As regular readers of this forum will know, with Patrick having been kicked out of bankruptcy due to ongoing, relentless non-compliance with the basic requirements of bankruptcy, he now owes me the full amount of my original 2010 judgment against him for malicious defamation, plus some significant interest that's been accruing over the years (originally two per cent, now five per cent). But that's not the whole story. Oh, no, there's more.
While I have been glibly using the phrase "kicked out of bankruptcy" to describe Patrick's current unenviable status, that's not really accurate; it is more accurate to say that Patrick is, in fact, still in bankruptcy, but that the stay of proceedings that protected him for years from any attempt at collection on my part has been lifted by the Court, thus allowing me to proceed with extracting assets from whatever orifice of Patrick's is available. So let me clarify what that means.
What it means is that, at the moment, Patrick lives in the worst of all possible universes -- he is still an undischarged bankrupt, while having none of the protections of bankruptcy. Put another way, he has all the drawbacks of bankruptcy, with absolutely none of the benefits. And why does this matter? I'm glad you asked.
It would seem that, even as I am now free to start collecting what Patrick owes me, since Patrick is still a bankrupt (with no foreseeable way out other than paying me the full amount that he owes me), Patrick should still be subject to the standard restrictions of bankruptcy, such as not being allowed to have an unsecured credit card, not being able to apply for a bank loan and, most importantly, being legally required to report his status as an undischarged bankrupt when doing things like -- oh, I don't know -- filing a one million dollar defamation action against someone.
So while I'm more concerned with enforcing the collection order I have just filed with the Saskatchewan sheriffs, it seems that it's still worth confirming that Patrick is not violating the terms of his bankruptcy. But it also seems that I am not the one who needs to be babysitting him to see that that's done.
No, it seems to me that, since Patrick is still officially a bankrupt, then it is bankruptcy court that should be monitoring him. That is, even though he is no longer protected by that stay of proceedings, Patrick still technically belongs to bankruptcy court, and I would suggest that it is that court that should be riding herd on him, and smacking his fingers whenever he breaks the rules.
To that end, I will arrange this week to check in with the court and remind them that, as long as Patrick is an undischarged bankrupt, he is still their problem, and it is their job to deal with his conduct under the bankruptcy regime, not mine. Put another way, while I start stripping Patrick of all his assets now and for the foreseeable future from one side, I will make sure bankruptcy court is riding his ass from the other side (something that should not be done at my expense).
In the end, it's entirely possible that Patrick should start getting a whole new set of services, these from the court enforcing the very restrictions and conditions of the bankruptcy that is now doing Patrick no good whatsoever.
I could suggest that it could get even worse for Patrick but, honestly, I have no idea how.
P.S. Tune in next week when I assure you that there is no way Patrick is ever going to inherit the family home he is currently squatting in.
7 comments:
Here's something to think about if you have to garnish Patrick's wages. I remember you saying that Patrick no longer drives a beat-up Ford Ranger pickup truck, but now owns a Ford Escape. Normally, someone who has their wages garnished and their stuff seized has the right to keep their primary vehicle if it's necessary for work, so Patrick probably thinks he's safe there. But he might not be.
I'm pretty sure that you're allowed to keep a primary vehicle as long as it's not ridiculously valuable. I think there's an actual dollar amount that's the maximum value allowed, and that's to stop people from just buying a super expensive car, then claiming they have the right to keep it.
So if Patrick bought an older Escape used, and it's not worth much more than a few thousand, he's probably all right. But if he bought a new one, and those things can cost up to $50,000, and he bought it while he was an undischarged bankrupt, you can definitely file to force him to sell it and replace it with a cheaper vehicle. The court won't let him play games like that.
Anonymous @ 9:27:
If he has indeed purchased an Escape new (or newer), there’s relatively little in asset value in it. Chances are that it is on a lease, in which case his payments are basically Interest + Depreciation; if not, chances are equally good that the marginal value of the vehicle is basically the same as the balance of the loan against it. IF it’s a lease, then he technically doesn’t actually own the vehicle. If it isn’t, the legal wrangling over the balance of the loan is going to make his financial life hell for a few years.
For a variety of reasons, Ford Escapes don’t hold their value particularly well - a decently equipped 3rd generation one can be had for < $20K; the dolled up Titanium package ~$25K - and that’s in a market where used car prices are inflated because of new car supply problems. Worse for Patrick, the third generation Escapes are notorious for engine and transmission failures - catastrophic failures. I wouldn’t buy one this side of creation.
However, from a collections standpoint, there may not be enough asset value in the vehicle to be worth anything.
MgS: I have been advised that the property search lists Patrick as the official owner, if that is to be believed. I'm not overly worried about his wheels; I have my eyes on bigger asses.
Assets. I meant assets.
Cynic, thank you for your work protecting the integrity of the Canadian bankruptcy system, as well as continuing to ruin despicable right-wing troll Patrick Ross of Lloydminster.
I'm curious, what would the increased surveillance from the bankruptcy court ideally entail? Would they have to check up on him weekly to see that he hasn't filed any additional vexatious million dollar lawsuits?
A Ford Escape SUV?
You'd think Twatsy (or his benefactor) would have chosen a vehicle with better fuel economy if he's commuting all over Northern Alberta. Twatsy is literally burning money with his vehicle, as well as with his voracious appetite for expensive, fattening restauraunt meals.
Lavender Slime: I'm not sure what this increased surveillance would entail, but I'm going to suggest that, at the very least, bankruptcy court should send Patrick a detailed description of his continuing obligations under the bankruptcy regime, emphasizing what he is and is not allowed to do, and warning of the consequences of not paying attention.
In particular, I am going to point out his latest idiocy in filing a million dollar defamation action while still an undischarged bankrupt, and ask for (in writing) a confirmation that he has no ability to do such things. That sort of confirmation on court letterhead would, I suspect, put a stop to Patrick's legal douchebagitude.
CC: If you get CCed on an actual bankruptcy court letter, explaining to Patrick that he has no right to initiate any legal actions on his own, you need to post that so everyone can take advantage of it.
Post a Comment