Liz Weston, L.A. Times financial writer, walked a room full of bankruptcy attorneys at the Sacramento Valley Bankruptcy Forum through the impact of various credit events on your credit score last weekend.

She recounted how, after meeting some debtors as she worked on stories, she no longer saw debtors as deadbeats. She saw the challenges in their lives and the soundness of electing bankruptcy.  Her candor about the change in her world view was refreshing.

Having written a book on credit scoring, she naturally was caught up in the interface with bankruptcy.  But I as one who is frustrated by the fixation of those drowning in debt on their credit score, I wanted to stand up and shout:  Ruin your credit score, not your life!

The financial media sounds a drum beat that one’s life and worth is wrapped up in that credit score, something we don’t fully understand and based on credit reports which are notoriously inaccurate.  Life will end, we’re told, if our credit score declines.

That fear keeps American consumers struggling to pay debt that they can never, in this life or the next, repay.  They appear to consider a lifetime of minimum payments rather than a fresh start in bankruptcy to preserve their credit score.

As Liz pointed out, the credit score is dynamic:  it is constantly changing, and heals over time.  My call is to fix your balance sheet. Get rid of dischargeable debts.  Save for retirement.  Live beneath your means.  Don’t walk the financial tightrope.

I usually assure clients that institutional creditors are generally very observant of the automatic stay. Once they have notice, they cease collection.  But this month, in two of my pending Chapter 13 cases, Chase Home Loans has run off and set or actually conducted post bankruptcy foreclosure sales.

To make matters worse, given notice of the problem, Chase’s counsel has been either indifferent or ineffectual in moving to unwind the actions taken in violation of the stay.  I’m not sure whether this is simply happenstance, or presages a general meltdown of default mortgage servicing, but it is worrisome.

Susanne Robicsek’s post on the futility of keeping a home through bankruptcy brought to mind Professor Brent White’s paper on the use by government and financial counselors of fear and shame to keep people paying on mortgages on underwater homes.

White cites a litany of messages from apparently credable sources who chant that a foreclosure will scar your life forever onwards.  Further, these messages suggest that the law and morality require that you pay for something that no longer has value or no longer makes economic sense.

Somehow, I didn’t hear that electing to default on a mortgage was immoral when a couple of huge real estate investment companies walked from projects in New York.  Is it immoral only for individuals, but just good business for corporations?

I see my job as a bankruptcy  professional to ask the client to consider walking away.  Is the house genuinely affordable now?  Will the loan reset making it unaffordable in the future?  How much would the housing market have to appreciate just to be able to sell it for what you owe?  Do you want to take a further credit hit down the road when you need to leave this house?

Given the breadth of the current financial morass, I have doubts that what we take as gospel about the future availability of credit to those filing bankruptcy will be the rule in the future.  I doubt that credit availability will return to the norms of the past two decades anytime soon.  Who knows what the rules will be in the future?

I have to ask clients:  just what kind of financial pain are you prepared to endure in the expectation that the old rules will prevail?

The availability of parking at the BART (light rail) station has been my measure of the depth of the recession.  Lots of parking means that not very many folk are working and riding public transit to work.

On my way to Oakland bankruptcy court today, I had to park in the auxiliary parking lots.  Ah, I thought, recovery is on its way.

My partner suggested an alternative explanation: everyone in the parking lot was on their way to a job fair…..

Jonathan Ginsberg’s piece about the murky language of notices from the bankruptcy court struck a cord. In an attempt to provide notice, they sow confusion.  But my pet peeve is the client who calls up and says, literally, “I got this letter from {insert name of court or creditor, or trustee}.  What does it mean?”

I wonder if they think I’m the offspring of Carnak the Magnificent, who provided answers BEFORE reading the questions.  I’m trying to train my staff to tell them to fax me the letter in question, so I can see what they are talking about before trying to interpret it.  In my imagination, it would be much more fun just to provide random answers….