New Credit/Assets After Divorce and Ch. 7

[13sierra32]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Wisconsin

I have been divorced since 2010, with a resulting Chapter 7 fully discharged (including the home) in February 2011.

The house is still not foreclosed on, as the lender failed to get judgment and from what I understand, the foreclosure "process" with mandatory 6 month redemption period, etc had to restart- making our final foreclosure somewhat far into the future.

My question is this: if I were to get married in a year or so, (or even share joint bank accounts), would there be any potential negative impact or liability on the part of my new spouse? Should I ensure that my name isn't connected with his on something like a car loan or bank accounts, or is everything cleared up due to the fact that the house and all debts were included in the the Ch. 7?

 

[bigun]

Once discharged and closed, you have no liability for any sort of deficency balance. Your new spouse never had any liability unless he was a cosigner on the mortgage or any other debt you had discharged.
No issue with a joint bank account.
As to a car loan, the only fallout is, you two may well face a higher interest rate due to your recent bk. It may be best to let his income and credit carry the day in order to get a lower interest rate.

 

[13sierra32]

Thank you, that confirms my thoughts- and just to be sure- is there a difference between "discharged" and "closed"?

 

[Just Blue]

Please refrain from "advising" on another members thread UNLESS you KNOW the STATE IN QUESTION LAW.

Thanks

 

[bigun]

Please refrain from "advising" on another members thread UNLESS you KNOW the STATE IN QUESTION LAW.

Thanks

The state of residence is of no consquence since, the potential new spouse had nothing to do with any of the debts discharged in the bk.

To the OP-if you were a no asset bk, closing is an adminstrative function. Just means the trustee has formally abandoned any interest in the bk estate. The closing likely occured within a couple of days after discharge.

 

[Just Blue]

The state of residence is of no consquence since, the potential new spouse had nothing to do with any of the debts discharged in the bk.

To the OP-if you were a no asset bk, closing is an adminstrative function. Just means the trustee has formally abandoned any interest in the bk estate. The closing likely occured within a couple of days after discharge.

Hehhh...My post that you quoted has nothing to do with OP's current thread. It has to do with BAD INFO she is posting to other members threads.

Today 02:03 PM
Blue Meanie Please refrain from "advising" on another members thread UNLESS you KNOW the STATE IN QUESTION LAW.

Thanks

Hence my comment regarding OTHER MEMBERS THREADS.

 

[13sierra32]

Blue Meanie- if I were hoping to get a response from a licensed WI attorney, I'd pursue hiring one. I appreciate the reply to my thread, even if it's only someone's opinion- I think we all understand that nothing on a free advice forum is "paydirt".
Just my two cents- I do not KNOW if my opinion is valid in your state.

If people only responded when they had the appropriate law degree, this forum would be virtually non-existent, from what I've read. Responses are opinions, and that is what posters are expecting. If that's not true for some, I wish them luck if there is resulting legal fallout after taking advice from a free internet forum.

 

[13sierra32]

Point taken, I may find better use of my time doing something other than hanging out in internet forums in any event.

Thanks Bigun- very helpful.

Blue Meanie- well-selected username- A+ for appropriateness.

 

[Just Blue]

Blue Meanie- if I were hoping to get a response from a licensed WI attorney, I'd pursue hiring one. I appreciate the reply to my thread, even if it's only someone's opinion- I think we all understand that nothing on a free advice forum is "paydirt".
Just my two cents- I do not KNOW if my opinion is valid in your state.

If people only responded when they had the appropriate law degree, this forum would be virtually non-existent, from what I've read. Responses are opinions, and that is what posters are expecting. If that's not true for some, I wish them luck if there is resulting legal fallout after taking advice from a free internet forum.

No. You are responding to other threads. If you wish to continue to do so SITE LAW. You do not need a JD to do that.
Any person that respond to YOUR THREAD will be expected to do so with care and accuracy. If they do not they will be pointed out.

 

[13sierra32]

Again, I was speaking from experience in my state- and I think people are looking for experiences.

It's refreshing to know that the forum has you to police it- I was concerned that no one was handling that.

I will refrain from stating my opinion further.

 

[stealth2]

Again, I was speaking from experience in my state- and I think people are looking for experiences.

It's refreshing to know that the forum has you to police it- I was concerned that no one was handling that.

I will refrain from stating my opinion further.

What you apparently do not understand is that the incorrect information for a particular state can cause the poster any number of problems. How it works in your state doesn't always help an OP. In fact, it usually doesn't. SO it's wise to show some discretion regarding what you post.

 

[Just Blue]

Again, I was speaking from experience in my state- and I think people are looking for experiences.

It's refreshing to know that the forum has you to police it- I was concerned that no one was handling that.

I will refrain from stating my opinion further.

What you do not seem to understand is that CUSTODY LAW is often very different from State to State. So unless you have PERTINENT info from the state in question...Your advice is worthless. And actually could cause another member to go off on a useless legal tangent.

So. If you would like to advise others, feel free. Just PLEASE educate yourself FOR THE STATE IN QUESTION. ESPECIALLY ON forum that involve children or a members safety.

Thanks.

 

[Just Blue]

Point taken, I may find better use of my time doing something other than hanging out in internet forums in any event.

Thanks Bigun- very helpful.

Blue Meanie- well-selected username- A+ for appropriateness.

As I am a BIG fan of "YellowSubmarine", Yes. It is a wonderful name for me.

Thanks for noticing!

 

[nextwife]

If the house is not foreclosed, while you have no responsilbility for old debts under the note, for example, your municipality may be able to hold you responsible for future expenses they incur while you remain the legal owner.

Many communities can and will hold the legal owner responsible for a variety of costs they incur if the owner is not doing grass cutting, weed and snow removal, if the house is a public nuisance and has broken windows and has not been boarded up etc. Some public utilities are a bill to the owner, not the real estate, so there could be future bills to you related to such items as sewer and water quarterly charges, etc. that are incurred while you are still the owner. I am aware of a number of municipal code enforcement cases against property owners post BK, because the house is still owned by them and the BK only removes liability to the lender under the note: it does not legally change ownership.