“If a couple is married, can only one individual file for bankruptcy?� The answer, simply, is yes. Married couples do not have to file for bankruptcy together – One person may file individually, or both individuals may file together.
When filing individually, bankruptcy will not affect the non-filing spouses’ credit, provided there aren’t any joint debts. Joint debts are debts shared between both individuals. So, if a debt is shared by both individuals, the creditor can look at either person, or both, to pay the debt.
I do want to caution you: Your spouse’s income is considered when determining whether you qualify for a Chapter 7. This change occurred when the new bankruptcy laws became effective on October 17, 2005.

Let me give you an example: Before October 17, 2005, if one spouse was poor and the other was rich, the poor spouse would be able to file separately. Under the current law, however, the court looks at the total household income, so a wealthy spouse can actually prevent a poor spouse from able to qualify for a Chapter 7. The reason behind this, in the court’s view, is it is a family budget, so the spouse that makes a lot of money can help the other spouse pay off his/her bills.
So, a spouses’ income can affect the other spouses’ ability to file, but it won’t affect their credit unless there is joint debt.

The requirements for filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case are as follows:

1) You must submit to credit counseling session. This is a one hour session with a credit counselor that can be done over the telephone, in person, or over the internet. The credit counselor will ask you about your income, your expenses, your assets, and your liabilities. After the end of the one hour session, you will be issued a certificate which you should provide to your attorney. Don’t rely on the credit counseling agency to provide your attorney with your certificate. Take the time to ensure your attorney has received your copy of the certificate.

2) You must provide 2 months worth of pay advices. Pay advices are proof of all sources of income such as: employment, unemployment, disability, pension, profit sharing, retirement, etc.

3) You must provide 4 years of federal tax returns. You can provide the actual return to your attorney or the transcripts can be requested directly from the Internal Revenue Service.

A bankruptcy case from filing until discharge, otherwise, from start to finish is approximately, 90 to 120 days. It is a relatively simple process from the consumer’s standpoint. The consumer provides information to his attorney who prepares the documents, acquires the required signatures, and advises the client on what steps need to be taken. For the most part, the client only has to appear before a trustee on one occasion. At that meeting, the individual has to swear under oath that the information contained in the petition and schedules are true and accurate to the best of his/her ability. The trustee’s job is to look for assets that can be taken and administered to pay off either all or a portion of the debtor’s debt. In the overwhelming majority of Chapter 7 cases, there are no assets to be administered. Thus, the person is granted a fresh start and there is nothing that goes to the creditors. That is why very few creditors, if any, will show up at the court date. Most creditors know that when they receive the Chapter 7 notice, there is not likely going to be any assets to be administered. Further, they know that there is a Chapter 7 trustee appointed by US Court to oversee the debtor’s petition and schedules. The trustee will inquire as to veracity of the debtor with regard to the information contained in the petition and schedules. Thus, there is typically one court date, 4-6 weeks after the case is filed, from start to finish, approximately 90 – 120 days, completing the case.

Even if a court meets jurisdictional criteria, it may decline to exercise its jurisdiction, and it must in some cases if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum for making such determinations under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.  Klumpner v. Klumpner.

This Act requires that the trial court decline jurisdiction once it is aware that it may be an inconvenient forum, and that the court of another state is more appropriate.  In re Pavelcik.

Even where the requirements of 750 ILCS 35/4 are met and the court has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination, it may decline to exercise it if it finds that court to be an inconvenient forum for the determination under the circumstances of the case, and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.  Noga v. Noga.   

This Act involves a process in which the court must first resolve whether it has jurisdiction under 750 ILCS 35/4, and after such a finding, it must determine under this section and 750 ILCS 35/7 whether it should decline to exercise jurisdiction.  In re Levy.

 

                                                Atty. No. 
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
 MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT - SECOND DISTRICT

                                                      
Z AN ILLINOIS                  

CORPORATION,                      
               Plaintiff,       v.                               

 No.  2002 
TAMMY   

Defendant.       

 AFFIDAVIT REGARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES
I, Attorney of Record, being duly sworn on oath, having personal knowledge of the relevant herein, and if called as a witness would competently testify as follows:

1. That Affiants are attorneys, licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois since 1988, and 1990 respectively, and that they is paid $100.00 per hour for office time and $125.00 per hour for court time.

2. That Affiants have rendered the usual and customary services as the attorneys for the Plaintiff in regards to the above action and other relief.

3. That the attached itemized statement, marked Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein, as to the services rendered regarding this case is correct to the best of our knowledge.
FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NOT.              

                                                                
                                         Attorney

 

STATE OF ILLINOIS  )
                              )  SS
COUNTY OF C O O K )

 

Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.
                                                                         Attorney
See Also:  Divorce Las Vegas

Gift
 The circuit court’s conclusion that the bracelet given to petitioner by respondent’s mother, who carried insurance on it, belonged to the petitioner was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; therefore, bracelet was not included in marital property.  In re Simmons
 The trial court erred in awarding gold cross to petitioner wife as her separate non-marital property where the evidence established that it was given to husband by his uncle many years prior to the marriage and there was no affirmative proof of an intention to make a gift to the wife.  In re Uluhogian
Improvement
 The stores owned by a husband prior to the marriage remained non-marital despite their absorption of some marital resources because it was permissible for one spouse to improve the other spouse’s non-marital property without making that property marital.  In re Kennedy
Individual Retirement Account
 Where an Individual Retirement Account was treated as the exclusive property of husband since he used the account as an adjustment to income on his separate tax return, this was property acquired solely by husband during the marriage and fell within the exclusion of the prenuptial agreement.  In re Burgess
Investment
 The interest earned during the marriage on one spouse’s investment account was her non-marital property, as an increase in the value of property acquired before marriage remained non-marital property.  In re Deem
Legislative Intent
 The intent of this section as a whole was designed to eliminate disparity between the marriage partners; however, the exceptions (1) through (6) of subsection 9a) of this section manifest the legislative purpose to preserve the character of non-marital property in those situations where the actions of the parties have not created ambiguity.  In re Smith
Test
 Where property was acquired before marriage, title is a relevant indicator to determine at the time of dissolution whether the property has remained non-marital.  In re Drennan

See Also:  Divorce Lawyers New York