Trustee giving me fits. (of laughter)

[tigergem]

[justbroke]

There is good caselaw all the way to the Supreme Court that 11 USC 522(d)(10) protects not just "the right to receive" funds, but also those funds already received. If your funds are readily traceable only to SSA benefits then you are good to go. However, if you have some co-mingling, this could be why your Trustee is attacking the balance.

(Note: 42 USC 407 is what protects the current funds, because of the supremecy clause in it. 42 USC 407 says "[N]o other provision of law, enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this section, may be construed to limit, supersede, or otherwise modify the provisions of this section except to the extent that it does so by express reference to this section". Of course, the juicy part is...

42 USC 407 (a) The right of any person to any future payment under this title shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this title shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.

Good luck! I wish I had the chance to fight with the Trustee.

[tigergem]

Yes, I have been very careful with those accounts. No co-mingling allowed. Ever. lol. To the extent I even asked my family to stop sending me checks for gifts, a long long time ago. Because I didn't want to be bothered with having to open a separate account just to receive them.

[tigergem]

[justbroke]

Sounds great! I like 14(a) and 14(b) referencing 42 USC 407. I was wondering when you were going to get to that!

[tigergem]

Is 18. too snotty?

[justbroke]

Is 18. too snotty?

Absolutely not. You have to pray for relief and the relief you are requesting is an OVERRULE. Actually, that should be an un-numbered paragraph. (While I'm at it, paragraph 1. should also be un-numbered.)

[tigergem]

oops. not 18. 17 is where I pitched my signature sarcasm. Does the sarcasm bleed through? lol!

[justbroke]

oops. not 18. 17 is where I pitched my signature sarcasm. Does the sarcasm bleed through? lol!

Well, you may want to change 17 around. They don't need to brief on a mere objection. The pendulum (of burden of proof) has swung, that's all.

[tigergem]

So.... just leave it like this? "The debtor asserts that the Trustee has provided no proof or evidence in support of his objection to the debtor's exemptions." I mean, he was supposed to do that wasn't he? Besides just saying "I object"? Heck we could go on like this til the cows come home if he decides to object to one exemption right after another like this.

I have the right to request a hearing on this matter. But geez I really don't want to take up the judge's time with this. I really don't. Would it be appropriate to just request a summary judgment? Just file my proposed order.... (I wonder if there is a form for that in my judge's packet...? I have to look! lol!)

[justbroke]

You should ask for a non-evidentiary hearing first or a conference. The Trustee might back off with your response.

[tigergem]

[justbroke]

Well, at least you're using all your resource (in re calling your case manager).

[tigergem]

I guess what I CAN do is request a "no evidence summary judgment". (They made me arrive at that conclusion by myself.) oy vey. Procedure procedure procedure.... here you get into CV and other stuff. And local CV is different from Federal CV just like the local rules for BK are sometimes different. Mind frying.

[Mi Bankruptcy]

wow