@ezdriver wrote:
.
When a trustee decides to seize an asset, he/she is not concerned about economic impact to others.
Not necessarily correct. He is concerned over the cost of litigating entitlement to the asset when there is a valid dispute. Economics as well as "bad press" can play a roll. Been there-done that.
The trustee's primary responsibility is to try everything within his/her legal authority to reimburse the creditors with proceeds from liquidation of seized assets
Out of property that belongs to the Debtor and therefore the bk estate. The Trustee does not have any greater rights to property than the Debtor and if the Debtor could be subject to a claim from a 3rd party as to ownership, so can the Trustee. Been there-done that.
Also, a good bankruptcy attorney would have addressed this issue when the asset list was created.
Absolutely. This is why I believe OP did not mention it to the attny. I get the impression it came out at the 341 - too late to "do over". However, once OP’s attny realized the issue, IMHO, he should not have sat idle by waiting for the Trustee to pounce. He should have addressed the problem within days of that 341. Had he done so, OP’s issues would have been resolved months ago.
Trying to fight a trustee's decision is not a simple or inexpensive matter.
True for both sides, hence the reason for a 9019 compromise settlement.
My trustee admitted to me that I did nothing wrong with buying my Mercedes prior to filing ch7 ... yet he did his best to seize the car because he decided that the finance company had not "perfected its lien". The finance company fought the trustee and the trustee lost. The trustee and my attorney both told me that I had no say in the matter.
In your situation you did not have any say because the lien issue was between the Trustee and the lender. This was not an issue of ownership over the asset. It was an issue of lien rights and I am pleased that your Trustee lost.
Des.
