I sat this afternoon in a 341 meeting for Chapter 13 in which another debtor testified that he had converted his Chapter 7 case to one under Chapter 13 because the UST objected to the support he provided to his 70 year old mother. The UST proposed to take the mother’s deposition in a city 200 miles away. To save his mother from this inquiry, he converted his case to a Chapter 13.
What kind of public policy is it that tells an adult son he can’t support his aged mother because MBNA or Citibank has a prior claim on his earnings? Where is this compassionate conservatism?
Remember, the policy makers at the UST’s office are political appointees of our President. All hat and no cattle? All talk and no substance?
Cathy Moran
Bankruptcy in Brief
powered by performancing firefox
