Yes. The laws were reformed in Oct. 05.
Specific answer to you question is no, what you heard is NOT true. And, the point of bankruptcy is still the same.
The are a few more hoops to jump through, and there is a means test which evaluates your household income over the past six months. The means test can be a challenge to those who have an upper-middle class income.
But the truth is, 90% of people who qualified for Chapter 7 bankruptcy prior to the law change will still qualify under the new laws.
The changes to the debts that are dischargeable is complex, and in most cases don't even come up. They doesn't even affect most individual consumer bankruptcies.
As far as consumer debts (ie credit cards, medical debts, personal loans), the laws really haven't changed.
Student loans, most taxes, civil penalities, child support, and some other specific debts are NOT dischargeable. But they have not been dischargeable since long before this latest reform.
Anyone considering bankruptcy should have a consultation with a reputable bankruptcy attorney. They almost always offer free consultations. Like I said, there ARE a few more hoops to jump through (more expensive, need more paperwork, mandatory credit counseling & debtor education), but with the help of an attorney, they are easily navigable.
2007-03-01 11:59:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by strangefire2004 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
At this site you can find solutions from different companies: CREDIT-SOLUTIONS.INFO-
RE Bankruptcy... have the laws on it changed?
I've heard that declaring bankruptcy doesn't necessarily free you of any outstanding debts anymore. Is this true? If so, what's the point?
I'm not about to declare bankruptcy but this is a discussion some of us were having today.
.
2014-10-04 11:02:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The laws have changed, and depending on the type of bankruptcy you declare you can be freed from all debts or pay it back over a certain amount of time. I know that in Chapter 7, you have to liquidate some assets to pay off debtors, and in Chapter 13, all the debts are combined and you pay them all back through the court over a time from 36 - 60 months.
2007-03-01 10:00:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by Wookie on Water 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. The laws changed late last year. It was a special interest piece on behalf of the credit card companies. Beyond that, it is still a workable system. Bankruptcy is not a right, but a privilege afforded in many countries. It is designed to protect the weak, but has been subject to tremendous abuse in recent history (the concept has been around for a very long time).
2007-03-01 10:04:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by David 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, the laws HAVE changed. It's no longer quite so advantageous to declare bankruptcy and certain debts are not wiped out. It's been a big shocker to some who have been using the bankruptcy loophole.
2007-03-01 09:59:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It could relieve you of many debts. Some people must pay disposable income over 3-5 years. Most don't. Most debts are dischargeable. Recent taxes aren't. Student loans aren't. Domestic Support Obligations aren't. Quite a few others may not be but this varies from case to case. But it can help you recover from financial calamity, health calamity, divorce, unenmployment, etc.
2007-03-01 15:53:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by DLeibowitz 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The laws changed in October of 2005. It makes it harder to file chapter 7 and forces more people into chapter 13. That's really about it, though. If you have a certain amount of disposable income, you have to file chapter 13. Certain debts are not dischargable...student loans, child support, alimony, IRS taxes, etc.
2007-03-01 10:03:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by First Lady 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The laws have changed dramatically, if you make over the minimum income (varies by State) you are forced into chapter 13 which make you pay people back, The only people that qualify for chapter 7 anymore are the truly desperate who make very little money.
2007-03-01 10:01:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
no longer hate lots! it extremely is the incorrect term.. it extremely is declared in inner maximum he grow to be a"astounding guy" In my (no longer so) humble opinion a million) he grow to be incompetent and unsuited for the presidency. because of fact his father the 1st Bush grow to be President it does no longer propose he could have been. 2) a C student, admitted alcoholic ( yet he did stop, i think of). ha Speech issues and ought to no longer positioned 3 phrases right into a coherent sentence. and that grow to be no longer an occasional slip of the tongue, it grow to be a relentless difficulty for him 3) controlled by Chaney and others. 4) conflict rules that led to the Iraq conflict, did no longer stick to by in Afghanistan the place the real difficulty grow to be 5) financial rules, deregulation of huge banks and huge organisation, tax cuts for the very rich and companies that have been the direct reason in the back of the recession -crash of 2008-2009. it has taken a million a million/2 phrases for President Obama to steer the rustic back to the stages of 2007 interior the inventory marketplace pay interest to politics. it sort of feels one is as undesirable yet another, yet we are a great and distinctive u . s . a . and management is substantial rules have real existence effects. we've extensive issues interior the international and that they want ideas that artwork Are we a u . s . a . for the folk, or for the huge organisation and the very few very rich?
2016-11-26 22:54:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The answer may be here.
2007-03-01 09:59:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by bill b 2
·
0⤊
0⤋