Help please: Bankruptcy and saving my house

Honesty.
Pay his debts until they are paid off.
The fact he is now doing his best to transfer properties, instead of using that 70k to pay off his debt...speaks volumes.
So many here are trying to assist him..hmmmm

That's not how I read it. I read it that he's happy to pay the $70k that he owns (equity) to his creditors, and then keeping properties that he will hence forth own $0 equity in. $70k owned by his wife, and the rest owned by the CBA. Creditors get "all he's worth" and seems to me he's not trying to avoid that.
 
Honesty.
Pay his debts until they are paid off.
The fact he is now doing his best to transfer properties, instead of using that 70k to pay off his debt...speaks volumes.
So many here are trying to assist him..hmmmm

Get off the high horse! Especially coming from the Communist Colony of Canadia...

In business, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Big deal. For every millionaire there's 1000 people living in poverty somewhere else. It's a fact of life. Plus - just because he 'owes' $320k doesn't mean he actually 'earned' 320k worth of taxes. That headline figure is inflated by ATO penalty fees, 15% interest rates etc. It adds up very quickly
 
hi all
couple of things
1 why do you wish to go bankrupt and will this work best or is there a better way.
2 do you wish to go the bankrupt path ( there are advantages and disadvantages to this route)
3 who is go to assist you when you go down this path.
what you re looking at AT the moment is the house
but the real question is not the house or the cba
the question is whats the problem and how to deal with this problem
70k to the tax is a delay payment scheme
70k to a company is a pay per month
70k to a pack of bikies is bags of you don't want to know
don't look at the assets when looking at these problems
you need to have someone that can deal
and get a deal with the creditor and they can be as low a 10 cents to 30 cents
now alot will and have said thats wrong for the creditors
I say get a life thats life
you can save the house
but its not for a board
and you need to put the house in her name 12 months before going in and that may well be a part of a plan
I have had delays of 3 years
I have been told that I was the worse person on ths planet and make it an art of extending delays to the point where a receiver told me he hated me
but I am a duck
what you need is a person not you to fight on your behalf
I don't look at saving a house
I look at saving the client which saves the house a but different
you do have to invest with me after but thats fine by us all
I would have a meeting of creditors and pay about 35k of the 70k in cash on the table and not from you
then the people if the room have to choice
take the 35k
or walk away wth nothing
which would you do
ato no problem
bluestorm
sit on the otherside of the desk
we have people that have taken a loan in good faith that a bank will fund them and the bank has stopped cash supply and they are now losing millions
I have a guy that has lost 10 mil and his 2 mil house(which we are fighting to hold) did he over extend
no the bank stopped supply
I have a whole family that put 20 mil assets into developing
and the banks stopped suppy
I have school that put up everything to a bank/funder anf the bank is closing them down.
first understand before posting
 
he invested in a business and did his dough and is now virtually worth nothing... what do you want from the guy?

EXACTLY!

I cannot understand how people could condemn someone for going bankrupt. It is just one of those things that happens.

The creditors made the decision to work or lend money to people (in smilyfaces case the ATO) so it really is not smiley faces problem, it is theirs.

After years in the USA of banks writing contracts and milking what they can when now in the recourse states people are declaring bankruptcy (in the no recourse they do not even have to do that!) people condemn them and yet this is their right.

I think good on them for walking / declaring bankruptcy. If the bank was stupid enough to lend them too much money than whos fault is that?'Trev beerslab who thought his house in Florida was worth 450k and is now 250k or the corporate risk managers / treasury departments etc being paid exorbitant salaries to run teh show? I say take the years in the sin bin and then start over. Why work 3 jobs just to pay off a debt that you really do not have to?


Smileyface,

As ausprop says wear it as a badge of honour, take it as a lesson learnt but there is certainly no shame in it. No one except a few faceless people on an internet forum will hold it against you. Anyone who has been in business*, will understand it can and does happen to the best of us.

Also my advice and I am certainlhy not qualified to give any, well apart from being a creditor before myself a number of times being is one of those industries this is my advice to you;

1. Make arrangements for somewhere to live other than your home.
2. Stop paying the mortage (if you can hide a bit of cash do so just a bit each week or buy new clothes and other essentials with it....)
3. Live in the home till you are kicked out.
2. Move out only when they make you and by this stage all your equity will likely be used up.
3. Eventually likely 6 to 12 weeks later the house will go to auction / for sale.

optional 4. Do not mow the lawn in your final weeks at the place let the garden go to rack and ruin, all easy things to fix but things that the bank may not bother with but will effect the sale price. Maybe let a family of rats out in the home and some cockroaches for them to eat...

