file a judgement after bankruptcy? - Posted by luke-NC

Posted by Ben (NJ) on July 10, 2003 at 17:05:42:

John said “ALL creditors and debts”, maybe there is some lesser protection for unsecured creditors but if a secured creditor has a valid lack of notice argument, then why would an unsecured creditor be precluded from the same argument? I used a tax lien example because I am a large buyer of tax liens and this scenario has happened to me multiple times and I have yet to lose a dime.

file a judgement after bankruptcy? - Posted by luke-NC

Posted by luke-NC on July 09, 2003 at 18:33:46:

an investor friend of mine held a 2nd on a property and the 1st foreclosed, the owner filed chapter 7 and had all his debts discharged including my friend’s 2nd.

is it possible to still file a judgement for and then try to collect on the judgement?

Was he a named Creditor in the BK? - Posted by JT-IN

Posted by JT-IN on July 09, 2003 at 19:52:35:

If so, he would be well advised to attempt claiming some of the GOLD perported to be housed in Fort Knox, instead of attempting such a foolish feat.

If by some chance they failed to mention him or the Debt in the BK, then the Creditor can still pursue him. Doubtful however, unless he was using an inept Atty.


Confused. - Posted by Redline

Posted by Redline on July 10, 2003 at 02:34:18:

A mortgage is a secured debt, so how does this get wiped out in BK? I assume this means the 1st foreclosed, the house sold at auction for enough to cover the first but not the second? Then the owner declared BK and wiped the obligation?


Irrelevant if NOTnamed Creditor - Posted by John Merchant

Posted by John Merchant on July 09, 2003 at 21:34:22:


I’m sure no authority on BK, but doing some recent legal reading at law library and discovered that ALL creditors & debts are covered, whether named or not! It was sure news to me, as I’d previously thought only the “mentioned” ones were discharged, but apparently that was wrong.

Live and learn, huh?

Ch 7 BK relieves the Debtor - Posted by JT-IN

Posted by JT-IN on July 10, 2003 at 06:03:35:


A dishcarged Ch 7 Bk will provide relief to the Debtor of these debts, under federal BK law. Any secured creditor has priority to pursue collection of it’s collateral once they receive relief from stay. Whatever they realize from their collection efforts, from the secured property, up to the amount of of the indebtedness, is theirs to keep. Any shortfall is at a loss.

In an instance such as this case where the 2nd has been foreclosed and no lonnger maintains a secured position, and the BK is discharged, then the Creditor can no longer pursue the Debtor, due to the discharge in BK. A secured asset is the only hope that a creditor has to collect, unless there is a partial distribution to creditors from the Trustee. Short of that, there is no reprisal to Debtor.


I don’t think so… - Posted by Ben (NJ)

Posted by Ben (NJ) on July 10, 2003 at 09:29:31:

Oftentimes I have a tax lien which is two years old and I get title work done with the intent of starting foreclosure. It is then I find out a BK was filed a year ago and no one notified me. If the BK is still on, I still file a Proof of claim and request the plan be modified to include me. If it is not done it is my understanding that my claim will pass through and survive the bankruptcy. Therefore I just wait until its discharged and start my foreclosure. It seems to me this is just basic due process (opportunity to be heard, etc). They can’t just discharge my debt without ever notifying me about it.

I agree with JM - Posted by JD

Posted by JD on July 10, 2003 at 14:44:43:

Although an unnoticed unsecured creditor could petition the bankruptcy court and attempt to show cause why their debt should not be discharged, it would be an exercise in futility if their only cause of action was that they were not noticed of the bankruptcy. I don’t understand why you site as an example a tax lien which is of course a secured debt, and hence not subject to discharge as a judgment would be. IMHO