Author Topic: CA thinks BK Does Not Apply to Them  (Read 1470 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bdrew6

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 113
CA thinks BK Does Not Apply to Them
« on: December 14, 2015 06:25:24 AM »
Hello all,

I know I am new, I have been lurking for a while learning as much as I can, but I ran into one issue the other day (Friday) and I just want to get your take on it...

Summary of my past events,

I filed pro se chap 7 bankruptcy.

I received a discharge with out issue a few months latter.

All my debts were listed and I did not have any odd objections or issues with my trustee (it was a vanilla case).

Few months after I pull my credit, all but three debts have reported discharge.

Two were just slow, they confirmed the discharge and provided me proof that they will update accordingly.

The last one though..... hear is how the call went and I was talking with their 'legal' team, not just the standard CSR (ooo impressive).

(yatta yatta yatta mini Miranda)

bdrew6: Yes, I am calling in regards to a debt I had, it was included and discharged in my chap 7 BK I am just calling to confirm you received everything needed and will update your info accordingly.

SadWithTheirLifeChoicesCSR: yes we received your BK petition and your discharge.  We just have not yest decided if you the discharge applies to your account.

(at this point, after hearing that, I know they are wrong, I was just blown away with the complete stupidity.)

bdrew6: wait what

SadWithTheirLifeChoicesCSR: We received your discharge, but we have not yet decided if it applicable to your debt.

bdrew6:... you did not object to my discharge, nor did you file a claim please explain.

SadWithTheirLifeChoicesCSR:  We have not yet decided to file a claim on your BK

 bdrew6:... My case has been closed for months and the judge issued a final decree.

SadWithTheirLifeChoicesCSR:  That does not apply to us.

Hearing all of that, I know there is a <REMOVED> load of violations, on every front; I would rather not do an ad pro in BK court, I would much rather hit them in another venue...  What do you guys suggest I do.  I just have never seen a case like this in any of my research. 



Admin Note:  Inappropriate language removed. :tos:
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015 03:57:26 PM by CleaningUp »
(Pro se) BK chap 7 {discharged}
(Pro se) 3 TCPA  {2 settled, 1 win (Federal)}
(Pro se) 1 FDCPA {1 settled}
(pro se) 1 AAA Arbitration {1 settled}

cgoodwin

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 3502
Re: CA thinks BK Does Not Apply to Them
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2015 11:17:38 AM »
They can think whatever they want. The discharge does apply to them unless they file an objection and attempt to have the discharge reversed in court.  About the only way they could do this is if they claim and prove fraud on your part with the obtaining of the account with intent to not pay and file BK.

I would tell them either file the reversal or comply with the law.
If you think this is legal advise.......
ask yourself why I wasn't smart enough to avoid this myself?!?

kevinmanheim

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 11515
Re: CA thinks BK Does Not Apply to Them
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2015 11:26:55 AM »
First, what kind of debt was this?

Second, be aware that there is an unlimited amount of time allowed for a creditor to reopen a bankruptcy case in certain circumstances.

We need to know what kind of debt this was, when the last charges to the account were, etc., before giving a better answer.

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8499
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: CA thinks BK Does Not Apply to Them
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2015 03:17:35 PM »
Whether they notate it as Discharged in BK" or not is irrelevant. You have the Court's Discharge, that is all that matters. If they try to collect on the debt, is an entirely different matter
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

HarryC

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1044
Re: CA thinks BK Does Not Apply to Them
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2015 04:09:00 PM »
If it's a consumer debt, I'd go after them for an FDCPA violation just for continuing to report it.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not even very smart.  You'd be well advised not to listen to anything I have to say.

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8499
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: CA thinks BK Does Not Apply to Them
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2015 05:20:14 PM »
If it's a consumer debt, I'd go after them for an FDCPA violation just for continuing to report it.

Not until you have disputed the accuracy of the TL with the CRA. If the TL pre-dates the BK you will lose your Court Case because the defense will be "it was accurate when posted". Make them re-verify it under FCRA. IF they fail to change it to "discharged in BK" you have them cold for both a FCRA violation AND a FDCPA violation.
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

HarryC

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1044
Re: CA thinks BK Does Not Apply to Them
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2015 02:39:29 PM »
Not until you have disputed the accuracy of the TL with the CRA. If the TL pre-dates the BK you will lose your Court Case because the defense will be "it was accurate when posted". Make them re-verify it under FCRA. IF they fail to change it to "discharged in BK" you have them cold for both a FCRA violation AND a FDCPA violation.


Good point.  I like it!   :drinking:
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not even very smart.  You'd be well advised not to listen to anything I have to say.