If you do all this the irony is in many markets of Australia at present I suspect you may get a better deal than you might think on the place. i.e. in the end you may owe less than you do now if your missus has 70k to put toward the purchase. You may get a 30k discount in such a sale anyway to cover your sales tax.

That is the neatest way around it I reckon you (well your wife I should say) are up for sales tax but with a bit of creativity prior to the sale I reckon you can screw that down in the price as the banks are not real clever when it comes to keeping places presentable for sale....


Anyway best of luck with it.


oh one other thing be carefull with the administrator I don't think they are meant to act on your behalf. They work for the creditors. For a business they work to get the business going again but this is again really for the benifit of the creditors not you. If they want your wife to chip in now that sounds liek the craziest idea I have ever heard.

As others have said you can buy it at marekt value but thats stupid buy it under market value when the bank tries to sell it

hey another idea crack a few roof tiles maybe some plaster so it looks liek the joint needs underpinning. If you do this while you still live there legally, everything is above board. If you were willing to risk it, an apparent termite infestation perhaps put a heap of dead ones on your ant caps would make the bank nervous for a sale too....
 
I think good on them for walking / declaring bankruptcy.
Why work 3 jobs just to pay off a debt that you really do not have to
...
hey another idea crack a few roof tiles maybe some plaster so it looks liek the joint needs underpinning.

Tom32, your post speaks volumes about your ethics. You pay because you signed a contract, and then your suggestion absurd of damaging property to screw the banks further.
 
bluestorm
sit on the otherside of the desk
we have people that have taken a loan in good faith that a bank will fund them and the bank has stopped cash supply and they are now losing millions
I have a guy that has lost 10 mil and his 2 mil house(which we are fighting to hold) did he over extend

Why is it that your posts always read like one line tweets??
Yes, I would say these people you mention over extended. Trying to borrow too much at once, probably with the idea that more funds will mean quicker growth, rather than growing a business with strong foundations slower (not one that fails as soon as the bank reduces credit). But that just takes a few more years, doesn't it. That's too slow, need to get rich quicker.
Can't be one of the small fish. Need to play with the big fish quicker.
 
One more point.

When you go bankrupt any money you earn over a certain amount (approx $50k pa, varies depending on how many kids etc)

Once you are bankrupt, if you continue working and earn over a certain amount then a % of your income goes to your trustee in Bankruptcy to help pay creditors. I think you can earn around $50k pa (it varies depending on how many dependants you have), and then over that approx 50% will be taken.

If you get to keep the properties then any growth during your bankruptcy will probably be at risk of being taken by the trustee too. There was a recent case where someone who was bankrupt and bought shares with his money after paying the trustee. His shares did very well and it was deemed that even though they were purchased with money the trustee was unable to take, the equity in the shares was available to creditors.

So, this may have an impact on if you can afford to keep the properties and to keep paying the loans on your reduced income.
 
I think some people maybe misunderstood what I was asking in my original post.

I am NOT trying to make $70k 'disappear' or otherwise try to defeat creditors.
I acknowledge that I have $70k, and acknowledge that the creditors are fully entitled to this and will be paid.

Therefore my original question essentially was only about how they would be paid.

Tom32, I can only laugh at your post! Thanks for trying to help but I am not trying to do anything like this, it sounds like a recipe for fraud charges.

TerryW, about capital growth and ongoing payments after I'm bankrupt, this is one reason why I'm curious about $ vs % when it comes to my wife's interest in my properties.

Let's just use example numbers, say property is $500,000, owned like this:
  • Me: $0
  • Wife: $100,000
  • CBA: $400,000
So in that case what I wonder is, does she own "$100,000" or does she officially own "20%"? (I realise obvously that CBA's interest is a $ amount, not 80%).

That would make a difference if (when) the property changed value later.

grossreal, I don't want to go bankrupt, but would rather go voluntarily than have it forced upon me, which is what I think is inevitable in the near future anyway. I don't know who is going to assist me yet, still trying to figure that out. Again, not trying to get out of paying what I can afford to pay.
 
Tom32, your post speaks volumes about your ethics. You pay because you signed a contract, and then your suggestion absurd of damaging property to screw the banks further.

Yes I am perhaps too honest.

People who say they would pay back 250k when instead they can earn up to 50k p.a. when perhaps they only earn 90k per annum are either lying or they are saints.

Indeed they are not even saints. If I could choose to declare bankruptcy and donate the difference to starving africans, I would sooner do that if I was that way inclined then in effect donate money to a bank!

I have been a creditor, I know how it feels. It is a part of doing business and you try to limit your exposure to an individual debtor as much as possible. If I can do this then I think banks can be held to account in the same way. i.e. make a stupid loan you wear the consequences.

