top Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Uh oh....4th Circuit Upholds Ch 7 Car Repossession without Reaffirmation

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
    #1

    Uh oh....4th Circuit Upholds Ch 7 Car Repossession without Reaffirmation

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...th/082177p.pdf - you may have to join FindLaw (it's free) to read the specific case citations and reasoning for exactly why this WV bk judge decided in favor of allowing repossession of a car when the filer does not contact the lender to offer reaffirmation or redemption in the alloted time frame, even a payment is made and the car loan is current.

    Again, this decision is for the 4th District. If you believe this new ruling may impact your own case, then please contact your lawyer to discuss it.
    I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice nor a statement of the law - only a lawyer can provide those.

    06/01/06 - Filed Ch 13
    06/28/06 - 341 Meeting
    07/18/06 - Confirmation Hearing - not confirmed, 3 objections
    10/05/06 - Hearing to resolve 2 trustee objections
    01/24/07 - Judge dismisses mortgage company objection
    09/27/07 - Confirmed at last!
    06/10/11 - Trustee confirms all payments made
    08/10/11 - DISCHARGED !
    10/02/11 - CASE CLOSED
    Countdown: 60 months paid, 0 months to go
    Tags: None
    #2
    Well, all this means is that there are no ride throughs by default which really isn't terribly surprising given that was clearly the law's intention. Especially in this case where the guy didn't seem overly concerned about making payments on time.
    So the poor debtor, seeing naught around him
    Yet feels the narrow limits that impound him
    Grieves at his debt and studies to evade it
    And finds at last he might as well have paid it.

    Comment

      #3
      As talked about before on this forum Forc, Chrysle, r and other makers/fiancers have a hard -on for proving a point.

      Most banks/lenders have no real intrest in selling cars when they are otherwise getting money. But yes according to the law done in 05 ride thru is not an option. It just remained as such as who would take a beat up car when I can keep getting cold hard cash for it? Well we know who......
      3/2/09- Filed: chapter 7 / No asset
      4/1/09- 341 Hearing: 1 creditor showed up Got to love family feuds
      4/2/09- Trustee Report of No Distribution Filed
      6/24/09- Discharged and case closed

      Comment

        #4
        another important fact is that in the customer's *contract* it states you are in default if you file for BK. Not all dealers do this..

        If you contract states this important fact, and you want to keep the car (and you're under the 4th district) then you may want to reaffirm..

        Also, if you're not in the 4th circuit's district- this is only persuasive information for a court to follow- not precedent.



        Originally posted by lrprn View Post
        http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...th/082177p.pdf - you may have to join FindLaw (it's free) to read the specific case citations and reasoning for exactly why this WV bk judge decided in favor of allowing repossession of a car when the filer does not contact the lender to offer reaffirmation or redemption in the alloted time frame, even a payment is made and the car loan is current.

        Again, this decision is for the 4th District. If you believe this new ruling may impact your own case, then please contact your lawyer to discuss it.
        Filed Pro Se: 10/16/2009
        341 Scheduled: 11/23/2009
        Last Day for Objections: 1/22/2010
        Discharged: 1/28/2010

        Comment

          #5
          In the spirit of legalese, it's a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, meaning it's binding in Maryland, North and South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.

          Comment

            #6
            I had a thought along similar lines, that it would be a useful sticky to have the different circuits defined in one easy to find post. Maybe a moderator will read this an comment/set one up.
            1/15/10 Filed ch7 2/18/10 314 meeting
            2/22/10 Report of No Distribution
            4/20/10 Discharged 5/20/10 Closed!

            Comment

              #7
              Correction

              Originally posted by SleeplessMI View Post
              In the spirit of legalese, it's a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, meaning it's binding in Maryland, North and South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
              Need to read more carefully: it's a district court review of the West Va. bankrutpcy court decision, so it's only binding in the Southern District of West Va., not the entire 4th Circuit.

              I should have known better than to second guess lrprn. Sorry

              Comment

              Previous template Next

              bottom Ad Widget

              Collapse
              Working...
              X