My attorney was discussing that "worst case" scenario if something
should go wrong at the Creditor's Meeting-- we don't even have a date
set yet-- and he said that the trustee could dismiss or it could end
up with us going into a denial hearing. Now I did some research and,
if I understand correctly, if the Ch. 7 is dismiss then we can just
wait 6 months to a year and then refile the Ch. 7. If there is a
denial then we'd have to go before a regular judge and he'd would make
the final decision one way or the other on what was to happen with our
case and he could put conditions on our case to were we can't refile
for a longer period if not for the whole 7 year waiting time. What
exactly does he mean by "regular judge"? Is it like I"m thinking,
just a normal civil trial in front of an elected/appointed
state/federal judge, instead of a trustee meeting? And what are the
differences between a trustee dismissal and a denial? Can't a trustee
do both? Around here the terms judge and trustee are used
interchangably by the regional bankruptcy court-- they refer to the
trustee as both a jusge and a trustee in the same conversation so it
gets confusing.

Another thing too: A year and a half ago I conditionally sold my home
back to my parents-- the contract was made long before Ch. 7 was even
in the picture or a thought in our minds. When me and my wife sat down
with my parents and went over the mortage they're paying off, we found
that the conditions are closer to getting met-- the conditions being
they pay off the mortage, of which about 3k is still left. I'm
thinking about, should our Ch. 7 be dismissed or denied not waiting
and just going ahead and fullfilling my end of the agreement and
transferring ownership over to them before the note is completely paid
off-- they said they would give us some additional money on top of the
contract to live on, but only if they get the deed back in their name
sooner. I figure at least that way if 90 or 180 days down the road I
end up with a civil suit against me from the bill collectors/doctors
the house would at least be protected-- though none of our, limited,
personal property would be protected, but I'd rather do without a
computer, T.V. and a few CDs than lose the roof over our heads. And my
family would have some much needed money to survive on. Plus I'm only
fulfilling my end of the agreement I made over a year ago with my
parents, so I don't see the problem

Any comments, suggestions?