Bankruptcy

Garnishments and Bankruptcy

By Joseph McDaniel, Esq.

Something I liked about the article was the intellectual honesty. He points out that he's "pretty sure" that a particular garnishment was a violation of the automatic stay.

I liked that "pretty sure" very well, because it suggests wisdom; after all, nothing is anything until the Judge says it is, and he or she might see things in a different way.

I worked for three Judges, and one thing I learned was that Judges are hard to predict, even when you're writing memos telling them the law and summarizing the facts from the pleadings.

And garnishment issues are surprisingly knotty, involving both 11 USC 362 (the automatic stay statute) AND 11 USC 541 (Property of the Estate), and if you think that interaction is simple to understand...

Well, if I didn't like you so much, I'd post those statutes and tell you to connect the dots!

NOTHING HERE CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE RE A CHAPTER 7, CHAPTER 13, CHAPTER 11, OR CHAPTER 12. FIND AN ARIZONA BANKRUPTCY LAWYER WHO IS BOARD CERTIFIED IN BANKRUPTCY LAW, AV RATED, AVVO 10 RATED, ON SUPERLAWYERS, OR JUST VERY EXPERIENCED AND A FORMER CHAIR OF SOME BANKRUPTCY SECTION OR COMMITTEE. NOTHING HERE MAY BE USED AS LEGAL ADVICE IN CONNECTION WITH ANY BANKRUPTCY, WHETHER THAT BANKRUPTCY IS IN PHOENIX, GLENDALE, TEMPE, MESA, SCOTTSDALE, OR ANYWHERE ELSE.

Full post as published by Arizona Bankruptcy Attorney Blog on June 13, 2010 (boomark / email).