?

Log in

No account? Create an account

(no subject)

« previous entry | next entry »
Oct. 30th, 2003 | 09:00 am
mood: awakeawake
music: Polyphonic ring tones

Got the 401(k) check! Lawyers at 11.

No really, the first meeting with the (bankruptcy) lawyer is on the 11th.

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {23}

(no subject)

from: tequilanolime
date: Oct. 30th, 2003 09:19 am (UTC)
Link

Do you have a Halloween costume?

Reply | Thread

JP Sugarbroad

(no subject)

from: taral
date: Oct. 30th, 2003 09:19 am (UTC)
Link

Bankruptcy lawyers are expensive...

Reply | Thread

(no subject)

from: tequilanolime
date: Oct. 30th, 2003 09:26 am (UTC)
Link

It's odd that you have to spend money to have someone prove you have no money. If I HAD seven hundred dollars to pay the lawyer, wouldn't I just pay my bills?
I am too broke to declare bankruptcy.

Reply | Parent | Thread

dr. pangloss

(no subject)

from: denshi
date: Oct. 30th, 2003 10:13 am (UTC)
Link

We're generally talking two orders of magnitude higher.

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: tequilanolime
date: Oct. 30th, 2003 10:14 am (UTC)
Link

No, I understand. I just think that the concept is ironic.

Reply | Parent | Thread

dr. pangloss

(no subject)

from: denshi
date: Oct. 30th, 2003 10:17 am (UTC)
Link

Land of the free and all that.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Triple Entendre

(no subject)

from: triple_entendre
date: Oct. 30th, 2003 10:17 am (UTC)
Link

It's odd that you have to spend money to have someone prove you have no money.
It takes money to make money, and it also takes money NOT to, I guess.

If I HAD seven hundred dollars to pay the lawyer, wouldn't I just pay my bills?
Absolutely. But it turns out you can get free legal assistance on Wednesdays at a local middle school. [Yes, from lawyers, not the students....] They will continue to see you for free if they agree that you are too broke, but they pointed out that I could cash out my 401(k). Fair enough.

Oh, and seven hundred dollars wouldn't cover the interest. I am currently a poster child for chapter 7.

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: tequilanolime
date: Oct. 30th, 2003 10:21 am (UTC)
Link

I think you should document your saga; I could use your knowledge. I haven't paid bills in nearly six months - basically since I moved and was out of work for a while. I just never caught up. I decided I liked to eat and chose that over paying my Discover card.
Bankruptcy is probably the only option I have left at this point; I just keep pretending it's not necessary. If you ignore something it goes away; everybody knows that!

Reply | Parent | Thread

Triple Entendre

(no subject)

from: triple_entendre
date: Oct. 30th, 2003 12:25 pm (UTC)
Link

I'll try to post it all here. Questions are welcome as we go along.

After that, we have the divorce lawyer. (The free lawyer guy said that bankruptcy, THEN divorce, is the correct order. Specifically, he said, "If you can still work together, taking care of the bankruptcy first would be a really nice thing to do for each other, and maybe a way to get some good closure on things as you end your marriage.")

You see, divorce THEN bankruptcy means two separate bankruptcy cases (and two court filing fees!), and if only one declares bankruptcy, that's even worse, because the other is then still on the hook for ALL the debts of the other, since the debts were incurred while you were legally codependent.

Reply | Parent | Thread

dr. pangloss

(no subject)

from: denshi
date: Oct. 30th, 2003 10:54 am (UTC)
Link

After the lawyers, the students could try as well. Entertainment value and all that.

Reply | Parent | Thread

JP Sugarbroad

(no subject)

from: taral
date: Oct. 31st, 2003 09:48 am (UTC)
Link

Well, if all you owed was $700, you wouldn't be declaring bankruptcy, I hope. Also, you can usually arrange a payment plan with the lawyer. $700 is actually not expensive considering the work they do.

It is possible to declare bankrupty pro se, but the process is somewhat time-consuming without the software they use...

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: tequilanolime
date: Nov. 2nd, 2003 05:01 pm (UTC)
Link

My debt is much higher than $700. I understand how it works; I simply find it ironic that you have to pay money to indicate that you have none. It seems like an oxymoron, like a debtor's prison: "Hmm...I haven't paid bills so they are putting me in jail until they are paid. So here I am...in jail...not working..."

