bankruptcy-lawyers-chicago
bankruptcy-lawyers-dallas
bankruptcy-lawyers-indianapolis
bankruptcy-lawyers-lasvegas
bankruptcy-lawyers-losangeles
bankruptcy-lawyers-newyork
bankruptcy-lawyers-philadelphia
bankruptcy-lawyers-phoenix
bankruptcy-lawyers-sanantonio
bankruptcy-lawyers-sandiego
bankruptcy-lawyers-sanjose
chicago-child-custody-lawyer
chicago-child-support-lawyer
chicago-child-visitation-lawyer
divorce-lawyers-chicago
divorce-lawyers-dallas
divorce-lawyers-indianapolis
divorce-lawyers-lasvegas
divorce-lawyers-losangeles
divorce-lawyers-newyork
divorce-lawyers-philadelphia
divorce-lawyers-phoenix
divorce-lawyers-sanantonio
divorce-lawyers-sandiego
divorce-lawyers-sanjose
womens-divorce-lawyers
zfeeder
The requirements for filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case are as follows:
1) You must submit to credit counseling session. This is a one hour session with a credit counselor that can be done over the telephone, in person, or over the internet. The credit counselor will ask you about your income, your expenses, your assets, and your liabilities. After the end of the one hour session, you will be issued a certificate which you should provide to your attorney. Don’t rely on the credit counseling agency to provide your attorney with your certificate. Take the time to ensure your attorney has received your copy of the certificate.
2) You must provide 2 months worth of pay advices. Pay advices are proof of all sources of income such as: employment, unemployment, disability, pension, profit sharing, retirement, etc.
3) You must provide 4 years of federal tax returns. You can provide the actual return to your attorney or the transcripts can be requested directly from the Internal Revenue Service.
A bankruptcy case from filing until discharge, otherwise, from start to finish is approximately, 90 to 120 days. It is a relatively simple process from the consumer’s standpoint. The consumer provides information to his attorney who prepares the documents, acquires the required signatures, and advises the client on what steps need to be taken. For the most part, the client only has to appear before a trustee on one occasion. At that meeting, the individual has to swear under oath that the information contained in the petition and schedules are true and accurate to the best of his/her ability. The trustee’s job is to look for assets that can be taken and administered to pay off either all or a portion of the debtor’s debt. In the overwhelming majority of Chapter 7 cases, there are no assets to be administered. Thus, the person is granted a fresh start and there is nothing that goes to the creditors. That is why very few creditors, if any, will show up at the court date. Most creditors know that when they receive the Chapter 7 notice, there is not likely going to be any assets to be administered. Further, they know that there is a Chapter 7 trustee appointed by US Court to oversee the debtor’s petition and schedules. The trustee will inquire as to veracity of the debtor with regard to the information contained in the petition and schedules. Thus, there is typically one court date, 4-6 weeks after the case is filed, from start to finish, approximately 90 – 120 days, completing the case.
Chapter 13 is reorganization through a Chapter 13 trustee, provided for under Chapter 13 of the United State Bankruptcy Code. It allows for the repayment for all or a portion of one’s debt, over a 3-5 year period. So from anywhere typically between 36 to 60 months that individual will be making a monthly payment to a Chapter 13 trustee who will deal out payments each month to creditors, according to a certain hierarchy or priority. Chapter 13 is the perfect home-saver case. By that I mean, an individual can repay whatever they are behind on their mortgage, known as their mortgage arrearage, over the next 3-5 years, while making their regular 1st and if applicable, 2nd mortgage payment(s) on time once again. What happens with a lot home owners who are in foreclosure, is that they fall behind on their mortgage and the mortgage company wants one lumps sum payment to catch up. Well, homeowners don’t have that ability, but they do have the ability provided that they are back working, or they are not ill, to make a monthly payment to a trustee which will pay off that mortgage arrearage over the next 3-5 years. And while they are in this repayment plan, they are allowed to make their regular mortgage, on time, going forward. So, a Chapter 13 is most commonly used as the home-saver case. It is a great way to save a home that is in foreclosure when the mortgage company is not willing to work with the homeowner and the mortgage company is not looking to modify the loan. Chapter 13 provides sort of a modification, where you say “hey I am going to pay the regular mortgage payments on time again and I am going to pay the part where I fell behind over the next 3-5 years”. Yes, Chapter 13 is really a great home-saver case.
For Credit Counseling Information, Visit 1 Before Filing
Even if a court meets jurisdictional criteria, it may decline to exercise its jurisdiction, and it must in some cases if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum for making such determinations under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. Klumpner v. Klumpner.
This Act requires that the trial court decline jurisdiction once it is aware that it may be an inconvenient forum, and that the court of another state is more appropriate. In re Pavelcik.
Even where the requirements of 750 ILCS 35/4 are met and the court has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination, it may decline to exercise it if it finds that court to be an inconvenient forum for the determination under the circumstances of the case, and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. Noga v. Noga.
