I would appreciate if someone can tell me about a specific information on a judgement from a Small Claim Court. Actually, I've taken a judgement against someone from a Small Claim Court 10 yrs ago. I couldn't collect anything from the person because the person has been judgement proof and I have no knowledge of person's assets/job. Back then a judgement used to be for 10 yrs. Later on it changed to 20 yrs. So, those who have taken judgement before can renew it for another 10 yrs (total of 20 yrs). So, my question is- Should I needed to make a request to renew the judgement, that I took 10 yrs ago against someone, before it got expired (meaning within 10 yrs) or Can I still renew it even though 10 yrs has been expired? I mean, I just want to know if renewal request should be made while judgement is valid and within 10 yrs period or it could be made after that 10 yrs passed by?

Also, I know that debtor's car can be seized, and whether debtor has a car could easily be found out through DMV by filing Form MV-15 in NY which will give all the information like Tittle, make, model, if it's loaned , etc. And I also know that Judgement-collector then ask the Sherriff to seize debtor's car. However, what I want to know is that-Isn't the location of the car is equally very important for collection-debtor to know so that sherrif could seize it? I mean, if debtor parks his/her car somewhere else where nobody could find out or many streets away from his/her house, or rents a garage somewhere to park then how judgement-collector would be able to seize the car even if they would be able to know that debtor has a car?

Also, don't you think it would be too much hassel and time/money/energy consuming to judgement-collector to seize debtor's car? Because judgement-collector would need to pay sherrif in advance the fees to seize the car, to tow the car and to keep the car until it's sold. And I'm sure every judgement-collector knows that even if they sell the car, the money first goes to the bank that loaned the car. And since most people's car on loan then I personally don't think any judgement-collector would go after debtor's car unless someone has a luxury car which might be not have that much bank load left on it... Any views would be highly appreciate.

You need to contact the Clerk of Court's office and see if your Judgement is still valid and if it is, does it need to be renewed now? All your other questions are moot if the judgment is not valid.

As I said in my earlier post that any judgement in state of NY is valid/good for 20 yrs now. The one that I have was taken more than 10 yrs ago when a judgement used to be maximum of 10 yrs. But since laws changed lately in this regard then old judgements could be renewed to another 10 yrs. Plus, I did confirm this with Court Clerk and through my extensive search online. However, I forgot to ask the court clerk if it could be renewed now when it's already expired.

The bottom line is that I DO know that judgement could be renewed, but what I'm not sure about and what I'm looking to know is that if a renewal request must be made while judgement is still under 10 yrs period or it could still be renewed once 10 yrs expired?

Once it's expired it's too late. Must be done before it's expired as far as I know.

Thanks for your response. By the way, your such information/knowledge is just a guess, heard of from somewhere, or do you know about it for sure, or have something to back it up?

Yes, a judgement has to be renewed before it expires, once it is expired,it is no longer in effect. The new filing, would be in place on the day it expires, and the renewal would then be in effect.

But this is nothing new, judgements have been able to be renewed for another 10 years for as long as I can remember.

Many judges just sigh off on it, but then of course some will want to know why, after 10 years you think you can still collect, do you have new info on their job or work, or bank accounts, so you could be questioned as to why you want the additional time.

As noted, the ability for a judgement to be renewed is not new. Most states allow judgements to be renewed at least once. But the request for renewal needs to be filed prior to the expiration date.

You mention the debtor was judgement proof. That means that he has not attachable income or assets. If this person has obtained a car loan, then either his situation changed or he wasn't judgement proof.

You have run up against the Catch-22 of suing someone. Getting a judgement is often the easiest part. Its collecting that is hardest. Because its up to the judgement holder to find assets that can attached.

But if you let the judgement expire, then this is all moot.

Yes, a judgement has to be renewed before it expires, once it is expired,it is no longer in effect. The new filing, would be in place on the day it expires, and the renewal would then be in effect.

But this is nothing new, judgements have been able to be renewed for another 10 years for as long as I can remember.

