It doesn't have to be substantial abuse. The word substantial was removed from 707(b) as part of the amendments in 2005 (BAPCPA). It is rare that this occurs, but I just saw a very recent case where this occurred. The assets were not "substantial". Serial filings generally are the cause for this.
The court will deal with excusable neglect for what it is. However, frivolous and highly irregular filings may not be excusable when you knew that the information was wrong and you swore to it being accurate.
As a pro se filer, I can not sit here and say... "do whatever you want because they'll be nice to you because your'e pro se". Such is not the case.
The court will deal with excusable neglect for what it is. However, frivolous and highly irregular filings may not be excusable when you knew that the information was wrong and you swore to it being accurate.
As a pro se filer, I can not sit here and say... "do whatever you want because they'll be nice to you because your'e pro se". Such is not the case.
Comment