This Act involves a process in which the court must first resolve whether it has jurisdiction under 750 ILCS 35/4, and after such a finding, it must determine under this section and 750 ILCS 35/7 whether it should decline to exercise jurisdiction. In re Levy.
Atty. No.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT - SECOND DISTRICT
Z AN ILLINOIS
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff, v.
No. 2002
TAMMY
Defendant.
AFFIDAVIT REGARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES
I, Attorney of Record, being duly sworn on oath, having personal knowledge of the relevant herein, and if called as a witness would competently testify as follows:
1. That Affiants are attorneys, licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois since 1988, and 1990 respectively, and that they is paid $100.00 per hour for office time and $125.00 per hour for court time.
2. That Affiants have rendered the usual and customary services as the attorneys for the Plaintiff in regards to the above action and other relief.
3. That the attached itemized statement, marked Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein, as to the services rendered regarding this case is correct to the best of our knowledge.
FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NOT.
Attorney
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS
COUNTY OF C O O K )
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.
Attorney
See Also: Divorce Las Vegas
Gift
The circuit court’s conclusion that the bracelet given to petitioner by respondent’s mother, who carried insurance on it, belonged to the petitioner was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; therefore, bracelet was not included in marital property. In re Simmons
The trial court erred in awarding gold cross to petitioner wife as her separate non-marital property where the evidence established that it was given to husband by his uncle many years prior to the marriage and there was no affirmative proof of an intention to make a gift to the wife. In re Uluhogian
Improvement
The stores owned by a husband prior to the marriage remained non-marital despite their absorption of some marital resources because it was permissible for one spouse to improve the other spouse’s non-marital property without making that property marital. In re Kennedy
Individual Retirement Account
Where an Individual Retirement Account was treated as the exclusive property of husband since he used the account as an adjustment to income on his separate tax return, this was property acquired solely by husband during the marriage and fell within the exclusion of the prenuptial agreement. In re Burgess
Investment
The interest earned during the marriage on one spouse’s investment account was her non-marital property, as an increase in the value of property acquired before marriage remained non-marital property. In re Deem
Legislative Intent
The intent of this section as a whole was designed to eliminate disparity between the marriage partners; however, the exceptions (1) through (6) of subsection 9a) of this section manifest the legislative purpose to preserve the character of non-marital property in those situations where the actions of the parties have not created ambiguity. In re Smith
Test
Where property was acquired before marriage, title is a relevant indicator to determine at the time of dissolution whether the property has remained non-marital. In re Drennan
See Also: Divorce Lawyers New York
Where plaintiff used his equity in first residence to purchase a new home titled in both parties’ names, thereby commingling the properties so as to transmute his equity into marital property, the residence was properly classified as marital. In re Thacker
A family residence was properly deemed marital property where the husband purchased the house approximately two months before the parties were married by borrowing $3,000 for the down payment and mortgaging the remaining purchase price, as he never spent any money from personal funds accumulated prior to the marriage, and the mortgage payments were made with marital funds. In re Ohrt
Where house was purchased by the parties prior to, but “in contemplation of” their marriage; the parties were living together at the time of the purchase and had discussed acquiring a marital home; they both accompanied the real estate agent to view the property for the first time; they both signed the offer to purchase the property; former wife’s parents provided a loan of $5,000 towards the down payment; and additional $5,000 came from the parties joint funds; they used joint funds in addition to the rental income from the property to make the mortgage payments prior to moving into the home; and during the marriage all mortgage payments were made from marital funds, the house was considered a marital asset. In re Malters
See Also: Bankruptcy Lawyers Boston
Where do you look for these financial documents? Some of the information may be at your fingertips, but some might require sleuthing. Start looking in the obvious places — where you and your spouse keep important papers in the house and in your safe-deposit box, if you have one. But also watch the mail, and be alert to anything from insurance companies, credit-card companies, banks, brokerage firms, and mutual-fund companies. Go to your employer for work-related documents, such as what you currently have in your pension account. Ask your accountant, attorney and financial advisors for copies of any financial information they have,
such as prior tax returns or documents on ownership of property.
Satisfy Your Credit Counseling Requirement Before Filing Bankruptcy
1 After Filing
Custodial parent who removed children from Illinois to Louisiana and obtained a Louisiana court order that prohibited visitation by the other parent the day prior to a scheduled visitation was properly found in contempt of the Illinois visitation order because the Louisiana order did not excuse the custodial parent’s noncompliance where it was intentionally procured as a way not to follow the order with which the custodial parent disagreed and because the Illinois court retained exclusive jurisdiction over the matter regardless of where the children were taken. In re Marriage of Kneitz.
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS
COUNTY OF C O O K )
AFFIDAVIT OF LMD IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO VACATE JUDGMENT
LMD, being duly sworn on oath, and having personal knowledge of the relevant facts presented herein, states as follows:
1. Affiant, LMD, the Defendant in the above-entitled action, makes this Affidavit in support of the Petition to vacate the judgment entered therein on November 8, 1991, in favor of Plaintiff and against Affiant in the amount of $741.06, and costs.
