Bankruptcy vs Delinquency Involving Routine Accounts

Was wondering if you disclose your BK, which just turned 6 this month, do you need to disclose the delinquencies preceding the BK? The very delinquencies that caused the BK? And that may be beyond 7 years? Sec 18

Yes, you need to report all of the delinquencies and answer the questions in the eQIP. Otherwise you will be trying to do it from memory during your Subject interview.

BTW, yours was a very valid question as most people “assume” you don’t have to follow the instructions and list all of the delinquent accounts and details if
you simply list “bankruptcy” on the security questionnaire.

The OP asked items that are older than seven years. I am thinking in his question that the scope of his investigation only goes back seven years. His BK is 6 years old and was already disclosed.

Question asks “in the past 7 years…”

Take the time you are filling out the SF86 and compare it to the last time you were late on those accounts then see if within 7 years. If not then don’t report. If it is, then report. Report bankruptcy if within 7 years. If not then don’t report.

The point is you need to report all accounts that fall within the seven years. The common error is omitting the underlying accounts but simply reporting the bankruptcy. While I have rarely seen a bankruptcy with no delinquent accounts - normally because of divorces and medical bills - the norm is for the bankruptcy to have some/numerous delinquent accounts.

This is what happens during the typical bankruptcy Subject interview.

“I see you have a bankruptcy. Why did you file?” Then the Subject explains the events leading up to the bankruptcy. They might mention the house foreclosure or medical bills - no details - then claim no other information was known. The Subject is asked why he didn’t report the house foreclosure or medical bills. Common response is, “I reported the bankruptcy instead” (at this point the investigation is coded for financial and honesty).

“Any other information?”, asks the investigator. No is the common response.

The investigator sighs and says, “During the investigation…” and asks the Subject in detail about the additional 3 to 50 accounts not report in full on the security questionnaire or earlier in the Subject interview. Each item is discussed in detail, current financial status is discussed, and the Subject is given a few days to gather the information and any supporting documentation they want for the adjudicator. This is easily an additional hour to the Subject interview and delays the case at least six days.

If the information is reported on the security questionnaire, then the investigator will only ask why the bankruptcy, is the information reported current/correct, and discuss your current financial status. Yes, you might be asked about any discrepancies, account numbers or amounts, between the listed information and your credit report - but your interview is certainly much quicker - and less painless. My experience is the Subjects that take the time to fill out the questionnaire in full the first time are also more prepared for the Subject interview which greatly reduces the interview (and my typing) time.

It is unlikely that the delinquent accounts are outside of the 7 year period (120 day delinquent). That being said, There is no reason though to report things just because. He should follow the questions on the SF86 and answer them truthfully as well as not overthink it. It doesn’t say list all delinquent accounts. It says over 120 days and then it also asks about the bankruptcy. The investigator will have a copy of the credit report and everyone knows that mounting debt or failure to pay debts is a precursor to bankruptcy anyways. All the investigator has to do is ask why like you said and then the subject can provide the details. Though if he account was only 30 days late and he filed bankruptcy then technically he doesn’t have to report it.

I agree that you only want to report the information requested by the SCA. The SCA not only asks for delinquent accounts but any collections, any repossessions, etc. I was trying to explain that simply listing a bankruptcy does not mean you don’t list the rest of the information required to be listed on the questionnaire.

The information will have to be gathered regardless if the Subject provides the information up front or during the Subject interview. Providing the requested information when submitting the SCA shows candor and reduces the Subject interview time.

Yes, normally mounting debt/failure to pay debts is normally the precursor to a bankruptcy - but the bankruptcy is not the whole story, just part of the last chapter. Also, not every debt is included in the bankruptcy.

I think you agree then to only report debts on the form that match the criteria.

yes - never meant anything else.

I think you agree then that not only are you required to report the bankruptcy, and but also report again the individual debts required by the SCA, including those discharged during the bankruptcy.

Most Subjects only report the bankruptcy (if that) and none of the other required financial issues.

Side note: the investigator will ask you about all of the debts on the credit report and the bankruptcy - regardless if they are required to be reported on the SCA. The Subject does not get coded for honesty (personal conduct) when the correct information is listed on the SCA even if there are unreported debts that did not meet the SCA self-reporting requirements.

OP stated beyond seven years, so your advice is correct.

You only report the debts that are “in the past 7 years” criteria area. If they are beyond the 7 years then you don’t list them. If the only financial issue is the bankruptcy and no collections in last 7 years and nothing else etc then you only need to list the bankruptcy. It’s all about timelines and the category of financial issue. Not that difficult really. There should be no difficulty answering that question even if you had a bankruptcy previously. Each are their own question.