.jpg)
Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
Ok, Mike, that is why I raised the question. As long as the case law sticks to the filing date we will have predictable exemptions. Since the six month rule is part of the statute, a rule that you have to wait six months make sense, but just extrapolating to lots of other contingencies, will not likely become part of the code.
D
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Jul 17, 2014, at 7:21 PM, "Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
> This is an interesting issue. According to the snapshot rule, the homestead exemption is a vested interest subject to divestment. You get it for 6 months and you lose it if you do not protect it.
>
> What about the amount?
>
> Ex1. Debtor is 40 years old married to a 70 year old non-debtor spouse. Debtor is entitled to 175k exemption as long as he is married. If marriage is dissolved i.e. death or divorce, the exemption drops down to 75k. What happens if Debtor reinvests 175k in a new homestead. Wife dies and now he is only entitled to 75k, does the 100k that is no longer exempt get sucked into the Estate? Or is he entitled to the amount as of petition date?
>
> Ex2. Debtor is "disabled" in such a way that he cannot obtain substantial gainful employment. He is entitled to 175k exemption. Sometime after petition date (say 1 week), he recovers. He is now only entitled to 75k exemption. Or is he entitled to amount as of petition date?
>
> These exemptions all have a contingent remainder feel to them. You get the exemption but it's conditioned on (Ex1) remaining married or (Ex2) remaining disabled at the time the sale is to occur: 704.730(a)(3) - "(3) One hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($175,000) ... at the time of the attempted sale." This language seems like the intent of the California legislature is to provide the exemption only so long as the contingency continues to be satisfied.
>
> I know something is wrong with my analysis but I can't put my finger on it. The reason I say something is wrong is because in Chapter 11, I have seen Debtors retain their homestead exemption on a home even if they move out before the house is sold; apparently because their homestead is locked in on the Petition Date. Maybe Jacobson changed all this. I don't know how much reliance one can have on pre-Jacobson law.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michael Avanesian
>
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Frank Ruggier frank@pricelawgroup.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>> Maybe the disability only needs to last as long as the homestead exemption, 6 months. LOL.
>>
>>
>>
>> Frank X. Ruggier
>> Price Law Group, APC
>> 15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1100
>> Encino, CA 91436
>> Direct: (818) 205-2406
>> Fax: (818) 907-2106
>> www.pricelawgroup.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 11:05 AM
>>
>>
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You want to argue that for me Dennis? Ill find a case for you. lol
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 11:04 AM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In light of the new 9th Cir case about the six month reinvestment requirement, I wonder if the 9th Cir would add a requirement that the disability be permanent?
>>
>>
>>
>> d
>>
>> Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2014, at 1:48 PM, "Giovanni Orantes go@gobklaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you, Larry.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2014, at 12:39 PM, "Larry Simons larry@lsimonslaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> There are several Neff cases. Try this link:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... as_sdt2006
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:33 PM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In re Neff does not discuss ccp 704.730.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Larry Simons larry@lsimonslaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Neff v. Denoce (In re Neff, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 471, *25 (9th Cir. BAP 2014).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:35 AM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have been searching for exactly that issue and cannot find that requirement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:45 AM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Under CCP 704.730, you can claim the higher $175,000 exemption if a debtor is disabled as of the date of the petition. In Re Rolland, 317 B.R. 402 (C.D. Cal. 2004). Is anybody aware of an interpretation of that statute requiring that the disability be "permanent"?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
>>
>> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
>> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
>> Los Angeles, CA 90010
>> Tel: (213) 389-4362
>> Fax: (877) 789-5776
>> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
>> website: www.gobklaw.com
>>
>> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>>
>> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>>
>> Commercial Litigation
>>
>> Estate Planning
>>
>> Outside General Counsel
>>
>>
>>
>> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>>
>> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>>
>> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail >>
>> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
>>
>> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
>> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
>> Los Angeles, CA 90010
>> Tel: (213) 389-4362
>> Fax: (877) 789-5776
>> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
>> website: www.gobklaw.com
>>
>> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>>
>> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>>
>> Commercial Litigation
>>
>> Estate Planning
>>
>> Outside General Counsel
>>
>>
>>
>> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>>
>> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>>
>> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail >>
>> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
>>
>>
>
>
On Jul 17, 2014, at 7:21 PM, "Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa]" <
This is an interesting issue. According to the snapshot rule, the homestead exemption is a vested interest subject to divestment. You get it for 6 months and you lose it if you do not protect it.
What about the amount? Ex1. Debtor is 40 years old married to a 70 year old non-debtor spouse. Debtor is entitled to 175k exemption as long as he is married. If marriage is dissolved i.e. death or divorce, the exemption drops down to 75k. What happens if Debtor reinvests 175k in a new homestead. Wife dies and now he is only entitled to 75k, does the 100k that is no longer exempt get sucked into the Estate? Or is he entitled to the amount as of petition date?
