<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Most Websites Get Connecticut Exemptions Wrong</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/2007/03/26/why-most-websites-get-connecticut-exemptions-wrong/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/2007/03/26/why-most-websites-get-connecticut-exemptions-wrong/</link>
	<description>Real Lawyers, Real Solutions</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:34:06 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: South Carolina Homestead Exemption at Bankruptcy Law Network - Real Lawyers, Real Solutions</title>
		<link>http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/2007/03/26/why-most-websites-get-connecticut-exemptions-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-1191</link>
		<dc:creator>South Carolina Homestead Exemption at Bankruptcy Law Network - Real Lawyers, Real Solutions</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 05:02:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/2007/03/26/why-most-websites-get-connecticut-exemptions-wrong/#comment-1191</guid>
		<description>[...] The same day I read this, on the difficulty of determining Connecticut exemptions through web research, a prospective client asked a question that made two things obvious: 1) She had been trying to research South Carolina&#8217;s homestead exemption online; and 2) she had gotten hold of some very misleading information. So, I tried Googling &#8220;South Carolina homestead exemption.&#8221; The first two items in the search results dealt with property taxes, and the amount that can be assessed for school operations. Fascinating reading if you are trying to calculate property taxes by hand, but of limited value in determining whether you can lose your home to creditors. The third link was to more, and different, information about real property taxes, applicable only if you are over age 65. (At that point, I had to go get a latte.)  The 4th link was to a firm that provides asset protection services, and cites the relevant statute, but is hopelessly out of date. Same with the fifth link. And so on. In fact, I gave up before I ever found correct information about the homestead exemption statute, which helps preserve your home from the claims of creditors. Clearly, this is another instance where most web sites get it wrong, at least in terms of the application to bankruptcy or debtor/creditor matters. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The same day I read this, on the difficulty of determining Connecticut exemptions through web research, a prospective client asked a question that made two things obvious: 1) She had been trying to research South Carolina&#8217;s homestead exemption online; and 2) she had gotten hold of some very misleading information. So, I tried Googling &#8220;South Carolina homestead exemption.&#8221; The first two items in the search results dealt with property taxes, and the amount that can be assessed for school operations. Fascinating reading if you are trying to calculate property taxes by hand, but of limited value in determining whether you can lose your home to creditors. The third link was to more, and different, information about real property taxes, applicable only if you are over age 65. (At that point, I had to go get a latte.)  The 4th link was to a firm that provides asset protection services, and cites the relevant statute, but is hopelessly out of date. Same with the fifth link. And so on. In fact, I gave up before I ever found correct information about the homestead exemption statute, which helps preserve your home from the claims of creditors. Clearly, this is another instance where most web sites get it wrong, at least in terms of the application to bankruptcy or debtor/creditor matters. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