Many judges just sigh off on it, but then of course some will want to know why, after 10 years you think you can still collect, do you have new info on thier job or owrk, or bank accounts, so you could be questioned as to why you want the additional time.

With all due respect to everyone who are answering/posting on my question over here, however, I just want you guys to know that I DO know for sure that-[1] a judgement from small claim court in almost most states if not all remains good for 20 yrs; [2] if judgement was issued when the maximum validity of a judgement is used to be 10 yrs then those judgements could be easily renewed for another 10 yrs to make up the maximum available validity of a judgement which is 20 yrs; [3] it's not up to the judge to renew it or not, rather laws provide a judgement to be renewed at least once without giving any reason; [4] no court or judge ever asks why a judgement should be renewed because everyone knows the purpose of a judgement which is to collect the debt. Just because a debt wasn't collected before or a judgement wasn't enforced because of whatever reason then that doesn't mean it couldn't be enforced later on. Plus, people's situation/circumstances do change. Nobody remains jobless or without a car/house in their whole life. Also, some people might get inheritance money, win lottery, get life insurance money, get money by suing someone like liable/slander suit or auto accident case or etc... So, one can never say when someone could have money. So, having a judgement renewed is always a better approach.

Nevertheless, my question was specific to the fact that if a judgement is already over 10 yrs then could it be renewed for another 10 yrs? Also, I don't see anyone answering to other questions on my earlier posting...

Sorry but a lot of the things you know for sure are not true, at least in most states.

No. If it has expired then you're out of luck, honey. Clear enough? I was a paralegal and renewed judgments enough to know. Thank you. Your other questions were rambling and had no real question other than to show that you have some idea of what you are doing. It's up to you if you wish to expend the money to get the car.

No. If it has expired then you're outta luck, honey. Clear enough? I was a paralegal and renewed judgments enough to know. Thank you. Your other questions were rambling and had no real question other than to show that you have some idea of what you are doing. It's up to you if you wish to expend the money to get the car.


I'm sure you see my other questions as rambling; otherwise you would have known that there are many questions, such as whether location of the car is also needed for a judgement-collector in order to give it to sherrif if s/he wants to go ahead to seize debtor's car; also if you guys think judgement-collector would pursue in seizing debtor's car despite of knowing debter owns a car given all the fees associated in advance in seizing debtor's car and still not been able to get paid?

If you say that you were a paralegal, then I don't think these questions might have been difficult for you to answer. But since you could see only rambling than questions than you have said a lot about yourself, with all due respect.

Thanks for responding on here...

First, how do you know for a fact that a small claims judgement remains good for 20 years? As far as I know, most judgements have a 10 yr expiration but can be renewed for at least another 10 yrs. But they have to be renewed. And yes renewal is not subject to judicial review, no one said it was. As long as you file the paperwork on time, the renewal is granted.

Since you apparently didn't renew on time, all the other issues are moot. But to answer, it generally is not worth trying to grab a car. Unless you know the car can be sold for more that the debt. And yes, the sheriff needs to be told where the car is and they cannot go onto private property to repo it.

With all due respect... everything is moot, honey, as the judgement has already expired. You should have asked us this question a long time ago before the 10 years came and went. Can't catch the horse once it's out of the barn once it's run off, now can we?

First, how do you know for a fact that a small claims judgement remains good for 20 years? As far as I know, most judgements have a 10 yr expiration but can be renewed for at least another 10 yrs. But they have to be renewed. And yes renewal is not subject to judicial review, no one said it was. As long as you file the paperwork on time, the renewal is granted.

Since you apparently didn't renew on time, all the other issues are moot. But to answer, it generally is not worth trying to grab a car. Unless you know the car can be sold for more that the debt. And yes, the sheriff needs to be told where the car is and they cannot go onto private property to repo it.

Thanks for the response, which helps a lot.

