Thank you for the clarification:
I listed them when I filed in November 9th 2011.
I received my hearing date for Decmber 19th 2011.
I received a letter from one of the vendor's attorney's on decemcer20th 2011 stating that I used my credit card in the presumption period.
On Feb 12th 2012 I received notice toof abandment for my home.
on jan 20th 2012 i received a letter from the courts with a hearing date of may 2nd, which i responded to them and the plaintiff explaining that the purchase occured prior and it was not avoidable.
on feb 26th 2012 I received a discharge letter to debtors
on march 5th2012 i received a letter from the palintiff's lawyers asking to call them.
i wrote a letter sating that my debt has been discharged.
therefor i did not go on May 2nd.
On may 3rd 2012 i recieved this from the courts
pursuant to FED R Bankr p 7026,fed r civ p 26 applies. the parties shall make the initial disclosures required by fed r civ p 25 a) 1 within 10 days after the date of this case management order
it seems that i need a lwyer so i emailed you guys to see if i do need one
Response: You have been doing great handling the case on your own. So, you do not need an attorney.
A creditor must object to the dischargeability of its debt within the time specified on the Section 341 Meeting Notice or forever be barred from asserting a claim in the future. Creditor's attorney's letter to you is not the same thing as filing Objection to Dischargeability of the Debt. If the attorney never filed any Objection with the Court and you received a Discharge Order from the Court, then the creditor cannot initiate adversary proceeding to object to the dischargeability of the debt. So, your main defense here would be that the creditor's objection has been time barred. It was supposed to be within 60 days after the conclusion of Section 341 Meeting. Second, the creditor's objection is without merit because you did not purchase the item within the presumption period.
Contact the Clerk's office and ask for the Docket Clerk for your case and let him or her know that a mistake has been made in issuing the Rule 7026 Order because the debt in question has already been discharged by the Court.