While the Commission does not rule on the correct interpretation of the current statute, which has resulted in a split of the district courts, the Commission recommends not to allow the passage. The Chapter 7 debtor who did not confirm or cash the property under paragraph 524 (c) would have no basis for bankruptcy preventing the creditor from regaining possession of the release. In examining ways to improve the consumer insolvency system, some parties questioned compatibility with the policy of equal distribution of stolen anthems that are paid to some creditors, but not to others. According to others, the assertion of the debts that first brought the debtor to the bankruptcy court undermines the object of bankruptcy, since individuals are subject to bankruptcy proceedings, has only overburdened chapter 7. Creditor groups have generally argued that Congress should maintain and possibly strengthen the ability of creditors to obtain confirmation agreements to facilitate the personal liability of debtors after the Chapter 7 discharge. (301) Academics who have empirically and politically confirmed themselves are in favour of a large number of reforms; Some support a total ban on assertions, while others believe that the system should allow the value of collateral to be paid to secured creditors over time, while unsecured portions of the debt are paid. (302) Another way to protect your property is to enter into a „confirmation agreement“ with the creditor. When the Commission first recommended a total ban on assertions, it also recommended that the code explicitly recognize the passage. The prohibition of confirmations and prohibitions of passage would allow debtors to retain assets while assuming personal liability if the debtors were up to date at the time of the declaration of insolvency or if the creditor renounced the default.
The creditor would be entitled to the full payment of the contract, even if it were under-guaranteed, and a subsequent default would trigger the creditors` repayment rights. The evidence before us has been damning that a practice has developed to follow an insolvency relief with a reaffirmation of the debt taking into account increased debt. A debtor could go through bankruptcy to repay a $500 loan and borrow an additional $500 to get back on his feet. As a condition for the new loan, the debtor is asked by the lender to confirm the deposed debt, and as a result, the debtor owes $1,000. We felt that this option was being exploited. (330) Bankruptcy relief is an abstention order against attempts to recover early debts settled in the event of bankruptcy. Post-agreements for determining personal liability for sending receivables are not applicable. (347) Similarly, pre-dismissal agreements for the determination of personal liability are not applicable if they are not related to the confirmation requirements. (348) Given that hundreds of thousands of debtors have already been shown to have been taken into care as a result of bankruptcy in recent years, there is a case for strengthening the provisions relating to the protection of the discharge order. Federal law must be clear: creditors cannot track the collection of debts that have been revoked or use threats as a collection tool.
The Commission recommends a legislative amendment to Section 524 authorizing a court to impose fees and triple damages on a creditor who violates the discharge order. 366 Mayton v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 208 B.R. 61 (B.A.P. 9. Cir. 1997) (verification of various points of view, provision that Section 521 (c) is a dismissal status and cannot grant the creditor any material right to question, whereas the creditor could appeal after the dismissal under state law).