.jpg)
Exempting life insurance proceeds
Negotiate her debts and wait out the one year SOL in CCP 366.2 on his
debts. She is liable for his debts up to the amount of community property
she receives from him, her share of the community property (to which all the
704 exemptions apply) and any separate property she receives from him (see
Prob C. 13550-13554), but 13554 applies 336.2 to that liability.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
Attorney at Law
Fitzgerald & Green
1010 E. Union St. Ste. 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Hale:
How does she owe?
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
Attorney at Law
Fitzgerald & Green
1010 E. Union St. Ste. 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charsetndows-1252
I'm usually not an outspoken defender of Trustees, but "whim" seems a little harsh.
This section, like 704.115(e) for IRA accounts, calls for an actuarial calculation of need, and unless the recent widow is either employed or very employable, $250K goes very quickly since no one can live on $1000 per month; and the calculation is whether it is necessary for the rest of her life.
That is a calculation that, at least in my experience, Trustees will eyeball and quickly give up the fight.
Obviously different if it were a $5million policy, or she is a neurosurgeon (who is dogging it for $1000 per month).
Jason
Jason Wallach
jwallach@gladstonemichel.com
On May 1, 2014, at 5:01 PM, Hale Andrew Antico wrote:
>
> Recent widow has over $250,000 in life insurance proceeds. Her income is about $1000/month. Am I right that no matter how this is exempted, it's subject "to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the judgment debtor," opening it up to the whims of whichever trustee and/or judge she gets in Chapter 7?
>
> 704.100(c) and 703.140(b)(11)C) and/or 703.140(b)(8) all seem to be subject to limitation. Am I missing something?
>
> And since it does seem to be limited by this clause (or $12,860), what is your experience in how trustees will treat "reasonably necessary," in real practical terms?
>
> I'm leaning toward her avoiding bankruptcy and just settling the debts (subject to potential tax consequences), but am now curious on an academic level, and because the listserv could use a new topic.
>
> Hale
>
>
charsetndows-1252
I'm usually not an outspoken defender of Trustees, but "whim" seems a little harsh. This section, like 704.115(e) for IRA accounts, calls for an actuarial calculation of need, and unless the recent widow is either employed or very employable, $250K goes very quickly since no one can live on $1000 per month; and the calculation is whether it is necessary for the rest of her life.That is a calculation that, at least in my experience, Trustees will eyeball and quickly give up the fight. Obviously different if it were a $5million policy, or she is a neurosurgeon (who is dogging it for $1000 per month).Jason
Jason Wallach
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Recent widow has over $250,000 in life insurance proceeds. Her income is
about $1000/month. Am I right that no matter how this is exempted, it's
subject "to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the judgment
debtor," opening it up to the whims of whichever trustee and/or judge she
gets in Chapter 7?
704.100(c) and 703.140(b)(11)C) and/or 703.140(b)(8) all seem to be subject
to limitation. Am I missing something?
And since it does seem to be limited by this clause (or $12,860), what is
your experience in how trustees will treat "reasonably necessary," in real
practical terms?
I'm leaning toward her avoiding bankruptcy and just settling the debts
(subject to potential tax consequences), but am now curious on an academic
level, and because the listserv could use a new topic.
Hale
Recent widow has
over $250,000 in life insurance proceeds. Her income is about $1000/month.
Am I right that no matter how this is exempted, it's subject "to the extentreasonably necessary for the support of the judgment debtor," opening it up to
the whims of whichever trustee and/or judge she gets in Chapter
7?
704.100(c) and
703.140(b)(11)C) and/or 703.140(b)(8) all seem to be subject to
limitation. Am I missing something?
And since it does
seem to be limited by this clause (or $12,860), what is your experience in how
trustees will treat "reasonably necessary," in real practical
terms?
I'm leaning toward
her avoiding bankruptcy and just settling the debts (subject to potential tax
consequences), but am now curious on an academic level, and because the listserv
could use a new topic.
Hale
The post was migrated from Yahoo.