Just to clear it up- I've a judgement against someone which was taken more than 10 yrs ago. So, renewal question pertains to me being a judgement-collector. As for other questions, then I'm a debtor wherein I've been judgement proof for the last 9 yrs, but now deciding to buy a new car, in hope that they judgement-collectors won't find out or do anything, especially when they have not done anything like putting a lien on my bank accounts even though I do have 3 bank accounts all along. That's a different fact that I don't keep money in there... lol... I know I could have filed bankruptcy a long time ago and even now I could file it, but since until now I have had nothing to lose, so filing a bankruptcy was useless especially when I wasn't mentally disturbed by my tarnished financial situation as to rush to court to file a bankruptcy.

Now, as I said that I'm thinking to buy a car as my credit is Excellent. I got $45 loan for a car. I've no intention to ruin my credit unless these old creditors (who took judgements against me a long time ago) come back. I cannot make a deal with them, nor I can pay off the entire judgement because the total amount to 3 previous judgements is $80,000. So, I would be better off filing bankruptcy than paying such an amount just to keep my credit good. I've had a lot of credit cards back 10-15 yrs ago, 35 of them. I ran up to half million dollars on them. I had them for many years and was making payment on time. But all of sudden, I had terrible financial situation because of divorce in 1997 and lose in the business, which made me not being able to pay off the debt. I thought to file a bankruptcy, but decided to put off because I had nothing to lose. And now, all those accounts, including judgements are off from my credit reports. Plus, those credit card companies and banks cannot seek money back from me because Statute of Limitation has run out as it's 6 yrs in NY while all these debt were of more than 10 yrs ago ones. The only creditors who could come after me are those who were able to take judgement against me.

Anyway, I was seeking information if creditors would go through all these hassels to seize a car knowing that they will end up paying a lot more for nothing.

As for other poster's question why I didn't come over here before to seek the answer then I just came to know about this site only today. Secondly, I didn't take the judgement against that person to primarily collect the debt; rather to teach the person how to make fool out of someone. I did aggressively followed this person to enforce the judgement, but there are many people like myself who knows or keeps themselves "judgement proof"... lol

Appreciate everyone's response.

Well if you would have specified that the car question was from the debtor's side, we might have answered that initially. But it was a valid assumption that you were looking to collect on a debt by seizing a car.

However, I'm sorry, but I cannot support your being a deadbeat. If you have unpaid judgements against you then you reneged on valid debts. I can understand why were unable to pay them at the time, but you have, apparently rebuilt your finances. So you should be contacting your creditors to arrange settlements.

sorry but alot of the things you know for sure are not true, at least in most states.

I am sure that in MOST STATES the maximum validity of a judgement is now 20 yrs. Nevertheless, my questions weren't about what I know for sure; rather it was something else which I believe have been answered.

Well if you would have specified that the car question was from the debtor's side, we might have answered that initially. But it was a valid assumption that you were looking to collect on a debt by seizing a car.

However, I'm sorry, but I cannot support your being a deadbeat. If you have unpaid judgements against you then you reneged on valid debts. I can understand why were unable to pay them at the time, but you have, apparently rebuilt your finances. So you should be contacting your creditors to arrange settlements.

I did NOT say that I've rebuit my FINANCES; instead what I said is that I've rebuild my credit. And I also said that there is no way I could pay off what I owe, and that I would be better off filing bankruptcy than paying off such an amount that I owe. There is no brainer that someone pays such a huge amount just because his/her finance has somewhat gotten better unless we are talking millions of dollars. There is a reason for bankrupticy laws to be there, and there is nothing wrong/ashamed of filing bankruptcy or looking the protection by filing bankrutpcy, in my humble opinion. And finally, although I appreciate your opinion whatever it has been, I don't think I was looking information on how to take care of judgement or what is morally wrong. I was simply asking how to avoid judgement-collectors to seize car, if it's possible. That's all. If I want to pay them back or if I can really pay them back what I owe to them, then there had not been a reason for me to be on this site asking all these questions...

