| |  |
| Home | Law Advice | Insurance Advice | Community |
|
| |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||
| | |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
08-18-2006, 01:28 PM
| |||
| |||
Multiple BKsWhat is the name of your state? CA What are the laws regarding filing mulitiple bankrupcies. In a nutshell, my d/h credit report states he has a total of 3 BKs on his TransUnion report. The first two state they are open concurrent (open during the same period of time) the filing dates are within 3 months of each other, the oldest one (the 3rd) states it was filed 3 months before the first of the two. Each list discharged. Experian and Equifx took them off but TU keeps them 'remaing". He did not file them; they state they are joint however, they are not on mine. Which CA BK law may I site to get these removed. thanks |
|
#2
08-18-2006, 07:36 PM
| |||
| |||
| It would not be possible, under the old law or the new, to have 3 DISCHARGED bankruptcies within months of each other and certainly NO WAY there could be concurrent BKs. The old law stated the waiting period between dishcarged Ch 7's was 6 years, the new law is 8. Under the old law, there could have been a discharged Ch 7, then a bit later a Ch 13 filed, but 13's are a 3 year minimum, and again, no Bk's could be concurrent. To put it bluntly, what TU is reporting is IMPOSSIBLE, could not happen under the statutes.
__________________ "Knowledge is Power - use it as you see fit ! I am not a lawyer or a member of the legal profession. My advice is based on research and experience, my own and others, some who practice law. You decide for yourself what actions you do or do not take from my advice. |
|
#3
08-21-2006, 02:09 PM
| |||
| |||
| spoke to TU today, I think I got someone to admit they understand what my letter stated. He had me fax it to him again as well. Somebody is supposed to call us back today. I can't believe how they report. I'm looking up BK law just in case I Have to fax something else to keep them moving....thanks for the reassurance... |
|
#4
08-21-2006, 07:10 PM
| |||
| |||
| Well, not quite impossible. Under the old law we sometimes did what was called a "Chapter 20," which was a Chapter 7 followed immediately by a Chapter 13. Under the old law, there was no limitation concerning when a Chapter 13 discharge could be entered after a Chapter 7 discharge. By "immediately" I mean that sometimes the 13 was filed the day after the discharge in the 7. So two cases were running concurrently. Sort of messy, but not impossible. Also, I've seen cases where debtors representing themselves had multiple cases open simultaneously, but that gets sorted out by the Court soon enough. |
|
Linear Mode