2. That said judgment should not have been entered and should not be allowed to stand because I nor my automobile was involved in the accident that is the basis of the underlying lawsuit.
3. That said judgment was entered aforesaid without any fault or negligence of Affiant.
4. That upon receipt of the summons and complaint I immediately telephoned the Plaintiff’s attorney and was informed by the Plaintiff’s attorney that if I sent a letter stating I nor my automobile was involved in the accident he would dismiss the case.
5. That further, my automobile was Beige and not blue.
6. That further, my license plate number for my automobile at the time of the accident was PM2631 and not PM.
7. That at all times herein material Affiant has exercised due care and diligence in that I contacted Plaintiff’s attorney and was assured that the mistake would be corrected thus the
lawsuit would be dismissed.
8. Promptly on learning of entry of said judgment, Affiant
immediately said Petition to vacate said judgment.
9. Affiant has on the merits, a valid defense to Plaintiff’s purported cause of action therein, in that my automobile was not involved in the accident that is the underlying justification and cause of this lawsuit herein.
See Also: Divorce Lawyers Las Vegas
Application and Construction
In order to preserve a property’s non-marital status one must prove that the entire property was acquired exclusively by one of the methods listed in subsection (a), and that its character was not subsequently altered by action of the owner; the interpretation of the effect of subsection (b) upon subsection (a) of this section is consistent with the Act’s expressed preference for the classification of property as marital and the shifting of the burden of proof to the party seeking control of the property. In re Smith
Evidence
Where wife testified she told husband prior to the marriage that she wanted to continue paying the mortgage, insurance premiums and real estate taxes, she expressed an intention to maintain the residence as her separate property, and placed in trust the title to the residence with her daughters as beneficiaries, testimony rebutted the presumption of marital property raised. In re Holman
Federal Employer’s Liability Action
The cause of action set forth in count II of the husband’s Federal Employer’s Liability Action complaint was a separate property right and non-marital in nature where it arose following the entry of the judgment of dissolution; it could not properly have been considered part of the property settlement agreement. In re Waeckerle
Future Acquisition of Assets
The court must consider non-marital property, even where the non-marital property will be received in the future, when it determines the relevant economic circumstances of each spouse and the amount and sources of income of the parties, as well as the reasonable opportunity of each spouse for future acquisition of capital assets and income. In re Smith
Future Earning Capacity
Future earning capacity flowing from an education was not considered a marital asset and, thus, not divided by the court in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. In re Goldstein
See Also: Divorce Lawyers New York
The guidelines in this section fro awarding minimum child support are to be applied unless the court, after considering evidence presented on certain relevant factors, finds a reason for deviating from them. In re Steinchen.
The trial court did not err in ruling that the assignment to the former husband’s attorney of funds owed the former husband from a corporation was void on the basis of fraud and was of no effect and that the funds due to the former from said corporation were properly ordered delivered to appellee as partial payment of child support arrearages. Till v. Till.
See Divorce Las Vegas
Adopted children’s Iowa state subsidy was properly credited against a father’s Illinois support obligation where the subsidy was meant to supplement the children’s support, the amount of the subsidy was greater than the father’s obligation would have been under Illinois child support guidelines, and the parents’ incomes were approximately equal. Newberry v. Newberry.
Credit card payments did not meet the parameters of subsection (h), therefore, defendant’s net income should not be reduced by the amount of such payments. In re Benish.
Where all of respondent’s arguments pertaining to the award of maintenance and child support were based on a single assumption: that no evidence refuted his assertion, based on his income tax returns, that his net income was not any more than $25,000, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to consider the ample evidence introduced at trial showing respondent’s income was far higher than he alleged. In re Hilkovitch.
Where the amount of the maintenance and support awarded was approximately 20% of the husband’s receipts for one year, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. In re Dwan.
The doctrine of equitable estoppel is an exception to the otherwise rigid rule that child support payments become vested when and as they accrue. Ruster v. Ruster.
The right to past due installments of child support payments is a vested right which may not be reduced or eliminated by courts. The exception to this rule is when the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applied and then the doctrine may be applied to all or part of the past installments in a n appropriate case. Lewis v. Lewis.
Given the income of the family, the family’s style of living could not be financed through any means other than the depletion of the family’s savings, and the husband could not help but have noticed the questioned expenditures from a close corporation of which husband was the sole stockholder; thus, the trial court’s finding that the expenditures were made for marital purposes was not an abuse of discretion. In re Getautas
The expense of a final payment due upon a note which had financed the purchase of a lot could not be included within those ordinary household expenses the parties agreed the husband should pay during the pendency of litigation. In re Rapacz
The circuit court did not err in refusing to consider certain money credits to which husband may have been entitled before entering the instant judgment, namely, reimbursement for one-half the taxes, mortgage payments, and maintenance costs he was required to pay since the divorce, as well as a sum of money the order directed wife to pay him, which was never done, because the foregoing items merely related to setoffs against the amount of her portion of the proceeds of the sale; such matters could be presented and considered after the property had been sold since they did not affect the right to partition the property. In re Mercer