I would appreciate if someone can tell me about a specific information on a judgement from a Small Claim Court. Actually, I've taken a judgement against someone from a Small Claim Court 10 yrs ago. I couldn't collect anything from the person because the person has been judgement proof and I have no knowledge of person's assets/job. Back then a judgement used to be for 10 yrs. Later on it changed to 20 yrs. So, those who have taken judgement before can renew it for another 10 yrs (total of 20 yrs). So, my question is- Should I needed to make a request to renew the judgement, that I took 10 yrs ago against someone, before it got expired (meaning within 10 yrs) or Can I still renew it even though 10 yrs has been expired?? I mean, I just want to know if renewal request should be made while judgement is valid and within 10 yrs period or it could be made after that 10 yrs passed by??

Also, I know that debtor's car can be seized, and whether or not debtor has a car could easily be found out thru DMV by filing Form MV-15 in NY which will give all the information like Tittle, make, model, if it's loaned and etc. And I also know that Judgement-collector then ask the Sherriff to seize debtor's car. However, what I want to know is that-Isn't the location of the car is equally very important for collection-debtor to know so that sherrif could seize it? I mean, if debtor parks his/her car somewhere else where nobody could find out or many streets away from his/her house, or rents a garage somewhere to park then how judgement-collector would be able to seize the car even if they would be able to know that debtor has a car??

Also, don't you think it would be too much hassel and time/money/energy consuming to judgement-collector to seize debtor's car? Because judgement-collector would need to pay sherrif in advance the fees to seize the car, to tow the car and to keep the car until it's sold. And I'm sure every judgement-collector knows that even if they sell the car, the money first goes to the bank that loaned the car. And since most people's car on loan then I personally don't think any judgement-collector would go after debtor's car unless someone has a luxury car which might be not have that much bank load left on it... Any views would be highly appreciate.
I am also in NYS - as far as the judgment is concerned: "A judgment creditor has 20 years running from the date of entry of the judgment, or the date of subsequent payments on the judgment, whichever is later, to enforce collection of the judgment. In the case of real property judgment liens, enforcement must be concluded within 10 years from the date of the judgment, unless extended for an additional 10-year period by order of the court prior to the expiration of the first 10-year period." From what I can tell it's an automatic renewal; it was 10 years, the statute changed it to 20; judgments converted from the 10 year expiration to the 20 without additional paperwork.

[QUOTE=SAM2008]Thanks for the response, which helps a lot.

Just to clear it up- I've a judgement against someone which was taken more than 10 yrs ago. So, renewal question pertains to me being a judgement-collector. As for other questions, then I'm a debtor wherein I've been judgement proof for the last 9 yrs, but now deciding to buy a new car, in hope that they judgement-collectors won't find out or do anything, especially when they have not done anything like putting a lien on my bank accounts even though I do have 3 bank accounts all along. That's a different fact that I don't keep money in there... lol... I know I could have filed bankruptcy a long time ago and even now I could file it, but since until now I have had nothing to lose, so filing a bankruptcy was useless especially when I wasn't mentally disturbed by my tarnished financial situation as to rush to court to file a bankruptcy.

Now, as I said that I'm thinking to buy a car as my credit is Excellent. I got $45 loan for a car. I've no intention to ruin my credit unless these old creditors (who took judgements against me a long time ago) come back. I cannot make a deal with them, nor I can pay off the entire judgement because the total amount to 3 previous judgements is $80,000. So, I would be better off filing bankruptcy than paying such an amount just to keep my credit good. I've had a lot of credit cards back 10-15 yrs ago, 35 of them. I ran up to half million dollars on them. I had them for many years and was making payment on time. But all of sudden, I had terrible financial situation because of divorce in 1997 and lose in the business, which made me not being able to pay off the debt. I thought to file a bankruptcy, but decided to put off because I had nothing to lose. And now, all those accounts, including judgements are off from my credit reports. Plus, those credit card companies and banks cannot seek money back from me because Statute of Limitation has run out as it's 6 yrs in NY while all these debt were of more than 10 yrs ago ones. The only creditors who could come after me are those who were able to take judgement against me.

