Credit card statements after filing BK.

[killinstinct]

I recieved a credit card statement today from a creditor that was included in my BK. I haven't recieved my discharge yet, it's about 30 days out. I called the creditor and they had all of my attorney's information, and the case number. They said the statments are 'automatically generated'. This is the second time I've had an issue with this creditor. They sent a threatening collections letter about a month ago.

Automatic stay violation? Seems like it as they know I filed.

[BigJohn]

They know and they blame it on the computer. Why not blame it on the data entry people or the person(s) who programmed the computer? Or just management?


Give it some time, it should work itself out. You can always run it by your lawyer.

[killinstinct]

They know and they blame it on the computer. Why not blame it on the data entry people or the person(s) who programmed the computer? Or just management?


Give it some time, it should work itself out. You can always run it by your lawyer.

Ya, I figured. I was wondering if I could file suit for violating the stay, but it appears that there would have to be some sort of 'damages'. Aside from making my blood boil for about an hour, what is there? As I watch the interest skyrocket to 30%, it would be nice to sock them with something. I'm interested if it's possible.

I'm also got a utilities statement for property I surrendered. It's only like 10 bucks, but still...

[justagirl]

I have still been receiving statements from one of my cc...and when I read the fine print on the back of the statement, there is one entry that says...

"Bankruptcy. If you are entitled to bankruptcy protections for your account, this communication is only for informational purposes. It is not an attempt to collect, assess or recover a debt or claim. Do not send any payments directly to us without speaking with your bankruptcy attorney or the Bankruptcy Court."

All I have to say is...how sneaky of them!

Just thought I'd share!

~JAG

[killinstinct]

I have still been receiving statements from one of my cc...and when I read the fine print on the back of the statement, there is one entry that says...

"Bankruptcy. If you are entitled to bankruptcy protections for your account, this communication is only for informational purposes. It is not an attempt to collect, assess or recover a debt or claim. Do not send any payments directly to us without speaking with your bankruptcy attorney or the Bankruptcy Court."

All I have to say is...how sneaky of them!

Just thought I'd share!

~JAG

I've seen that before, but I looked all over these bills and did not find any such statement. Kind of interesting.

BTW I noticed our cases our on a similar timeline...good luck! Almost there....

[kym]

Our atty said if we received any calls, statements/bills to forward them to him... I think they can be fined...not sure

[justagirl]

I've seen that before, but I looked all over these bills and did not find any such statement. Kind of interesting.

BTW I noticed our cases our on a similar timeline...good luck! Almost there....

Thanks, and good luck to you also!

~JAG

[optimistic1]

No contact means no contact, by mail, phone, in person, in regards to the debt. They can blame it on the computer all they want, they would lose.

[killinstinct]

Talked to my lawyer today and he said to just ignore it. I'm guessing the violation would have to be egregious and/or cause injury in some way.

[backtoschool]

They can be fined, but you have to go through a legal proceeding to show they intentionally violated the stay. Most bankruptcy attorneys don't want to touch the situation unless it's a flagrant violation. It is very easy for the creditor to claim that communications got crossed, etc.

I had Asset Acceptance serve me a Summons for another one of my cards after I filed (after receiving notice because they had a judgment for another card). My attorney filed the paperwork to close the case that the summons was for and told me to ignore anything else that came. I was really annoyed that I got served papers for a lawsuit AFTER I filed.

So an automatic stay doesn't necessarily mean no contact.

[ForumReader]

They can be fined, but you have to go through a legal proceeding to show they intentionally violated the stay. Most bankruptcy attorneys don't want to touch the situation unless it's a flagrant violation. It is very easy for the creditor to claim that communications got crossed, etc.

I had Asset Acceptance serve me a Summons for another one of my cards after I filed (after receiving notice because they had a judgment for another card). My attorney filed the paperwork to close the case that the summons was for and told me to ignore anything else that came. I was really annoyed that I got served papers for a lawsuit AFTER I filed.

So an automatic stay doesn't necessarily mean no contact.

That also happened to me after I filed, 3 weeks later I got a lawsuit from BoA (second time, first time it was a complaint, 3 weeks later, a lawsuit to grant BoA judgement to garnish my wages after I filed ) My attorney said they were notified of my BK so if BoA does anything funny during the 60 days period or after discharge, my attorney advised me to let him know and he will take care of BoA and their lawyers (CA).

[killinstinct]

Wow you guys need to understand what this was designed for. It really is meant to stop creditors from taking actions like, repo your car, seize property, garnish wages, seize a bank account.

I am mean a single statement, a phone call, being served, those are things that are "in the system" and can go out automatically.

When I did repo's I was halfway to a job that was 150 miles away. I got some really crappy cell service on my brick phone (yes it was that long ago) and I was "lucky" I got the phone call. The debtor filed BK and the credit union got the notice that afternoon. They then dinked around before they called me and I was on the road to go grab the car. Had I grabbed the car I could have gotten smacked around for taking it by the attorney and the court and ordered to pay damages (like a rental car etc., not to mention lose all my costs). So really the stay is to prevent actions like that from happening. Sure in the strictest sense of the word it means no contact like a statement, but those mean nothing, even being sued it is months before anything can happen. But repo's, selling a house at foreclosure, wage garnishment and bank account seizure those can have major ripple effects. That is what the laws are really for.

Thanks. That's what I figured, but wasn't sure. I heard somewhere that you can sue these guys $1000 per violation and it would be nice for the little guy to fight back for once. I heard most people just won't go through the trouble, but I'm willing to do it.

From a mental health standpoint, though, I should probably just let it go. I let them get to me.

[Tbornetun]

You would spend close to the $1000 in legal fees. Most times it is not worth the battle.

[BigJohn]

They can be fined, but you have to go through a legal proceeding to show they intentionally violated the stay. Most bankruptcy attorneys don't want to touch the situation unless it's a flagrant violation. It is very easy for the creditor to claim that communications got crossed, etc.

I had Asset Acceptance serve me a Summons for another one of my cards after I filed (after receiving notice because they had a judgment for another card). My attorney filed the paperwork to close the case that the summons was for and told me to ignore anything else that came. I was really annoyed that I got served papers for a lawsuit AFTER I filed.

So an automatic stay doesn't necessarily mean no contact.

My lawyer says an automatic stay does mean no contact, unfortunately that part of the law is not enforced. As you have said, most lawyers don't want to get involved with such stuff. We pay them to handle our bankruptcy, not all the extra crap which are lawyer chargable items.

[BigJohn]

No contact means no contact, by mail, phone, in person, in regards to the debt. They can blame it on the computer all they want, they would lose.

You are right, it means no contact but when that part of the law is not enforced, it means they can not lose.