Defrauded $800. Bankruptcy as a defense.How should I proceed?

[cosine]

I think it would still be easier if you can show the fraud before the BK is finished, than to reverse a discharge later. Reversing the discharge would have to go back to the original BK court that ordered it. Whether you (or a lawyer representing you) have to appear, or if it can all be done by paperwork, would depend on that court (maybe it can be done via a summary ruling). But the thing you will need to do is get the fraud conviction against her. Then go get the discharge reversed.

If it were me, I wouldn't bother with the money ... I'd want her in jail. I'd be looking more at things like any fraudulent filings she makes with the BK court, and any other crimes she might have done.

 

[latigo]

You're missing the point.

If the person is convicted of monetary felony fraud, they cannot discharge it in BK.

The point is perfectly clear, Mister, and I' m not missing it.

You are missing it because you obviously don’t know squat about the United States Bankruptcy Laws.

Immediately upon the filing of the debtor’s petition in bankruptcy a Section 362 stay order went into effect that temporarily froze all creditor activity. Understand?

Until that stay order is lifted or the court grants the OP specific relief from the order he cannot institute any legal action against his debtor without being in contempt of the Federal Bankruptcy Court. Understand?

But in your ignorance of these bankruptcy laws you seem to have the notion that since the OP alleges that his claim arose out of fraudulent conduct on the part of his debtor he is not subject to that stay order and can have that factual issue judicially arbitrated in any state venue having in personam jurisdiction. AND THAT HE CANNOT DO!

He currently has but one option and that is an adversary proceeding to establish that his claim is exempt from a discharge under the applicable provisions of Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code.

And for your further edification, should it come to pass that the debtor becomes “convicted of monetary felony fraud”, such a conviction per se would not even be admissible as probative evidence of fraud in an adversary proceeding before the bankruptcy court.

And the fact that you fail to appreciate that that such a conviction would be hearsay and thus inadmissible is further indication that you don’t possess the professional credentials to be responding in here.

 

[Who's Liable?]

The point is perfectly clear, Mister, and I' m not missing it.

You are missing it because you obviously don’t know squat about the United States Bankruptcy Laws.

Immediately upon the filing of the debtor’s petition in bankruptcy a Section 362 stay order went into effect that temporarily froze all creditor activity. Understand?

Until that stay order is lifted or the court grants the OP specific relief from the order he cannot institute any legal action against his debtor without being in contempt of the Federal Bankruptcy Court. Understand?

But in your ignorance of these bankruptcy laws you seem to have the notion that since the OP alleges that his claim arose out of fraudulent conduct on the part of his debtor he is not subject to that stay order and can have that factual issue judicially arbitrated in any state venue having in personam jurisdiction. AND THAT HE CANNOT DO!

He currently has but one option and that is an adversary proceeding to establish that his claim is exempt from a discharge under the applicable provisions of Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code.

And for your further edification, should it come to pass that the debtor becomes “convicted of monetary felony fraud”, such a conviction per se would not even be admissible as probative evidence of fraud in an adversary proceeding before the bankruptcy court.

And the fact that you fail to appreciate that that such a conviction would be hearsay and thus inadmissible is further indication that you don’t possess the professional credentials to be responding in here.

Oh boy..... another one...

 

[latigo]

Oh boy..... another one...

Translation: "I am not qualified to discuss Title 11 of the United States Code."

 

[tranquility]

And for your further edification, should it come to pass that the debtor becomes “convicted of monetary felony fraud”, such a conviction per se would not even be admissible as probative evidence of fraud in an adversary proceeding before the bankruptcy court.

And the fact that you fail to appreciate that that such a conviction would be hearsay and thus inadmissible is further indication that you don’t possess the professional credentials to be responding in here.

I guess I'm not understanding your point. Res Judicata or some issue preclusion would not apply?

 

[JakeB]

I agree with latigo on everything, except that the hearsay rule would not prevent a criminal conviction from being admitted as evidence in one form or another.

 

[Who's Liable?]

Translation: "I am not qualified to discuss Title 11 of the United States Code."

Latigo = Lost in Translation... Except Bill Murray was better...