Bankruptcy Chapter 7 Amendments?

[PKRDRL]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?OREGON

AFTER YOU RECV' CHAPTER 7 DISCHARGE PAPERS, IS THERE A TIME PERIOD THAT YOU CAN INCLUDE AN AMENDMENT, SAY YOU FORGOT TO INCLUDE A CREDITOR.

[Ladynred]

No, but it'll cost you to re-open your case to include a forgotten creditor. It may not be necessary anyway. There is case law that say ALL pre-petition debts are considered discharged in a no-asset Chapter 7 BK.

[SkankCheese]

Even if you forgot to list them?

[Ladynred]

Yes, even if you forgot to list them.

Excerpts from some case law supporting it:

1) "In the present case, Debtor seeks to reopen and to amend the schedules to list five creditors in order to subject their debts to discharge. For the reasons just stated, reopening this case will not accord the Debtor the relief she seeks. As prepetition debts of the Debtor in this no-asset Chapter 7 case, the debts were discharged when the debtor received her discharge on August 5, 2002, unless the debt is one which is nondischargeable under any of the
subparagraphs of 5 523(a) other than 5 523(a)(3) (A). The limited information presented regarding the five unlisted creditors suggests that their debts are not ones which are nondischargeable.'
Therefore, it appears that the five debts have been discharged even though they were not scheduled by Debtor. In any event, reopening the case and scheduling the five debts at this time would have no effect on the status of the debts. Because reopening the case to amend the schedules would be a futile act which would not affect the
rights or liabilities of any party in interest, the motion to reopen should be denied."
[url]http://www.ncmb.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/serge.PDF[/url]

2) "The Ninth Circuit decided it makes no difference that such debts are not listed in the schedules or that no notice was given to the unlisted creditors because in no-asset Chapter 7 cases, proofs of claim are not filed with the court and no assets are available for liquidation. Because, according to the Ninth Circuit, nothing will be paid to creditors there is no harm to unlisted creditors in subjecting their claims to the discharge just as if they had been listed. Therefore, the Bankruptcy Court held that the creditor’s claim was discharged even though it had not been listed and, accordingly, the sums garnished from debtor’s wages after the discharge had to be returned."
[url]http://www.idahocul.org/Leagueinfo/cameron/2001/sep01.htm[/url]

3) "Many courts would hold that debts will be discharged in a no-asset Chapter 7 case even if they are not listed. There are two key phrases in that answer that require more explanation.

* Many courts. The bankruptcy code is not at all clear on this subject. While the trend appears to be that the unlisted debts in no-asset cases are discharged without any further action, the code has been interpreted in differently in many courts. Some courts would allow you to reopen the case to add a debt. Others would say that the debt cannot be added and therefore is not discharged.
* No-asset. In many Chapter 7 cases, there are no non-exempt assets which the Trustee may sell for the benefit of the creditors. These are called "no-asset" cases.

Courts say that unlisted debt is discharged in no-asset cases have carefully read Section 523(a)(3)(A). This section excepts debt from discharge if they were not listed in time for the creditor to file a timely proof of claim. The proof of claim is used by the Trustee to determine the proportion to divide the debtor's assets between the creditors. In a no-asset case, there will be nothing to divide and no reason to file a proof of claim. As a result, in no-asset cases the bankruptcy notice instructs creditors that they are not to file a proof of claim. Courts taking this position reason that since it will never be too late to file a proof of claim, a debt is not excepted from discharge because it has not been listed. Cases in which the courts reach this conclusion include: In re Madaj, 149 F.3d 467 (6th Cir. 1998); Judd v. Wolfe, 78 F.3d 110 (3rd Cir. 1996); Stone v. Caplan, 10 F.3d 285, 289, n. 13 (5th Cir.1994); and In re Beezley, 994 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir.1993). [8-99]"