Is this a violation at ALL?

[anabanana]

What is the name of your state? FL

Well, Lady, maybe you've got a line on this one, because I can't seem to turn anything up in the literature.

Presently, my claim has been zeroed out and I guess that means I'm technically not even a creditor, at the moment. That seems to be the debtor's attorney's contention, anyway. Yet they've brought yet another motion for sanctions against me for emails that I allegedly sent the ex related to the bankruptcy since my claim was denied. I don't know if I did or I didn't, because my system crashed and I lost all my saved mails. I think the whole thing is a setup. The judge, inexplicably, is saying that I have to prove I did NOT violate the stay, rather than them having to show that I DID. Bizarre.

But I'm wondering, if I'm not even a creditor anymore, why would I even be subject to the AS? I'm getting a little sick and tired of how there's all kinds of enforcement against any sort of alleged toe-stepping-on that bothers the poor debtor, but the lyin' and thievin' done BY the debtor just keeps on getting the big ol' green light.

grumblegrumblegrumble

 

[Ladynred]

Dunno AnaB I'll have to dig around some

How did they 'zero out' your claim ??

As for violating the AS, can you ask for production of documents to see what it is he's got ?? I realize that opens YOU up to the same, but it might be worth a try. Whether the AS applies to you if you're NOT listed as a creditor.. hmm.. ALL collection activity has to cease once a creditor is notified, so you may not be able to use that at this point. Creditors that were never informed of a bk won't be slapped for violating the automatic stay the first time, but anything after being informed would be a deliberate act and open them up to sanctions.

As for your 'lost' emails, is there any chance your ISP would have records ??

 

[Ladynred]

Ok, I read your other post and how they 'zeroed out' your claim. I fail to see how a BK judge can make a determination that just because there's no divorce decree there is no child support !! Since when is a father only a "father" with obligations for child support ONLY if he was married and divorced the MOTHER ???? That's hogwash !

It would certainly appear that you DO have FL law on your side to fight that bogus determination.

I'm sure you've probably been thru it, but I did find this and it says NOTHING about there having to be a divorce decree for there to be court-ordered child support: http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=child+support&URL=CH0409/Sec2563.HTM

..and then there's this on the establishment of paternity AND its application where child support is concerned. If he admits he's the father, he can be ordered to pay child support !

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=paternity,+child+support&URL=CH0742/Sec10.HTM

 

[anabanana]

Oh, I know. It would be comical if it wasn't so tragic. He knows it would get turned over on appeal, and he also knows I don't have the money or wherewithal to appeal it. So it's just a stare-down, basically. The reformed law that's coming in specifically states "spouse, former spouse, child, parent of a child," because there are a lot of kids left hanging this way, apparently.

But in my case there IS another "order of a court of record," which would be the ADOPTION ORDER that established the monthly support stipend. The support money in question isn't even out of the debtor's income. It's actually partly federal, partly state money paid as "adoption assistance" for families who adopt children through the foster care system. It never was and never will be part of the bankruptcy estate, so go figure.

The long and the short of it, is that it would take SOMEONE devoting some of their paltry staff resources to challenge the bankruptcy. The BK trustee is the most overloaded in the country, so they won't do it. I'm not kidding you, they don't ever file any objections to confirmation. Ever. They may have some practice of orally objecting at confirmation hearings, but there has not been ONE objection to confirmation filed by this trustee in three years. They just jam everything through, and if there's any malfeasance, they just use it to get a little bigger piece out of the debtor. And that's more or less formalized extortion, near as I can tell, and it makes me sick, because while you can see how it's being used against a fraud in this case, in another situation, they might do that to eke more out of an "honest but unfortunate debtor" who merely had some irregularities with paperwork or something. It's unacceptable.

And the U.S. Trustee won't do it, and the U.S. Attorney won't do it, because they have their guidelines... and nothing worth less than $100K will even get on the radar. So you're left to try to prosecute your fraudulent debtor on your own, with no enforcement, and no transparent process. I'm getting ready to sue the trustee for dereliction of duty. I hate to do it, because I really to sympathize with them, but as the guy says, what's the good of new rules that won't be enforced, or rules enforced against the wrong people?

 

[storybookjim]

I'm new to this forum but I know baloney when I see it.

I've already stepped in, and out, of one bucket of sh*t last week. Another today. And I'm willing to step into yet another. How about we stop identifying people with insulting nicknames and call them by their given names (or corporate names). Ladynred seems to have no problem with that. How about discussing particular case numbers together with case numbers and the districts the BK's were filed in. After all, we're talking public information here which is available to anyone with a PACER account.

Anabanana, Edantes, you listening? We don't need to whine about court procedures or class actions against people in "the system". What we need is a forum that shows no bias toward creditors OR debtors. A level playing field. This ain't it.