Anyway, I was seeking information if creditors would go through all these hassels to seize a car knowing that they will end up paying a lot more for nothing.

As for other poster's question why I didn't come over here before to seek the answer then I just came to know about this site only today. Secondly, I didn't take the judgement against that person to primarily collect the debt; rather to teach the person how to make fool out of someone. I did aggressively followed this person to enforce the judgement, but there are many people like myself who knows or keeps themselves "judgement proof"... lol

I think if this had been a lot less convoluted in the beginning this would have been a shorter thread! Anyway - filing bankruptcy is not the easy walk it used to be; given your current financial situation I would be surprised if you were allowed to file straight bankruptcy and not forced into a "pay pennies on the dollar" situation. Can't speak for all creditors but, yes, I've seen cars seized when the creditor just about breaks even on the seizure. Sounds like you feel you are savvy in keeping yourself "judgment proof" and beating the system - and that's exactly what the debtor did to you.

I'd talk to an Attorney before I made any plans.

filing bankruptcy is not the easy walk it used to be; given your current financial situation I would be surprised if you were allowed to file straight bankruptcy and not forced into a "pay pennies on the dollar" situation. Can't speak for all creditors but, yes, I've seen cars seized when the creditor just about breaks even on the seizure. Sounds like you feel you are savvy in keeping yourself "judgment proof" and beating the system - and that's exactly what the debtor did to you.

I'd talk to an Attorney before I made any plans.

Again, PLEASE do focus on the asked questions than which were not asked. I didn't ask anything about bankruptcy as to how "uneasy walk" it would be given new bankruptcy law. I know ALL about bankruptcy laws and changes that took place in new bankruptcy laws. I know what is the deal.

And I don't know what made you to think/say "given your current finanical situation I would surprised if you were allowed to file straight bankrupcty and not forced into a "pay pennies on the dollar" situation". Why? Because I nowhere said anything about my financial situaiton. All I said about my credit, which is different than financial situation. Let me tell you something-I'm TOTALLY eligible to file Ch-7 bankruptcy. Why? Because my income is less below the "mean test" income which is described in new laws. Plus, I don't have any secured debt to worry about.

It doesn't seem you know much about new bankruptcy laws. There is not much changes occur in new bankruptcy laws for those who don't make enough money. Let me tell you the basic changes that took place in new bankruptcy laws- [1] now each bankruptcy-filer will need to have a debt-budget counseling and file the certificate of it with bankruptcy petition; [2] now there is an income criteria to file Ch-7 (wiping out the whole debt without losing anything), meaning if someone has enough household income then they won't be able to get rid of whole debt. This income criteria is based upon the state where applicant lives in. So, if someone stills is not making enough money then they can still file bankruptcy under Ch-7; [3] filing fees has increased now from $200 to $300. [4] now people needs to "reaffirm" or "renew" their secured debts (like mortgage, car loan etc) if they want to keep the car or house unlike before people can just keep continuing making payments to those creditors despite of filing bankruptcy, but not anymore. Other than these there is nothing big changes.

As for saying I'm being savvy in beating the system then who doesn't like to beat the system especially if their situation/cirucumstances are different?? And it's not that I did things purposely; instead sometimes things happen. As for creditors beating the system over me then they were just able to get the judgement, but couldn't enforce it despite of it. So, who has beaten the system over whom? Just for your kind information, creditors (thru collection attorneys) ALWAYS take a judgement for at least 20-40% extra what you owe. They know very well that 90% people don't even show up in the court. If I wanted to fight, I had done very easily and could have wasted their time/energy/money in draging the lawsuit up to State Supreme Court, which not only would have taken years to resolve the problem but also might have discouraged these creditors to forget their debts. Why? Because these creditors must need to be represented by attorneys and trial and appeallate attorneys don't come cheap. So, it would have costed them a fortune. So, most creditors just move on. As for me, then I could have represented myself and have gotten "indigency" status which would have allowed me to get away from filing fees and fees for the trasnscript , etc. I've represented myself in two cases before and took the matter up to State Supreme Court and was able to reverse the judgement. So, it's all up to you as to how determined, aggressive, energetic and informative you are. If you want to rely on attorneys or want to get scared from those who are respresented by attorneys then so be it, but I'm not scared. The only reason I did not fight against those two judgements because I knew that I'm a judgement proof. Plus, I knew that I would be filing for bankruptcy sooner or later... which is a protection that laws provide to us under US Constitution... If creditors know how to use system on us, then we should also know how to use the system on them. It works both ways.