Reply | Parent | Thread

Cherry Pie Girl

(no subject)

from: comodulate
date: Oct. 30th, 2003 10:24 am (UTC)
Link

I wish ignoring my problems could make them go away...
Unfortunately, this is still reality...
Want to live inside your head with me, anyone?

Reply | Thread

Triple Entendre

(no subject)

from: triple_entendre
date: Oct. 30th, 2003 12:14 pm (UTC)
Link

Want to live inside your head with me, anyone?

Are you my imaginary friend?

Reply | Parent | Thread

Cherry Pie Girl

(no subject)

from: comodulate
date: Oct. 30th, 2003 12:20 pm (UTC)
Link

no. im your real friend

Reply | Parent | Thread

Triple Entendre

(no subject)

from: triple_entendre
date: Oct. 31st, 2003 06:09 am (UTC)
Link

will you also be my fiend?

Reply | Parent | Thread

Cherry Pie Girl

(no subject)

from: comodulate
date: Oct. 31st, 2003 11:14 am (UTC)
Link

nope.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Triple Entendre

(no subject)

from: triple_entendre
date: Nov. 3rd, 2003 10:56 am (UTC)
Link

That's okay, fiends are overrated. You do make a good friend. I have some backrubs for you.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Cherry Pie Girl

(no subject)

from: comodulate
date: Nov. 3rd, 2003 11:51 am (UTC)
Link

OOH OOH I want them please
Will you still be in Austin for game night thursday at my place?

Reply | Parent | Thread

Chef Monkey

(no subject)

from: chefmonkey
date: Oct. 30th, 2003 11:11 am (UTC)
Link

Huh. I haven't looked at it before, but I just skimmed USC title 11, chapter 13, and ironically, the title ("ADJUSTMENT OF DEBTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL WITH REGULAR INCOME") implies that individuals must be receiving a regular paycheck to qualify. Provisions include garnishing of wages for 3 to 5 years, and I don't see how that can happen without wages. Very odd.

On the other hand, there is no provision in the law itself that I found that actually restricts its application to individuals with full time employment (and doing so wouldn't really make sense). My guess is that the title is probably to distinguish from Chapter 12, which applies only to farmers.

I agree that it would be interesting to know how this saga plays out. I've always been a bit curious about personal bankruptcy law.

Reply | Thread

Triple Entendre

(no subject)

from: triple_entendre
date: Oct. 30th, 2003 12:13 pm (UTC)
Link

Chapter 13 is just a payment plan, and apparently not usually applied to people in my situation. Chapter 7 is liquidation. Texas has some nice laws about exemptions. I'll post a pointer later, but for now, know that:

In addition to a house and a car, they also can't take 15 head of cattle and 120 chickens. Or my horse and saddle. Et cetera.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Chef Monkey

(no subject)

from: chefmonkey
date: Oct. 30th, 2003 12:45 pm (UTC)
Link

    Texas has some nice laws about exemptions.
I sure hope that they're better than those provided by US Law. (Can the state do that?) Reading through section 522, I note that the exemption for a house is $15,000 (which is absurd); for a car, $2,400; $8,000 for "household furnishings, household goods, wearing apparel, appliances, books, animals, crops, or musical instruments"; and it just goes downhill from there. Since you don't have a house, it would appear that you can keep $8,300 of any additional random stuff of your choosing.

Here's something that really hacks me off about USC (and a lot of laws in general): they often hardcode monetary values into the laws without provisions for adjusting according to inflation. The US government publishes CPI inflation numbers; they could easily be used to adjust such values. As it is, we have some laws on the books (I'd have to find them) dating back to shortly before the Earth's crust cooled, which stipulate fines on the order of $5. It's just silly.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Triple Entendre

Here we are

from: triple_entendre
date: Oct. 31st, 2003 05:49 am (UTC)
Link

I see where the Federal law you're citing says things like,
"unless the State law that is applicable to the debtor ... specifically does not so authorize; or, in the alternative, ... any property that is exempt under Federal law ... or State or local law that is applicable ..."

In other words, the states explicitly may pass laws that take away from or add to what property may be considered exempt for the debtor.

In a bizarre tangle of phrasing, though, it says the debtor must then choose:
1) Only the federal exemptions, minus any that are removed by State or local law, or
2) None of the federal exemptions, plus those that are added by State or local law, plus the entirety of your homestead.

Both you and your spouse must agree on option 2, or else option 1 is assumed. That would suck!

(Should the law of the land really be a logic problem? What this country needs are good technical writers, not legislators!)

Reply | Parent | Thread