Ex2. Debtor is "disabled" in such a way that he cannot obtain substantial gainful employment. He is entitled to 175k exemption. Sometime after petition date (say 1 week), he recovers. He is now only entitled to 75k exemption. Or is he entitled to amount as of petition date?
These exemptions all have a contingent remainder feel to them. You get the exemption but it's conditioned on (Ex1) remaining married or (Ex2) remaining disabled at the time the sale is to occur: 704.730(a)(3) - "(3) One hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($175,000) ... at the time of the attempted sale." This language seems like the intent of the California legislature is to provide the exemption only so long as the contingency continues to be satisfied.
I know something is wrong with my analysis but I can't put my finger on it. The reason I say something is wrong is because in Chapter 11, I have seen Debtors retain their homestead exemption on a home even if they move out before the house is sold; apparently because their homestead is locked in on the Petition Date. Maybe Jacobson changed all this. I don't know how much reliance one can have on pre-Jacobson law.
Sincerely, Michael AvanesianOn Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Frank Ruggier frank@pricelawgroup.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Maybe the disability only needs to last as long as the homestead exemption, 6 months. LOL.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
This is an interesting issue. According to the snapshot rule, the homestead
exemption is a vested interest subject to divestment. You get it for 6
months and you lose it if you do not protect it.
What about the amount?
Ex1. Debtor is 40 years old married to a 70 year old non-debtor spouse.
Debtor is entitled to 175k exemption as long as he is married. If marriage
is dissolved i.e. death or divorce, the exemption drops down to 75k. What
happens if Debtor reinvests 175k in a new homestead. Wife dies and now he
is only entitled to 75k, does the 100k that is no longer exempt get sucked
into the Estate? Or is he entitled to the amount as of petition date?
Ex2. Debtor is "disabled" in such a way that he cannot obtain substantial
gainful employment. He is entitled to 175k exemption. Sometime after
petition date (say 1 week), he recovers. He is now only entitled to 75k
exemption. Or is he entitled to amount as of petition date?
These exemptions all have a contingent remainder feel to them. You get the
exemption but it's conditioned on (Ex1) remaining married or (Ex2)
remaining disabled at the time the sale is to occur: 704.730(a)(3) - "(3)
One hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($175,000) ... at the time of the
attempted sale." This language seems like the intent of the California
legislature is to provide the exemption only so long as the contingency
continues to be satisfied.
I know something is wrong with my analysis but I can't put my finger on it.
The reason I say something is wrong is because in Chapter 11, I have seen
Debtors retain their homestead exemption on a home even if they move out
before the house is sold; apparently because their homestead is locked in
on the Petition Date. Maybe Jacobson changed all this. I don't know how
much reliance one can have on pre-Jacobson law.
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Frank Ruggier frank@pricelawgroup.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Maybe the disability only needs to last as long as the homestead
> exemption, 6 months. LOL.
>
>
>
> Frank X. Ruggier
> Price Law Group, APC
> 15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1100
> Encino, CA 91436
> Direct: (818) 205-2406
> Fax: (818) 907-2106
> www.pricelawgroup.com
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 17, 2014 11:05 AM
>
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
>
>
>
> You want to argue that for me Dennis? Ill find a case for you. lol
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 17, 2014 11:04 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
>
>
>
> In light of the new 9th Cir case about the six month reinvestment
> requirement, I wonder if the 9th Cir would add a requirement that the
> disability be permanent?
>
>
>
> d
>
> Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503
> 310-328-1001-voice
>
> [image: cid:part1.03050307.05030101@bklaw.com]
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2014, at 1:48 PM, "Giovanni Orantes go@gobklaw.com [cdcbaa]" cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thank you, Larry.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2014, at 12:39 PM, "Larry Simons larry@lsimonslaw.com
> [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
>
> There are several Neff cases. Try this link:
>
>
>
>
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... as_sdt2006
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:33 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
>
>
>
> *In re Neff* does not discuss ccp 704.730.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Larry Simons larry@lsimonslaw.com
> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
>
> *Neff v. Denoce (In re Neff*, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 471, *25 (9th Cir. BAP
> 2014).
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:35 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
>
>
>
> I have been searching for exactly that issue and cannot find that
> requirement.
