Texas residents who wish to escape overwhelming debt may be unfamiliar with the differences between a Chapter 7 and a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Those who file Chapter 13 bankruptcies make payments for three or five years to pay down all or part of their debts, but debtors who file successful Chapter 7 petitions make no further restitution and see some or all of their debts discharged. This can make Chapter 7 bankruptcies seem far more attractive, but qualifying for a Chapter 7 petition can be difficult.
When Texas residents or others file for bankruptcy, they generally must disclose all of their assets. One woman who failed to disclose that she had $3,500 of cash on hand had her Chapter 7 discharge blocked. The woman said that she didn't disclose the cash as an asset because she needed it to pay rent and other expenses. After hearing this, the bankruptcy trustee argued that the woman had lied under oath.
If you are preparing to file for bankruptcy, you are also probably worrying about which assets you can keep and which you will lose. Exemptions are key, and Texas provides filers with some of the most generous exemptions in the nation.
Texas residents interested in bankruptcy matters might like to know about what trustees are allowed to do in bankruptcy cases. With Chapter 7 bankruptcy, trustees may liquidate a debtor's assets in an effort to pay back creditors. As part of this process, two trustees in Maryland have demanded access to debtors' online accounts. However, people and groups have raised concerns about this practice.
Even though you may feel as if you are drowning in debt, you must still find out if you qualify to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy in Texas. This is done through the means test, and according to NerdWallet.com, if most of your financial difficulties are from consumer debts that you cannot pay, you will probably pass.
Texas residents may be interested in a bankruptcy case in which the trustee accused the debtor of abusing the process in order to alleviate his debt. The court ultimately decided in favor of the debtor, claiming that paying the expenses of two homes did not constitute abuse.