March 07, 2005
The bankruptcy blog
Bankruptcy expert Professor Elizabeth Warren and three of her students are running a blog on the state of the awful MBNA-favored bankruptcy bill as an adjuct to Josh Marshall's site. Pretty cool. Check it out.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on March 07, 2005 to Blog stuff
I have the most common of names. Since the bankrupcy legislation was enacted, I have recieved almost daily phone call from law firms advising me to call their office to discuss my outstanding debts. I have none. Perhaps the legislation should be tweaked to require the collectors make due dilligence to get the right debtor.
It appears that bankruptcy reform is not working as creditors had hoped. I have not had a single client since reform state that they are going to consolidate instead. Debtors are simply put through the ringer again.
Facts: the time bar under Rule 4004 has passed and a particular creditor had filed a timely complaint under 523 causes but not under 727.
In a related adversary proceeding in connection with the case with the same parties, the debtor swears to statements which are false oaths and material enough to justify a denial of discharge under 727(a)(4). How is it possible for this to be properly raised and heard by the Court? The judge is very pro-debtor biased and will not permit amendments to the complaint.Further, the judge refuses to adopt or apply equitable principles having determined that under Kontrick v Ryan the USCt has, in her opinion,construed time bars strictly-period.What woould be the proper procedure to bring these allegations? The court actually knows these allegations could potentially deny discharge but will not sua sponte apply 105a.