littlerebel Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 (edited) I dismissed a CH13 a few years ago and a JDB has surfaced and filed a suit and is claiming that the debt is validated due to being "sworn to under oath by the defendant". in the signed bk papersI think I can challenge that by saying that I only swore to the fact that these are claims against me that I need relief from, may not be the same as admitting that the debt is valid. Any thoughts? Edited April 29, 2010 by littlerebel left out a sentence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoCares1000 Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 That could be enough for validation. Why was the Ch. 13 dismissed?This is one reason why, if you plan on going the BK route, make sure you intend to do it to completion. If you do not get a discharge at the end of it, you open yourself up to even worst issues than before you filed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlerebel Posted April 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 That could be enough for validation. Why was the Ch. 13 dismissed?This is one reason why, if you plan on going the BK route, make sure you intend to do it to completion. If you do not get a discharge at the end of it, you open yourself up to even worst issues than before you filed.Not necessarily. We dismissed because we simply could not afford the monthly pmnts. A lot of unforeseen events took our business down but as sole proprietor we had to file personally. We gambled that unless all creditors jumped on us at one time, we could negotiate settlements for less than the pmnt to the trustee. So far it has worked very well. Of approximately 24 creditors this is only the 2nd one (in several yrs) to sue and the 1st one settled out of court for a much lower amount than the bk payout would have been. We are very close to SOL now so we hope our luck will hold.We have offered this JDB a settlement, I was just trying to add a few more arrows to the quiver . If I need to I may still throw out the argument that just because they can print out old cases off of Pacer doesn't mean that they have done due diligence and have proper chain of title docs. Thanks for your thoughts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoCares1000 Posted April 30, 2010 Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 Is this the same CA/JDB who was listed on your BK creditor matrix. If not, then they would still have to prove chain of title from the BK matrix to themselves. As for SOL, I think a BK filing would toll the SOL in most states. You could still offer a settlement and see what they say. Worst that happens is that they say no and try their chances in court. If you do get a judgment, then see if the court would be willing to let you do payments. Out of 24, if this is the only creditor that is willing to be a hard case, then you are doing good. Worst case scenario, if 180 days have past from the dismissal, then you could refile for ch13 (or you may even qualify for ch7). Let the creditor know that too because that could affect settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlerebel Posted April 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 Is this the same CA/JDB who was listed on your BK creditor matrix. If not, then they would still have to prove chain of title from the BK matrix to themselves. As for SOL, I think a BK filing would toll the SOL in most states. You could still offer a settlement and see what they say. Worst that happens is that they say no and try their chances in court. If you do get a judgment, then see if the court would be willing to let you do payments. Out of 24, if this is the only creditor that is willing to be a hard case, then you are doing good. Worst case scenario, if 180 days have past from the dismissal, then you could refile for ch13 (or you may even qualify for ch7). Let the creditor know that too because that could affect settlement.The OC did not even file the claim, they assigned or "transferred title" to JDB#1 who is listed on the matrix as "agent" for OC. Now, JDB #2 files Bill of Particulars stating they are "assignee" of OC. Bk filing does toll SOL but it has been 3 yrs. since dismissal, which is the SOL in my state. I have offered the JDB a low settlement. The other little thing in my favor is that the atty for the JDB is several hundred miles away and hired a local atty to appear at the first hearing where he told the judge " I don't really have any information today, I am just a stand in..." you gotta love it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts