co-signed for my ex and he filed bankruptcy

[Lo-Lo88]

What is the name of your state? WA.

I cosigned on a car for my incosderate EX and he filed bankruptcy, so I was garnished nearly $4000.00. So I wanted to know if I could sue somehow for reimbursment. If so how should I file the lawsuit, can is sue for the entire amount, and does it matter that a year and a half has passed since I was garnished??? Thanx to all!!! for ANY help.

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state? WA.

I cosigned on a car for my incosderate EX and he filed bankruptcy, so I was garnished nearly $4000.00. So I wanted to know if I could sue somehow for reimbursment. If so how should I file the lawsuit, can is sue for the entire amount, and does it matter that a year and a half has passed since I was garnished??? Thanx to all!!! for ANY help.

**A: who are you planning on suing and do you have written evidence to support your case?

 

[JETX]

The limit of Washington Small claims is $4000 so you are right at the limit.

Go ahead and file your claim in the Small Claims court in the county where he lives. Be prepared to show your damages (the amount you had to pay as a result of his breach).

Also, most state SOL's is 2 years so it is important that you do this NOW if you are going to do it.

For WA 'how-to', go to:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/resources/?fa=newsinfo_jury.scc&altMenu=smal

 

[Lo-Lo88]

I would trying to sue my EX and I have the bank statements!

 

[Lo-Lo88]

would it have to be in the city/county that he resides???

 

[racer72]

You are SOL. When your ex filed bankruptcy, he can no longer be held liable for the debt. If you try to sue all he has to do is show that the debt was discharged by a federal bankruptcy court and your case will be dismissed.

 

[JETX]

"would it have to be in the city/county that he resides???"
*** Yes.

 

[Ladynred]

Not only is the poster S.O.L. on the bankruptcy, but WA is a COMMUNITY PROPERTY state, so the creditor was within its rights to sue the OP on that basis as well.

 

[JETX]

Not only is the poster S.O.L. on the bankruptcy, but WA is a COMMUNITY PROPERTY state, so the creditor was within its rights to sue the OP on that basis as well.

Only if the co-signing was done during the marriage. The writer said, "I cosigned on a car for my incosderate EX" which implies it was done AFTER the divorce.

 

[stephenk]

Even if it was done after the divorce, once the ex had the debt discharged he is off the hook. That is one of the pitfalls for co-signing for someone on any type of debt. You get stuck if the other person decides to flake and not pay.

 

[Lo-Lo88]

But...But...But!!!

Hey, does it matter at all that we where married at the time of the cosigning, and in the court order (at the time of the divorce )
it stated that he was the sole debtor for any and all bills accrued during the marriage!!!

 

[Ladynred]

Well, yes and no. It matters because if you signed it while you were still married it IS a 'community' debt.

The stipulation in the divorce decree does NOT matter - if its discharged in bankruptcy, you're going to be the lender's target.

Your best bet may be showing up at his creditors meeting and making your case for his NOT getting out of that debt.

 

[Lo-Lo88]

LADYNRED (attend a creditors meeting and make my case for his NOT getting out of that debt) if your not to busy could you please elaborate ( I'm a legal illiterate sorry! )

 

[Ladynred]

Are you listed as a creditor in your Ex's bankruptcy ? Did you get a notice from the bankruptcy court ?

The 341 meeting (meeting of creditors) is an opportunity for creditors to show up and make their objections to a person's discharge. If they can make their case with the Trustee and the court, the debt may not be discharged. So, I'm suggesting that you show up at his 341 meeting and make your objections to the discharge of the car loan.

The part of the BK law that *may* help you is here:

"Sec. 523. - Exceptions to discharge
(a)
A discharge under section 727, 1141 , 1228 (a), 1228(b), or 1328 (b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt -
(15)
not of the kind described in paragraph (5) that is incurred by the debtor in the course of a divorce or separation or in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record, a determination made in accordance with State or territorial law by a governmental unit unless -
(A)
the debtor does not have the ability to pay such debt from income or property of the debtor not reasonably necessary to be expended for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor and, if the debtor is engaged in a business, for the payment of expenditures necessary for the continuation, preservation, and operation of such business; or
(B)
discharging such debt would result in a benefit to the debtor that outweighs the detrimental consequences to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor; "

There is no guarantee that you'll be heard or that this would work, but as far as I can see, this is your best shot.

 

[racer72]

Problem 1: When you ex filed for bankruptcy, he was required to attend a meeting with the creditors, called a 341 meeting. It is at this meeting anyone that would be adversely affected by the bankruptcy could make their claims why the debts should not be discharged. Even though you were not a creditor, you still could have objected to certain debts being dismissed due to the fact you would become liable for the debts. Because you did not seek legal advice then, your ex's debts were dismissed. When this happened your ex can no longer be held liable for the debts.

Problem 2: You want to sue your ex for the debts you got stuck with. Bankruptcy is a federal court run by the US government. Your divorce was through a state superior court. The federal court system outweighs the state court, the part of your divorce decree that made your ex liable for certain bills is now null and void. He can no longer be held liable for those debts.

Problem 3: In order for any garnishments to happen, you were sued in court and lost. You make no mention of it but did you seek any legal advice back then? Given the time period that has elapsed since then, you may have been able to avoid the garnishments if you had sought legal advice.

So basically you have waited way to long to do anything about your problems. When the legal pile of doo starts to build it will not go away by itself, you must be proactive and attack. You let your pile get too big now you have a mess and no way out. Not to be a smart alec, but I hope you have learned a valuable and expensive lesson in life.