.jpg)
Objections to 2004 Examination
Some people make decisions based on emotion and not legal viability. The
"personal vendetta" creditors are of course the most likely to do 2004 exams
and file (flimsy?) 523 motions. If they want to spend their money to vent
their frustrations, I believe the bankruptcy code gives them great latitude.
At some point, their claim will be heard by a court and ultimately
adjudicated. But when I hear about these very personal claims in a
consultation, it's a sign that this will not be a cookie-cutter case, and
something to alert the potential client to, and of course, explain the scope
of your representation and foreseeable future costs. Hale
_____
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Perhaps on the basis that the bogus creditor is not a party in interest
entitled to an examination under Rule 2004? Not sure what "bogus creditor"
means but I'm assuming the debtor didn't really owe the money - in which
case, I'm guessing you marked the debt on Schedule F as "disputed."
Jay
Perhaps on the basis that the bogus creditor is not a party in interest entitled to an examination under Rule 2004? Not sure what "b
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I recently filed a no asset Chapter 7 for a client who had, among others, a
bogus debt for professional services. I didn't think much of the debt as it
was unsecured until the bogus creditor showed up to the 341 meeting. The
trustee allowed him to go on a fishing expedition (over my objections) for
the purpose of uncovering allegedly hidden assets and fraudulent transfers.
He essentially asked the same questions about assets that are required to be
disclosed in Schedules A and B. The trustee eventually cut it off and ended
the 341. However, now the bogus creditor is going to file a motion for a
2004 examination. Bogus Creditor has been harassing and tormenting my
client for years and has a personal vendetta against him. The statute seems
to allow any party to demand a 2004 examination without any limitations
other than a Rule 26 protective order which is only partially on point and
I'm unsure how it would apply here as this isn't discovery within an action.
I could not find any case law on the issue. Is there any legal authority to
stop the 2004 or order him to show cause before going forward with it? Has
anyone dealt with this issue before? Thank you.
Cameron Totten
ctotten@ctottenlaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.