No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
Filed May 2019 5 year plan not 100%. Lost my job in November last year and couldnt make last 3 payments. Asked my lawyer if I am eligible for hardship discharge and he said NO. Case dismissed and he calls me to set up app to refile chapter 7 and that meeting didnt go well. Lets say I had to get up and leave so I dont do anything stupid. I contacted another lawyer and have a meeting on Wednesday. Before I talk to him , does anyone know if Statute of limitation clock (Illinois) stops during Chapter 13 or not. My last payments directly to creditors were somewhere in February 2019 which would mean 5 years passed since last direct payment. I was wondering IF chapter 13 doesnt stop the clock that would mean none of the creditors can take me to court and I would just ride it out another year and a half until everything falls off. Please advise
Don't you get credit for what you paid and your balances reduced greatly? Surely it's not fair that you just start over with original debt?
as for SOL I don't know. I'm guessing if they were receiving payments through the trustee that the clock didn't start. But surely if the payments don't count maybe the clock did start back then.
if they have another year though can't they sue in that year and force a judgement that will live on for however long a judgement lives?
15 U.S. Code § 1681c - Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports:
Section 1681c(a)(1): "Except as authorized under subsection (b), no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information: (1) Cases under title 11 or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be, antedate the report by more than 10 years."
If a bankruptcy case is dismissed without prejudice (not a final judgment), it should not be reported as an active bankruptcy on your credit report.
If a bankruptcy is dismissed with prejudice, that is a final judgment.
Section 349b of the bankruptcy code states that both parties are to be restored to financial status qua ante pre-petition status. It is meant to undue the bankruptcy as if it never happened.
@Jenntend wrote:Section 349b of the bankruptcy code states that both parties are to be restored to financial status qua ante pre-petition status. It is meant to undue the bankruptcy as if it never happened.
Again, your analysis is wrong. 11 U.S.C. § 349(b) is not “meant to undue the bankruptcy as if it never happened”. In fact, it provides for very specific relief, none of which includes the removal of the fact that one filed bk.
Here is the entire provision:
(b) Unless the court, for cause, orders otherwise, a dismissal of a case other than under section 742 of this title—
(1) reinstates—
(A) any proceeding or custodianship superseded under section 543 of this title;
(B) any transfer avoided under section 522, 544, 545, 547, 548, 549, or 724(a) of this title, or preserved under section 510(c)(2), 522(i)
(2), or 551 of this title; and
(C) any lien voided under section 506(d) of this title;
(2) vacates any order, judgment, or transfer ordered, under section 522(i)(1), 542, 550, or 553 of this title; and
(3) revests the property of the estate in the entity in which such property was vested immediately before the commencement of the case under this title.
There is no (4), removes the fact that one filed bankruptcy. In addition, here are the Senate Notes discussing what (b) is trying to accomplish:
senate report no. 95–989
Subsection (b) specifies that the dismissal reinstates proceedings or custodianships that were superseded by the bankruptcy case, reinstates avoided transfers, reinstates voided liens, vacates any order, judgment, or transfer ordered as a result of the avoidance of a transfer, and revests the property of the estate in the entity in which the property was vested at the commencement of the case. The court is permitted to order a different result for cause. The basic purpose of the subsection is to undo the bankruptcy case, as far as practicable, and to restore all property rights to the position in which they were found at the commencement of the case. This does not necessarily encompass undoing sales of property from the estate to a good faith purchaser. Where there is a question over the scope of the subsection, the court will make the appropriate orders to protect rights acquired in reliance on the bankruptcy case. (Emphasis added.)
No where does it state that the party filing bk gets to say “do-over”. The purpose of (b) is to put the parties back to where they were relative to their respective non-bankruptcy (state law) rights. This allows creditors to pick up where they left off. It is not a provision that was intended to protect debtors from their decision to seek bankruptcy protection.
Lastly, going back to my comment regarding “dismissal without prejudice” in your thread titled “I see so many people upset that dismissed bankruptcies are appearing on their reports....” look at 349(a).
(a) Unless the court, for cause, orders otherwise, the dismissal of a case under this title does not bar the discharge, in a later case under this title, of debts that were dischargeable in the case dismissed; nor does the dismissal of a case under this title prejudice the debtor with regard to the filing of a subsequent petition under this title, except as provided in section 109(g) of this title. (Emphasis added.) This is exactly what I wrote.
Folks, unless you fully understand the Bankruptcy Code and its intended consequences, please try not to comment. Giving what could amount to "false hope" to those directly impacted by reality is not helpful.
Des.