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:45 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
>
>
>
> Under CCP 704.730, you can claim the higher $175,000 exemption if a debtor
> is disabled as of the date of the petition. In Re Rolland, 317 B.R. 402
> (C.D. Cal. 2004). Is anybody aware of an interpretation of that statute
> requiring that the disability be "permanent"?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
>
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
>
> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
>
> Commercial Litigation
>
> Estate Planning
>
> Outside General Counsel
>
>
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
> AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>
> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
> information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
> e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed
> by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
> 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 herein.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
>
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
>
> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
>
> Commercial Litigation
>
> Estate Planning
>
> Outside General Counsel
>
>
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
> AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>
> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
> information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
> e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed
> by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
> 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 herein.
>
>
>
This is an interesting issue. According to the snapshot rule, the homestead exemption is a vested interest subject to divestment. You get it for 6 months and you lose it if you do not protect it.
What about the amount?Ex1. Debtor is 40 years old married to a 70 year old non-debtor spouse. Debtor is entitled to 175k exemption as long as he is married. If marriage is dissolved i.e. death or divorce, the exemption drops down to 75k. What happens if Debtor reinvests 175k in a new homestead. Wife dies and now he is only entitled to 75k, does the 100k that is no longer exempt get sucked into the Estate? Or is he entitled to the amount as of petition date?
Ex2. Debtor is "disabled" in such a way that he cannot obtain substantial gainful employment. He is entitled to 175k exemption. Sometime after petition date (say 1 week), he recovers. He is now only entitled to 75k exemption. Or is he entitled to amount as of petition date?
These exemptions all have a contingent remainder feel to them. You get the exemption but it's conditioned on (Ex1) remaining married or (Ex2) remaining disabled at the time the sale is to occur: 704.730(a)(3) - "(3) One hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($175,000) ... at the time of the attempted sale." This language seems like the intent of the California legislature is to provide the exemption only so long as the contingency continues to be satisfied.
I know something is wrong with my analysis but I can't put my finger on it. The reason I say something is wrong is because in Chapter 11, I have seen Debtors retain their homestead exemption on a home even if they move out before the house is sold; apparently because their homestead is locked in on the Petition Date. Maybe Jacobson changed all this. I don't know how much reliance one can have on pre-Jacobson law.
Sincerely, Michael AvanesianOn Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Frank Ruggier frank@pricelawgroup.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Maybe the disability only needs to last as long as the homestead exemption, 6 months. LOL.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
What are the ages?
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Jul 15, 2014, at 12:04 PM, "Tuan Le tuanl@stevelopezlaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
> I have a question that is in the realm of the Homestead exemption that is not the same as this one but hope that someone could answer. I have a client that is married and retired that will claim the Homestead Exemption but is filing alone. Both the client and the spouse are retired. There is about $120,000.00 of equity in the home. Would the debtor be able to claim the $175,000.00 Homestead Exemption for a community property even if he is filing alone?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Tuan Le
>
>
>
> Tuan Le, Esq.
>
> Law Offices of Steve Lopez
>
> 8562 Florence Avenue, Suite A
>
> Downey, California 90240
>
> Main: (562)904-1193
>
> Fax: (562)262-2846
>
>
>
> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail may contain confidential information and may also be legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, as indicated above, please notify us immediately. In such event, you should not copy or use this e-mail for any purpose nor disclose its contents to anyone. Enclosed information and attachments remain the property of the LAW OFFICE OF STEVE LOPEZ. Opinions, conclusions, attachments, and neither information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the LAW OFFICE OF STEVE LOPEZ should be understood as my personal responsibility, and as neither given nor endorsed by the LAW OFFICE OF STEVE LOPEZ.
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:39 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
>
>
>
> Neff v. Denoce (In re Neff, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 471, *25 (9th Cir. BAP 2014).
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:35 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
>
>
>
> I have been searching for exactly that issue and cannot find that requirement.
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:45 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
>
>
>
> Under CCP 704.730, you can claim the higher $175,000 exemption if a debtor is disabled as of the date of the petition. In Re Rolland, 317 B.R. 402 (C.D. Cal. 2004). Is anybody aware of an interpretation of that statute requiring that the disability be "permanent"?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
>
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>
> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>
> Commercial Litigation
>
> Estate Planning
>
> Outside General Counsel
>
>
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>
> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail >
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
In light of the new 9th Cir case about the six month reinvestment requirement, I wonder if the 9th Cir would add a requirement that the disability be permanent?