As for saying I'm being savvy in beating the system then who doesn't like to beat the system especially if their situation/cirucumstances are different??

I suspect a lot of people pay their bills, don't try to beat the system, don't plead different circumstances - and then try to pursue people who did exactly the same thing and left them holding a bad debt.

I've attended the continuing Bankruptcy Education classes - the changes aren't as simplistic as you would lead people to believe (or else there would be no need for the classes).

As for saying I'm being savvy in beating the system then who doesn't like to beat the sytem especially if their situation/cirucumstances are different?????

I suspect a lot of people pay their bills, don't try to beat the system, don't plead different circumstances - and then try to pursue people who did exactly the same thing and left them holding a bad debt.

I've attended the continuing Bankruptcy Education classes - the changes aren't as simplistic as you would lead people to believe (or else there would be no need for the classes).

Yes, a lot of people pay their bills and don't ry to beat the system, but then there are many people also who are unable to pay their bills for whatever circumstances/situations. So, you cannot judge them. Besides, bankruptcy law is designed/created to protect them; otherwise you had not filed for a bankruptcy.


The changes that I've mentioned having taking place in new bankruptcy laws are there to see by everyone. Thus, I'm NOT misleading anyone. Secondly, I did mention that there is a need to take a couselling. Plus, consueling is JUST a formality and there is nothing HARD about it. It's just that Congress made a requirement that when you file for a bankruptcy then you would need a certificate about attending that counseling. So, what is hard for getting counseling? Maybe for you, but counseling is just a consueling. Don't impose hardship of your case to others. There is nothing hard about attending two sessions of counseling classes. Okay?

Just because new changes don't seem simplistic in your situation then that doesn't mean they are not sympalistic. As I already said that if someone doesn't make enough money then there is nothing changed for him/her because s/he could still file Ch-7 bankruptcy. As for other specific changes then I did mention in my earlier postings. I personally don't see anything hard in those changes except that you cannot file for CH-7 if income of your household is to level. And, now you need to reaffirm car/house loan. Other than nothing is complicated and hard.

Yes, a lot of people pay their bills and don't ry to beat the system, but then there are many people also who are unable to pay their bills for whatever circumstances/situations. So, you cannot judge them. Besides, bankruptcy law is designed/created to protect them; otherwise you had not filed for a bankruptcy.


The changes that I've mentioned having taking place in new bankruptcy laws are there to see by everyone. Thus, I'm NOT misleading anyone. Secondly, I did mention that there is a need to take a couselling. Plus, consueling is JUST a formality and there is nothing HARD about it. It's just that Congress made a requirement that when you file for a bankruptcy then you would need a certificate about attending that couseling. So, what is hard for getting counseling?? Maybe for you, but counseling is just a consueling. Don't impose hardship of your case to others. There is nothing hard about attending two sessions of counseling classes. Okay?

Just because new changes don't seem simplistic in your situation then that doesn't mean they are not sympalistic. As I already said that if someone doesn't make enough money then there is nothing changed for him/her because s/he could still file Ch-7 bankruptcy. As for other specific changes then I did mention in my earlier postings. I personally don't see anything hard in those changes except that you cannot file for CH-7 if income of your household is to level. And, now you need to reaffirm car/house loan. Other than nothing is complicated and hard.


