Recently I've been retained by two folks for an unusual reason. Now, I'm an Arizona bankruptcy lawyer, and I've been a bankruptcy lawyer for about thirty years, so I've heard a lot of reasons for filing.
But these folks were different.
They weren't being sued. They weren't living in a house that was the subject of a trustee's sale. They weren't being garnished. No debtor's exam was scheduled.
They had been told that they would not be offered a job because their credit was bad, but if they filed a bankruptcy and got a discharge, they'd do just fine with the new job.
Frankly, that makes at least a little sense to me. If you are an employer, would you rather hire somebody who has no debt, and can therefore live on what you pay him, or would you rather hire somebody desperate for more money, and willing to do what it takes to get a little extra dough?
I knew that bankruptcy was pre-retirement planning; I had not previously seen it as a job search enhancement project.
But these folks were different.
They weren't being sued. They weren't living in a house that was the subject of a trustee's sale. They weren't being garnished. No debtor's exam was scheduled.
They had been told that they would not be offered a job because their credit was bad, but if they filed a bankruptcy and got a discharge, they'd do just fine with the new job.
Frankly, that makes at least a little sense to me. If you are an employer, would you rather hire somebody who has no debt, and can therefore live on what you pay him, or would you rather hire somebody desperate for more money, and willing to do what it takes to get a little extra dough?
I knew that bankruptcy was pre-retirement planning; I had not previously seen it as a job search enhancement project.
Leave a comment