn't seem nearly as hopeless to me as the picture you painted.

And this is where I step back and respectfully agree to disagree.

Thank you for taking the time to explain all that, Bandit! I do appreciate it. And as always, I wish you the very best.

Daisy