Schedule F creditors unsecured form

[grandpax5]

Here is the problem, a creditor that we thought had been placed on the schedule f form wasn't. So now the creditor had reported us late after the BK was done. It took a 2nd collection agency to fix the problem. I have fired off a letter along with the copy of discharge letter, explaining the fact this account was discharged awhile back. Did my attorney screw something up, or does the creditor have to go back and fix the credit report after receiving the information from me. If a creditor that didn't get listed have to fix anything if they didn't know about it until later on.

[kb9tbq]

Think if you missed adding the creditor you need to go back to the attorney and have it added, reopen the bankruptcy other wise you may be held accountable to pay this one debt that missed the schedule F forms.

[willingtocope]

Depending on the type of creditor, you may have down enough already.

If you're talking about a BK 7, ALL debts are discharged unless you specifically reaffirm with the blessing of the court. So, even debts that weren't listed are discharge.

The exceptions would be student loans or taxes which you can't discharge or perhaps "secured" loans where the creditor has a change to repossess.

[jq26]

Willing, I don't know the answer, so I assume that you are correct, but doesn't that seem a bit unfair to some creditors? What if I left off five unsecured creditors- ones that I knew would attempt to challenge my discharge due to large cash advances or something? AmEx actually challenged my BK7 for that very reason, and it would seem unfair if I could have just "cut them out" of the process to avoid it.

[willingtocope]

Unnotified creditors can indeed challenge a BK 7, and you'd be treading on really thin ice if the BK trustee found out you left out a bunch. But just like BK trustees don't really like creditors showing up in court without good reason, they also don't like after the fact challenges that cause them to reopen a case. Trustees get paid by the case (unless they find money to distribute) and therefore want a really strong objection to make them spend extra time.

Leaving off one or two CCs unintentionally would probably be overlooked...leaving off 5 or 6 might get looked at.

[LadynRed]

but doesn't that seem a bit unfair to some creditors? What if I left off five unsecured creditors- ones that I knew would attempt to challenge my discharge due to large cash advances or something?

No, it's not unfair at all IF your BK was a no-asset Ch 7. Since NO creditor would be able to get a penny from a no-asset case, the logic (supported by case law) is that there can be no harm to unlisted creditors because they wouldn't have been able get any portion of assets anyway.

I agree though, 1 or 2 unlisted happens all the time, but 5 or 6.. that would look suspicious.