In response to the last paragraph, are you saying the "courts are more forgiving" in terms of how the debtor is handled or their case is handled? I interpret it to mean the courts give the debtor the benefit of the doubt by not pressing charges against debtor for not disclosing the information; however, a discharge is still denied. What steps are taken to ensure a debtor has disclosed any and all assets? Does the Trustee bear the responsibility of verifying asset information? Do individual creditors challenge the debtor's disclosure of assets? At what point would this come up and what would the debtor's options be at that point?

Is there any example you could offer of a transfer that is or would be acceptable to courts? If a transfer were truly legitimate, is there no way to document or prove to the courts that the debtor's intent was not fraudulent or gainful?

When I say that the courts are more forgiving when it comes to not disclosing assets I am referring to my analysis of the case law. For example, in a recent reported case, a dentist who filed bankruptcy failed to list a cash value insurance policy because he had forgotten that he owned this policy and/or that it was a cash value policy as opposed to a term policy.

The judge in that case accepted his explanation that this error was reasonable and legitimate.

By contrast, in another case, a man transferred title to a parcel of property to a relative several months prior to bankruptcy, then, after speaking with counsel, had his relative transfer it back to him prior to filing. The judge in this case recognized that the debtor was trying to do the right thing but concluded that the law did not permit someone to "undo" a transfer. In this case, the debtor was denied a discharge because of this "fraudulent" transfer.

When we speak of a "fraudulent" transfer, we are not talking about the debtor's wrongful intent. "Fraudulent transfers" for bankruptcy purposes are transfers that occur within a certain period of time, regardless of the debtor's intent.

Thus, one may not have any wrongful intent in one's mind, but you can still get caught in this trap.

What if someone signed a quit claim deed to sell his/her share of property to siblings who co-owned it with them prior to the bankruptcy being discharged? The siblings have been fighting, a sister-in-law has been fighting, an entire family has been fighting. What if this quit claim manuever was the only thing left to resolve the issue? Would the bankruptcy courts have a problem with this?

I think that any transfer to or from relatives within 1 year prior to filing is a problem. No matter what the reason. If the bankruptcy was already filed, I think that the trustee is going to have a problem with any reduction of the bankruptcy estate without permission. If you did all this without a lawyer, you need to consult with lawyer sooner rather than later.

I have just received my Discharge–with order approving Trustee's report of no distribution, closing estate, discharging Trustee–etc.

Yet one credit card creditor had filed a summons to determine the debt dischargeability of $7200 just prior to the deadline. This debt was incurred within one month prior to my filing just before the new laws took effect. The bulk of this debt consisted of using credit to only partially cover funeral expenses, and cash advance and assistence to my step- daughter and her 3 children upon her death 6 months ago –due to terminal cancer. No luxeries.

All of my resources had gone to her and her family in the months before her illness sustained in Atlanta —and in relocating her to Denver for special treatments.

I filed for relief just before the new laws upon friends recommendations—all other creditors have not contested debt repayment and now that my discharge was granted can not I assume.?????

However, the above's attorney claims I misrepresented my intent to repay and obtained credit under false pretenses and/or fraud. I have answered through an attorney–denying all claims.

Questions: How strong of a case does this appear? How hard are the courts in Atlanta in general to debtors with legitimate and survival based debts incurred within 60 days prior to filling (before the new laws) and now in this new climate?

appreciate any light you can shine here.

David, with the disclaimer that I cannot comment about your case specifically because you are represented and because I do not have all the facts, I would say this. Take a look at Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(2). It says that a credit card type debt is presumed not dischargeable if it totals over $1,000 within 60 days prior to filing and was used for purchases of "luxury goods or services"

OR

there was a material misrepresentation as to your financial condition (note that there is no luxury goods/services language to this part)

Generally the creditor's argument is that at the time you incurred the debt you knew or should have known that you did not have the financial wherewithal to pay it back (thus the material misrepresentation).

The practical issue here, in my view, is how much are you going to spend with your lawyer to fight over $7,200?

I have not litigated a fact pattern like this, but I suspect that you would need evidence that at the time you incurred the debt you had a reasonable expectation to repay the debt. There may be other proof you can raise about why your use of credit was reasonable. Again, I suspect that the issue will have to do with your ability to pay at the time you incurred the debt as opposed to the nature of the debts themselves.

Most of these cases settle for between 30 and 70% of the debt owed, often with monthly payments and no interest.

Even the judges in Atlanta who are arguably the most sympathetic to the plight of debtors in general have no choice but to apply the law. I also think that if anything the judges before whom I have appeared are probably more sympathetic to debtors post October 17 but there may is often little defense absent clear evidence of the debtor's ability to repay.

As noted above, your attorney is clearly the best source of advice for you and my comments are intended as general observations only.