.jpg)
avoiding lien under 522(f) on vehicle?
if order was not appealed, it probably cannot be collaterally attacked.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On May 27, 2014, at 11:38 AM, "'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
> Just got approached by a Pro Per who filed AND WAS GRANTED a Motion to Avoid a consensual lien against her vehicle.
>
> Creditor is refusing to remove the lien.
>
> Before I get into what responsibilities, if any, the creditor may have, and there are also problems with the Order itself, I question whether this Motion should have been granted.
>
> This is not a judicial lien, so I assume it was brought under 522(f)(1)(B) as a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest. That's fine, but the enumerated assets in this class including "household goods and furnishings" but not vehicles.
>
> Can such a lien be removed under 522(f)? And given that the Judge granted the motion...what validity does the order actually have?
>
>
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> Mailing Address Only:
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
What about tools of the trade?
becomes final then the order must be followed. I saw a recent BAP decision
with the following language: "even if Collect were correct, it can not
dispute that the bankruptcy court issued a lawful order, the Attorney Fee
Order, which required it to act and it defiantly chose not to." See page 12
The post was migrated from Yahoo.