I DIDN'T say I was attending bankruptcy counseling - I said I'm attending CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CLASSES ABOUT THE CHANGES IN THE BANKRUPTCY LAWS. They are two separate things. I am not imposing the "hardship of my case" on anyone; I don't have a case!

You're the one who posted you got a $45,000 car loan - presumably you have enough income to pay off that loan; I question why you don't have enough income to pay pennies on the dollar to pay off your debts. The Court very well may have that same question.

Otherwise you are entitled to your interpretation of the new regulations and I am entitled to mine -

Okay?

I DIDN'T say I was attending bankruptcy counseling - I said I'm attending CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CLASSES ABOUT THE CHANGES IN THE BANKRUPTCY LAWS. They are two separate things. I am not imposing the "hardship of my case" on anyone; I don't have a case!

You're the one who posted you got a $45,000 car loan - presumably you have enough income to pay off that loan; I question why you don't have enough income to pay pennies on the dollar to pay off your debts. The Court very well may have that same question.

Otherwise you are entitled to your interpretation of the new regulations and I am entitled to mine -

Okay?


Okay, I just realized that you did not say that you were attending bankruptcy counseling, instead you said about attening continuing legal education classes in respect to bankruptcy laws. So, my apology. But the way you wrote about it then it does confuse.

And yes, I did say that I got $45K for a car loan but that doesn't mean I don't fall under mean test to file bankruptcy under CH-7. CH-7 has to do with your income, which they call-mean test as per your state you live in.

As for bank to giving me such a loan then I'm sure you know that banks always grant such a loan for buying a car especially if you have an Excellent credit. I've excellent credit right now because all the bad accounts disappeared from my credit reports after 10 yrs later. Not only that, two of my previous creditors reported excellent credit history to credit reporting agencies even though those account were charged off. So, based upon those reported excellent credit history on previous accounts, every creditors are offering me more than $10k. I know if I didn't have those accounts on my credit reports or if they weren't as good as they are not then there is no way in this world I would be getting such a big line of credit, instead establishing my credit from the scratch and it might have taken years to get that much of line of credit.

The another reason banks easily give car loan because there is no way out for debtors to get away. Because if you don't pay them back, they will take your car away. Car loan is a secured loan. That's why I'm sure you have heard that even if you have filed bankruptcy and have a bad credit, you will still get a car loan. Similarly, I was given such a big car loan, which doesn't mean I make good money to not to qualify for Ch-7.

As for your questions why don't I pay pennies on the dollars towards my debts then the simple answer is - The only those people pay pennies on the dollars who have no other choice, like if they don't qualify for Ch-7 or have many things to lose (which I can not describe in detail here); otherwise everyone wants to get away free. Having said that, there is no need for me to file CH-13 to pay my debts as pennies on the dollars when I qualify for ch-7 to wipe all my debt. Do not forget the fact that I've no assets whatsoever. Also, people MUST have to have a continuing source of income/job to qualify for Ch-13 (pennies on the dollars thing).

Those who consider to file bankruptcy, like to get away without paying anything. Almost everyone. But once they know that they can't then they have no other option just file Ch-13. So, why would I pay pennies on the dollars when I totally qualify to get rid of everything without a hitch as bankruptcy laws provide such a protection to me? Also, I own more than $80K... so go figure how much "pennies" I would be paying for such an amount if I decide to pay "pennies on the dollars".

Those who consider to file bankruptcy, like to get away without paying anything. Almost everyone. But once they know that they can't then they have no other option just file Ch-13. So, why would I pay pennies on the dollars when I totally qualify to get rid of everything without a hitch as bankruptcy laws provide such a protection to me? Also, I own more than $80K... so go figure how much "pennies" I would be paying for such an amount if I decide to pay "pennies on the dollars".


Maybe people like me don't want to pay higher interest and/or higher purchase prices to pay off the debts that people who file in bankruptcy don't bother to pay. Maybe that's why this whole scenario gives me pause.

So you are saying you make enough to make payments on a $45,000 car loan - which is, of course, secured - but not enough to pay off your debts?