.jpg)
UST requesting Amended I to include nonfiling spouse's income,
I have never had the UST before say that a nonfiling spouse's income must
be disclosed on Schedule I when there is a valid prenup rendering the
spouse's income separate property.
This is the email from the UST: "We noted in reviewing this case that the
debtor did not report the income of his non-filing spouse on Schedule I,
apparently citing pre- and post-nuptial agreements that provide that her
income is not community property. That is not a basis for omitting the
income of the non-filing spouse on Schedule I. If the non-filing spouse
and the debtor are living together, information concerning the non-filing
spouse is required. Please have the debtor file an amended Schedule I that
includes all of the information required by the Official Form."
This is in Idaho, by the way. Is the UST correct? I am surprised by
this. Any guidance you can provide is appreciated.
Holly Roark
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
*and Sports Lawyer*
holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
*Central District of California & District of Idaho* - Consumer Bankruptcy
Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
I have never had the UST before say that a nonfiling spouse's income must be disclosed on Schedule I when there is a valid prenup rendering the spouse's income separate property. This is the email from the UST: "We noted in reviewing this case that the debtor did not
report the income of his non-filing spouse on Schedule I, apparently citing
pre- and post-nuptial agreements that provide that her income is not community
property. That is not a basis for omitting the income of the non-filing
spouse on Schedule I. If the non-filing spouse and the debtor are living
together, information concerning the non-filing spouse is required.
Please have the debtor file an amended Schedule I that includes all of the
information required by the Official Form."
This is in Idaho, by the way. Is the UST correct? I am surprised by this. Any guidance you can provide is appreciated.Holly RoarkCertified Bankruptcy Specialist*and Sports Lawyer
holly@roarklawoffices.com**primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California & District of Idaho - Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
The post was migrated from Yahoo.