It's very confusing, at least to me, when to use FRCP 69/54 as incorporated
by FRBP 7054/7069 as incorporated by FRBP 9014 and when to use the Wallace
case, i.e. make a demand for payment of the fees ordered and if not paid,
file a subsequent motion for sanctions.
If the order contains specific language like "pay within 60 days," then you
should probably lean towards Wallace. Wait the 60 days, make a demand
before that time is up, and file another motion once payment is not made.
If the order does not contain a time period for payment, then you should
probably lean towards the traditional execution methods.
In a future order, maybe you can request for the Court to provide a
specific remedy like "It is further ordered that if payment is not made
within the time frame specified in paragraph 2, [name] shall be subject to
further sanctions." Seems like a good way to avoid problems and encourage
payment.
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:00 PM,
jhayes@hayesbklaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Take a look at In re Wallace, 490 BR 898 (9th BAP 2013). Failure to pay
> fixed amount for contempt is enforced by further contempt, not by writ of
> anything.
>
> Looks like you're getting this internet thing down.
>
>
>
It's very confusing, at least to me, when to use FRCP 69/54 as incorporated by FRBP 7054/7069 as incorporated by FRBP 9014 and when to use the Wallace case, i.e. make a demand for payment of the fees ordered and if not paid, file a subsequent motion for sanctions.
If the order contains specific language like "pay within 60 days," then you should probably lean towards Wallace. Wait the 60 days, make a demand before that time is up, and file another motion once payment is not made.
If the order does not contain a time period for payment, then you should probably lean towards the traditional execution methods.est for the Court to provide a specific remedy like "It is further ordered that if payment is not made within thetime framespecified in paragraph 2, [name] shall be subject to further sanctions." Seems like a good way to avoid problems and encourage payment.
Sincerely, Michael AvanesianOn Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:00 PM,
jhayes@hayesbklaw.com [cdcbaa] <
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Take a look at In re Wallace, 490 BR 898 (9th BAP 2013). Failure to pay fixed amount for contempt is enforced by further contempt, not by writ of anything. Looks like you're getting this internet thing down.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
.jpg)
