2009 Chapter 7 Nolo Bankruptcy Book

[Sideways]

I have decided to take the plunge and have just started filling out the avalanche of chapter 7 forms. I sent away to Abe books and received the 2009 nolo book for one dollar. However, as much as I liked the book I was wondering if it isn't already out of date? For example, starting with the voluntary petition part, here in Idaho the form instructions tell one on page 3 to leave blank the signature of attorney if your pro se (nolo says to write in "debtor not represented by attorney") and to leave blank signature of debtor(corporate/partnership), signature of petition preparer, etc. while nolo says to write in N/A. Nolo also says in the beginning to use the abbreviation of "dba" and "fdba" to proceed you business name, however, I also feel that Idaho would not require that type of prefix. Nolo also tells one to use N/A in the box titled "Mailing address of Debtor" if different from street address. And, again our instructions tell us to just leave it blank. Therefore, either the 2009 copy is out of date and this has been corrected or Nolo is giving out some bogus instructions. Or lastly, maybe I am being to concerned about the correctness of it all but from what I have heard it is better to try to get it right the first time. Any comments would be appreciated? Thanks..

[Alex1]

NOLO book "How to File for Chapter 7 ..." is the best book for Pro-Se debtors. All other books are not so good. If compare 2010 and 2009 you can see some differences but not much.

More important - both of them contain mistakes! Be careful and use federal court and your local court websites to get latest forms, rules, and info.
Start from this site:

http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/Bankruptcy.aspx

[FreshLikeADaisy]

Hey Sideways, before I filed pro se in December 2007 (successful discharge March 2008) I went down to the federal courthouse in my area where they have free Pacer access, and just sat there for hours looking at case after case. I was not only looking for general filing tips, but I was also looking for attorneys who had few-to-no dismissals, whose cases I could then feel confident I could use as filing examples. I wrote down a few case numbers of cases I wanted to use as examples, and downloaded them from Pacer when I got home, thus saving a LOT of money.

I admit that I am more than a little anal-retentive just by nature but in retrospect it was a GREAT pro se strategy, because what I found out from looking at the cases (and I think the book mentions this too) is that there are local customs, and even local forms, that you're not going to find in the books. Not only was my pro se successful, I got complimented by the clerks on its presentation. In addition, looking at all those other cases gave me great hope and courage, because when I sat my perfectionist butt down and looked at them, I saw that many -- most? -- had sloppy and even incomplete forms, bad spelling, even handwritten asset lists. You wouldn't believe it until you see it yourself.

On the other hand, I think going pro se got me far more closely examined by the trustee than cases prepared by attorneys he knew well and worked with day in and day out. So you may well have some added attention to your paperwork -- but this is balanced out by reasonable care. Your case, even pro se, is one in many thousand.

So even if you can't go as far in your research and preparation as I did, and the book ends up being all you have, keep in mind that spelling and form errors are usually not material errors and won't get you dismissed. A judge may not like them, a clerk may not like them, but that's what they signed up for and I feel no pity. FDBA/DBA vs none, or N/A vs blank, are not going to generate a deficiency notice -- and that's all you care about in the end.

Sweat the facts, sweat the accuracy, but not the visual form. Learn what will get you dismissed for deficiency or thrown out for fraud -- and outside that, don't be too picky. You'll do fine.

Good luck to you!!!

[Sideways]

Great Post!

Many thanks Daisy..

Why is it that most bureaucracies seem to have one main person at the choke point of importance on the front desk and phone. From which they dispense information that is usually wrong one out of three times and they then tend to try to dissuade you from further inquiries? I originally asked the front desk person about how to attain Bk samples and she did not have a clue. I saw the Pacer site but thought that it was restricted. So, now I will try to see if our courthouse has free access. I too am somewhat of a research nut and tend to check and double check what people say whether it be on the net or in person..eventually you can get to some semblance of the truth. Nevertheless, your post makes a lot of sense; I really needed some direction because it now appears some free legal advice I received was not so helpful. Well, this is a great board and informative people here..thanks once again for the sound advice!

Sideways..

[lezlovin]

i really doubt its that big of deal. I used the first version that came out ( i belive its 07 but may be earlier) to file march of this year and i was still fine. the only thing was that some of the exemption statutes for personal property were wrong. i was able to track down the correct ones online.