Section 521, paragraph 2, should be amended to clarify that, in order to retain the property after debt relief, a debtor with property-guaranteed consumer debts is required to obtain judicial authorization for an agreement pursuant to Title 11 of Section 524 (c) to retain the property after the debt is cancelled. , with the exception of a security interest in real estate or personal property which is the principal residence of the debtor. In this case, including debtors by confirming $1,800 of their repayment debt of US$2,380.94, they would be extended $500 in new or additional credit. . . . If the debtor had immediately deducted the $500 in “new loans” and had not made policy reductions for the $500 extension for the next twelve months, the debtor would be obliged to pay each month: (a) the monthly financing fee on the balance of $500 at a real annual percentage of 21%, b) USD 43 per month as expected confirmation. , and (c) a monthly financing commission for confirmed debt of USD 1,800. For the supposed benefit of obtaining and using $500 in new loans, it would have to pay approximately $950 in financing costs in the first year as part of the confirmation agreement. (332) The simplest way is to check whether a confirmation has been filed with the Tribunal.

Bankruptcy files are full of confirmation agreements; Creighton Bankruptcy Reaffirmation Study found that situation change agreements could be found in more than 28% of the sample files. (349) However, the visa survey cited above shows that 52% of the debtors surveyed reported confirming one or more debts to their creditors. (350) If both data are correct, only about half of the assertions that creditors actually use as a settlement basis for debtors even meet the threshold control of enforceable force. (351) 381 Statement by David H. Williams, Lawyer, Department of Special Projects, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 94 Cong, 1st – 2d Sess. 758-63 (1975-76) (support for the non-application of federal exceptions and the prohibition of assertions). Between 1972 and 1974, the Federal Trade Commission visited 130 branches of 12 major consumer finance companies in 30 countries and copied and audited 6,000 consumer accounts. Return to the text Total prohibition of assertions in the 1978 code proved politically indefensible. The Senate bill was amended on the basis that the prohibition of assertions “would deprive consumers of a right they have always had, that is, to renew a bankrupt debt . .

. . In the absence of this right, consumers are denied the opportunity to protect a co-signer. protection of safeguards . . . . or to fulfill a moral obligation . .

. . What is wrong with the statement if it is voluntary? (309) Another senator agreed and stated that it was “by american nature to offer someone a protected path to dignity.” (310) These latter views have led to a position of compromise. Thus, the new Bankruptcy Act allowed for rewriting, but imposed a number of procedural conditions to filter out confirmation agreements that were not in the interests of debtors. (311) 1.3.2 An additional subsection is added to Section 524, which provides for the court to rule in favour of a person: who has received a discharge under Section 727 – 1141, 1228 or 1328 of this title for legal fees and fees, plus three damages, by a creditor who threatens, sues or otherwise attempts to recover all debts that have been dismissed in bankruptcy and do not agreement under subsections (c) and (d) section 524. Confirmation that will be approved by the court. It reaffirms the debt it owes to the mortgage of the house, with the possibility of renegotiating the payments with the lender. He and his mortgage company agree during the confirmation process of a lower monthly mortgage payment or a lower interest rate.