Verkaufsasistent

Channeling-Literatur

Boodrow, Civ. No. 96-5078, 1997 WL 564226 (2d Cir. 12 September 1997) (allows storage of securities without reconfirmation or return); In re Belanger, 962 F.2d 345 (4 Cir. 1992); Lowry Federal Credit Union v. West, 882 F.2d 1543 (10th Cir. 1989) (ibid.). See also Mayton v. Sears, Roebuck & Co, 208 B.R.

61 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997); Sears Roebuck & Co.c. Lamirande, 199 b.R. 221 (D. Mass. 1996); First N. Am.

Nat`l Bank v. Doss, 203 B.R. 57) (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1996); In re Ogando, 203 B.R. 14 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1996); In re Parlato, 185 B.R. 413 (Bankr.

D. Conn. 1995). Back to text The dissemination of reaffirmation requests and agreements has provoked reactions within the system. Some judges now monitor cases and issue orders to prove the case and hold hearings if the available information suggests that the renewed debt exceeds the debtor`s income or would constitute an incredible financial burden. (299) A number of districts throughout the country have adopted local regulations requiring additional information on the claims requested. (300) 326 See Steve Miletich, For many debtors, it`s all in the cards; Easy Credit Under Fire As Bankruptcy Soars, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER (May 5, 1997). Back to text Perhaps the strongest evidence of widespread non-compliance with the law came from the creditors themselves.

Sears, one of the country`s largest retailers, was the first to admit it had exercised “erroneous legal judgment.” (352) These problems were publicly revealed when a person in Massachusetts wrote to the bankruptcy judge who had conducted his previous bankruptcy case, stating that he was overwhelmed by his monthly bills and that he was struggling to feed his children. (353) There was no new agreement with Sears in his court record, but Mr. Lantanowich, who were not represented, had signed an agreement provided by Sears and believed they were required to pay these bills as soon as they became due. 394 See Fogie v. Thorn Americas, Inc., 95 F.3d 645 (Cir. 8) (in the certified class action, upholding the injunction against leases with ownership for usurious contracts, which actually charged 48 to 746%, which violated state law), reh`g en banc denied, (1996), cert. . . .

Comments are closed.