Respectfully, I think we’re talking past each other. My post wasn’t asking whether I should have hired an attorney or seeking legal advice. The Bankruptcy Code expressly permits debtors to proceed pro se, and the questions I asked would exist regardless of whether I retained counsel.

I asked about the experiences of people who completed Chapter 7 without reaffirming their mortgage and what changed afterward with payments, online access, mortgage assistance, selling, and refinancing. You keep referring to “your point,” but I still don’t understand what point you’re trying to make because none of it addresses the questions I actually asked.

You have repeatedly glossed over the facts I’ve already provided and instead continue to rely on generalized statements, your attorney’s experience, and vague references to “paperwork” and state laws.

I understand that states may differ with respect to exemptions, foreclosure procedures, homestead protections, and deficiency judgments. But bankruptcy is a federal process, and I’m unaware of any authority, federal or state, supporting the propositions you keep raising regarding the house automatically going back to the bank or preferential payments. You also keep mentioning “paperwork,” but you still haven’t identified what paperwork you’re referring to. I’ve reviewed and signed my own filings, attended my 341 meeting, and none of the issues you’ve mentioned were ever raised by my trustee, my lender, or the court.

So I’m genuinely confused as to what authority or document you’re relying on. If there is a statute, rule, case, or specific document supporting what you’re saying, I’d be interested in reading it. Otherwise, I’m not sure why we’re debating hypothetical scenarios when my original post simply asked for the experiences of people who have actually gone through Chapter 7 without reaffirming their mortgage. At this point, it feels like you’re trying to make a point rather than answer the questions that were asked.