And while he is living in the home if he decided to do some renovations thats no ones business but his own.
 
Tom32, I can only laugh at your post! Thanks for trying to help but I am not trying to do anything like this, it sounds like a recipe for fraud charges.

Because of what terry says, allowing the home to be repossesed is the neatest way of destroying any hold the banks / ATO have over the properties. Otherwise they will just keep chipping away at you. A sale by them to your wife releases these bonds. A sale by you to your wife does not. This is where you may see fraud, them selling it, not a chance. Vandalism charges perhaps...

Edit: also when banks repossess homes it is not uncommon that the owners take it out on the joinit. I reckon a judge would be somwhat understanding, I don't imagine you being put in prison for throwing a tantrum as you were being kicked out or immediately before you were being kicked out of your home? You are going bankrupt so they certainly are not going to bother suing you! lol!

Bankruptcy protects you from these creditors. DO not enter into arrangements that benifit only them at this point.

You are entitled to walk away and as terry says earn a wage for the next few years till you can start again.

Why should you (unless you earn say 150k p.a.) give them any more than they are entitled to.

Yes some here would say that is unethical but the law is this way for some fundamental and sound in my opinion reasons.

Also while you live in the home as long as you are not claiming on your insurance, you are entitled to do a bit of renovating. It is your home at this point.

Agree though it is definitely bending the laws. On what grossreal says, do not enter into an arrangement for a debt! This will only see you in a few years in a worse position than you would otherwise be.

As I said project your life out in two ways:

A) Take bankruptcy, earn your 50k (or whateve ris relevant for you and then see what your position will be at the end of your bankruptcy period.

B) Go into a debt agreement and see if it will be all paid off in your normal occupation at the end of what would otherwise be at the end of the bankruptcy period.

If A is better than B declare bankruptcy. Otherwise go for the debt agreement or a consolidation with another party.

With that sum of money and those assets I would be declaring bankruptcy and I earn fairly reasonable coin.

Thats what it all comes down to. If you only earn marginally over what you are entitled to under a bankruptcy then why the hell would you do anything other than declaring yourself bankrupt? The law is there to protect you, use it. Slavary and endentured servitude went out in the 19th century, irrespective of the few here who might like to see a return to it....
 
You can tell it has been a long time since we have had a recession. During them everyone expects a few people to go bankrupt. It is all part of the show.

Funny that some who think that recessions are good to promote efficiency and yet when faced with the very mechanism through which waste and debt are retired; bankruptcy, they do not like it. How exactly in a capitalist society are we supposed to evolve and retire waste if their is no provision for this.

Is the extra efficiency gained through a slave class paying off their debts who work for 50k p.a.?

As I said above I have only ever been on the recieving end of bankruptcies usually pty ltd situations and while it is pretty frustrating if you let yourself go into a situation where you are dependant on another company then you have to consider exactly what it is you are doing. Consider offering credit like buying shares in the other party. Only invest it in companies / people you trust.
 
Tom, most of the people here aren't familiar with business risk. They assume that property investing is 'business' and therefore they are entitled to speak on the subject.
 
Tom, most of the people here aren't familiar with business risk. They assume that property investing is 'business' and therefore they are entitled to speak on the subject.

I felt the same way. Im one of the peopel who hasn;t been in business & wishes that what he's doing is a kin to starting my own business and all the associated risks, but while I'm sitting on my backised in a comfy aircond office that I dont have to pay for and knwo I will get paid by my work evry 14days on the d.o.t... I can't in good conscience say that it is the same thing !
 
Negotiating with the ATO to stop or reduce the interest and/or penalty charges is one thing.
I have problems with people deciding it is easier for them to pay cents on the dollar for their debts. This amount of debt was probably over a few years.I will bet during this time, there was no reduction in lifestyle, to correspond with the decrease in disposbale income.

I don't care if this is business or person debt.
Debt is debt. We already have a nation of people not wanting to responsible for their actions. (Canada included)
 
And I suppose we should all throw people into debtor's prison as well to pay for their sins with debt eh? Don't you just love socialism?
 
And I suppose we should all throw people into debtor's prison as well to pay for their sins with debt eh? Don't you just love socialism?

No need for debtor's prison, as how do you get money then?
You have them provide a detail of their income and expenses, and have the courts determine how much will be garnished until the debt is paid. If it takes a lifetime..so be it.
 
That is akin to someone being convicted of a minor offence and then having that record prevent them from ever finding a job and rebuilding their lives. Believe it or not, but people do make mistakes and need an opportunity to start again - if you were lucky not to have gone down that route then good for you. But like they say - a rich man is one who is rich once more than he is bankrupted
 
Back
Top