Need a vehicle asap

[tskfreak]

Hello all so I'm almost two years into my chapter 13 payback plan and all is going pretty well considering they raised my payment twice which doubled my original payment. I had a car payed off when I began, but the engine is shot so I'm stuck for the last couple months sharing a vehicle with my wife which is extremely difficult. I talked to my attorney and he said I should avoid opening a can of worms by asking the trustee for permission. This leaves my in a difficult spot. If anybody has any tips it would be appreciated. I already know I can buy a car cash or have someone sign for me, but those are not options

[justbroke]

Welcome to BKForum.

If you really need a vehicle, then you need to go to your attorney and tell him that you're both working and you need it in order to actually pay the bankruptcy. Asking the Trustee is not a can of worms when it comes to the health, welfare and safety of the debtor. The Trustee would rather have you working and paying than not.

The simple fact is that your car broke down. Your attorney could seek to abate the payment in order to cover the repair, or actually help you to seek permission to purchase a vehicle. It reads as if this second vehicle isn't just for pleasure.

I would hope that my attorney were more helpful than just passing it off as too much trouble.

[shipo]

tskfreak, I can sympathize, late in my third year of my Chapter 13 my (then) 16 year old Honda Accord succumbed to rust and corrosion to such a degree it would have cost upwards of $4,000 to make it road legal, and even that wouldn't have corrected all of the cars issues, just simply gotten it back on the road. In the end I opted to drain my meager savings and buy a slightly newer car (only 11 years old) for cash, and even then I had to go on the "beans and franks" diet for nearly a month. The only good news is the car I bought then is still rock solid even though it is now coming up on it's 15th birthday.

[flashoflight]

justbroke Maybe for OP going to the trustee isn't so risky since the plan payment has already gone up twice so it can't get much worse. But for others who haven't needed to worry about plan payment increases by laying low the whole time so far, isn't it actually risky to change a confirmed plan for an auto loan since that would require the submission of a new I/J plus paystubs? I kinda prefer shipo's idea vs. poking the bear.

[justbroke]

flashoflight you hit the nail on the head. When an attorney says that they don't want to "open a can of worms" what they're saying is that they don't want to re-do Schedule I/J. The issue I see is only if the debtor has been in plan for more than a year, and there has been an increase in income. Those that are salaried and don't receive any bonuses, no raises and no overtime, I don't see any Schedule I/J risk (I was one of those that never received a raise for 10 years, overtime nonexistent to the salaried, and bonuses were zilch).

If the debtor really needs a new automobile in order to make the plan work, it just has to be done. I modified my plan three times during my Chapter 13 (which included divorce and a temporary layoff). No worms were exposed in my case as they each were a decrease in income. Besides, the Trustee received my IRS 1040 each year and could see for themselves my income. I did change my Schedule J due to changes in healthcare costs as well as alimony.

Maybe, just maybe, the Chapter 13 Trustee is more sensitive to changes on Schedule J. But, at the end of the day, they want you to be successful and to complete your Chapter 13. If they hinder you from doing that by not allowing you to purchase a vehicle, then it's a fail for them as well (no $$$ in commissions).

At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[joshuagraham]

I talked to my attorney and he said I should avoid opening a can of worms by asking the trustee for permission. This leaves my in a difficult spot.

It sounds to me like your attorney doesn't want to do any extra work on your case. (I am not sure if opening this can of worms would be something that the attorney could charge extra for; I am presuming not.)

[justbroke]

I am not sure if opening this can of worms would be something that the attorney could charge extra for; I am presuming not.

That would depend entirely on the services agreement (retainer agreement) and what is included in any so-called "no look" fees for that specific district. For Chapter 13s, this would indeed be new attorney fees as the no-look (and general services agreements) typically only cover the costs up to and including the confirmation of the plan. (In some cases, additional fees are allowed for getting to confirmation for "extra" services such as lien stripping, adversary proceedings, and other non-standard requirements for the case.) Usually a Chapter 13 debtor would have enough DMI in the plan that "could" cover the attorney fees (as attorney fees are an administrative debt and typically paid before others). However, if there's no DMI, then the debtor would end up paying the fees, albeit they may be able to roll them into the Chapter 13 payment.