Diane
01-29-2004, 09:09 PM
Hi Brett,
I've read it over and over, that if a person does not reaffirm a
secured debt (in this case a vehicle) in a state that allows 'walk
throughs', that 1)the debt is discharged, 2) you keep the vehicle as
long as you keep up the payments and 3)should you decide to walk away
from it or default, the debtor bears NO liability for any of the debt
ever again - not for any deficiency or auction/repo fees.
Is there something in the bankruptcy code (I often refer to it but I'm
not a lawyer) or case law, or Senate commentary, SOMETHING that
supports this ? I do understand that all personal liability goes away
with the discharge. I also know that BK law permits you to voluntarily
pay back on a discharged debt. Keeping up payments on a car loan, with
no reaff, on a dicharged debt would then be considered voluntary
payments would it not ?
There is a discussion with someone who insists that continuing to pay
on a car loan post-discharge, w/o a reaffirmation, still equates to a
new 'obligation' to pay, and that once the car was repo'd, the
creditor could then go ahead and sue for the deficiency. He will not
back down from this stance unless those of us who disagree with him
can come up with legal precendent, case law, Rule or Code to refute
his position !
The bankruptcy (not mine) occurred in Minnesota, and walk-through's
are allowed.
If you can suggest something, or point me in the right direction for
this kind of backup, it would be much appreciated. :)
TIA !
I've read it over and over, that if a person does not reaffirm a
secured debt (in this case a vehicle) in a state that allows 'walk
throughs', that 1)the debt is discharged, 2) you keep the vehicle as
long as you keep up the payments and 3)should you decide to walk away
from it or default, the debtor bears NO liability for any of the debt
ever again - not for any deficiency or auction/repo fees.
Is there something in the bankruptcy code (I often refer to it but I'm
not a lawyer) or case law, or Senate commentary, SOMETHING that
supports this ? I do understand that all personal liability goes away
with the discharge. I also know that BK law permits you to voluntarily
pay back on a discharged debt. Keeping up payments on a car loan, with
no reaff, on a dicharged debt would then be considered voluntary
payments would it not ?
There is a discussion with someone who insists that continuing to pay
on a car loan post-discharge, w/o a reaffirmation, still equates to a
new 'obligation' to pay, and that once the car was repo'd, the
creditor could then go ahead and sue for the deficiency. He will not
back down from this stance unless those of us who disagree with him
can come up with legal precendent, case law, Rule or Code to refute
his position !
The bankruptcy (not mine) occurred in Minnesota, and walk-through's
are allowed.
If you can suggest something, or point me in the right direction for
this kind of backup, it would be much appreciated. :)
TIA !
