RB_Hammer 0 #1 September 23, 2008 This poor guy is ordered by a bankrupcy judge to pay back a criminal that stole from him as well as pay the criminal's legal fees as part of his BK judgement. Simply crazy... Story here"I'm not lost. I don't know where I'm going, but there's no sense in being late." Mathew Quigley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #2 September 23, 2008 The gist that I get is that the thief filed for bankruptcy two months before the judgment went against him, so that when the judgment found for the guy he ripped off and ordered the thief to pay him back, he was supposed to be protected against that by the bankruptcy filing and thus gets reimbursed for money he paid to the victim of the theft after the judgment was made. Well, if he is now saying that he should get back the money he paid his victim because he was supposed to be protected at that time by the bankruptcy filing, why the fuck did he pay any money at all?! It's lookin' like Poveromo's only recourse might end up being to have this fuckin' piece of shit whacked! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #3 September 23, 2008 QuoteThis poor guy is ordered by a bankrupcy judge to pay back a criminal that stole from him as well as pay the criminal's legal fees as part of his BK judgement. Simply crazy... Story here The problem was that the prosecutor didn't make, or appears he didn't make the debt restitution, which is considered BK-proof. It was probably just an agreement to repay - that's my guess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #4 September 23, 2008 Then why did the guy agree to pay a fucking thing if he believed he was protected by bankruptcy? I was told that if you have a bill that goes to collection, when they call you and ask you to, "Just send us $10 to get started, to show us good faith that you're gonna pay," that ends up constituting a capitulation that you do acknowledge that the debt is yours. I think this guy acknowledged that he believed he owed this money, when he paid anything at all. Besides, why can't the court look at this guy as the THIEF and make it hard for HIM instead of hard for his VICTIM?!Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #5 September 23, 2008 This is a classic "Mom and apple pie" story designed to provoke outrage; but because of the emotional appeal, the editorial angle of the reporting is misleading. But while I sympathize with the victim, and don't think he should have been made to pay attorney's fees, I do agree with the trial judge that he had to pay the money back, because the restitution payments violated the automatic stay of claims imposed by the bankruptcy court. Mind you: the money would be paid back into a "bankruptcy estate" fund of assets administered by the US Trustee in Bankruptcy. If I owe money to Bill, Ted and Alice, and then file bankruptcy, the bankruptcy laws expressly prohibit me from unilaterally paying Bill back only, because that screws Ted and Alice out of the chance to claim a fair share of whatever funds I used to pay Bill. Instead, my non-exempt assets become part of my estate in bankruptcy, and that is administered by the US Trustee to assure that ALL of my creditors have an equal chance to file a claim against my bankruptcy estate. Once you file bankruptcy, only the Bankruptcy judge (or the US Trustee with the approval of the Bankruptcy judge) can give you permission to pay a debt that existed prior to your filing. So what the judge did here was not to for the sake of benefiting a morally undeserving thief, it was to remedy a violation of the Bankruptcy Code and assure that ALL of the thief's creditors would be treated fairly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