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Jul 15, 2014, at 1:48 PM, "Giovanni Orantes go@gobklaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
> Thank you, Larry.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jul 15, 2014, at 12:39 PM, "Larry Simons larry@lsimonslaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>>
>>
>> There are several Neff cases. Try this link:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... as_sdt2006
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:33 PM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In re Neff does not discuss ccp 704.730.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Larry Simons larry@lsimonslaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Neff v. Denoce (In re Neff, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 471, *25 (9th Cir. BAP 2014).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:35 AM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have been searching for exactly that issue and cannot find that requirement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:45 AM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Under CCP 704.730, you can claim the higher $175,000 exemption if a debtor is disabled as of the date of the petition. In Re Rolland, 317 B.R. 402 (C.D. Cal. 2004). Is anybody aware of an interpretation of that statute requiring that the disability be "permanent"?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
>>
>> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
>> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
>> Los Angeles, CA 90010
>> Tel: (213) 389-4362
>> Fax: (877) 789-5776
>> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
>> website: www.gobklaw.com
>>
>> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>>
>> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>>
>> Commercial Litigation
>>
>> Estate Planning
>>
>> Outside General Counsel
>>
>>
>>
>> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>>
>> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>>
>> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail >>
>> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
>>
>> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
>> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
>> Los Angeles, CA 90010
>> Tel: (213) 389-4362
>> Fax: (877) 789-5776
>> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
>> website: www.gobklaw.com
>>
>> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>>
>> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>>
>> Commercial Litigation
>>
>> Estate Planning
>>
>> Outside General Counsel
>>
>>
>>
>> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>>
>> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>>
>> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail >>
>> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
>>
>
>
On Jul 15, 2014, at 1:48 PM, "Giovanni Orantes go@gobklaw.com [cdcbaa]" <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Thank you, Larry.Sent from my iPhoneOn Jul 15, 2014, at 12:39 PM, "Larry Simons larry@lsimonslaw.com [cdcbaa]" <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
There are several Neff cases. Try this link:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="UTF-8"
Beware of what some of the trustees (Larry and Wes excepted of course
) tell you. We have some panel trustees who cannot tell where they end and the judge begins. They are often the same ones who will misstate the law with a tone of voice that is intended to make you think that they are speaking to you directly from atop Mt. Sinai.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.
This answer is incorrect. Only a judge can disallow an exemption.
D
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Jul 15, 2014, at 2:31 PM, "axel richter arichterlaw@yahoo.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
> the Limited Income is the Issue, not the disability, if the debtor has more than a limited income, more than only disability income or SSI, than the trustee will not allow the excemption, happened to me before, the trustee is the one who allows or disallows the excemtion, call the trustee,
> regards
> axel
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 3:48 PM, "Giovanni Orantes go@gobklaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
>
> Thank you, Larry.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jul 15, 2014, at 12:39 PM, "Larry Simons larry@lsimonslaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>>
>>
>> There are several Neff cases. Try this link:
>>
>> http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... as_sdt2006
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:33 PM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>>
>>
>> In re Neff does not discuss ccp 704.730.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Larry Simons larry@lsimonslaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>> Neff v. Denoce (In re Neff, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 471, *25 (9th Cir. BAP 2014).
>>
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:35 AM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>>
>>
>> I have been searching for exactly that issue and cannot find that requirement.
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:45 AM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>>
>>
>> Under CCP 704.730, you can claim the higher $175,000 exemption if a debtor is disabled as of the date of the petition. In Re Rolland, 317 B.R. 402 (C.D. Cal. 2004). Is anybody aware of an interpretation of that statute requiring that the disability be "permanent"?
>>
>> --
>> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
>> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
>> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
>> Los Angeles, CA 90010
>> Tel: (213) 389-4362
>> Fax: (877) 789-5776
>> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
>> website: www.gobklaw.com
>> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>> Commercial Litigation
>> Estate Planning
>> Outside General Counsel
>>
>> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>>
>> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>>
>> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail >>
>> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
>> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
>> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
>> Los Angeles, CA 90010
>> Tel: (213) 389-4362
>> Fax: (877) 789-5776
>> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
>> website: www.gobklaw.com
>> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>> Commercial Litigation
>> Estate Planning
>> Outside General Counsel
>>
>> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>>
>> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>>
>> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail >>
>> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Well, the trustee can argue that an exemption cannot be taken, but he or
she must still file an objection with the Court and the Judge decides if
the trustee carries the burden.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:31 PM, axel richter arichterlaw@yahoo.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> the Limited Income is the Issue, not the disability, if the debtor has
> more than a limited income, more than only disability income or SSI, than
> the trustee will not allow the excemption, happened to me before, the
> trustee is the one who allows or disallows the excemtion, call the trustee,
> regards
> axel
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 3:48 PM, "Giovanni Orantes go@gobklaw.com
> [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
>
> Thank you, Larry.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 15, 2014, at 12:39 PM, "Larry Simons larry@lsimonslaw.com
> [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
> There are several Neff cases. Try this link:
>
>
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... as_sdt2006
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:33 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
> *In re Neff* does not discuss ccp 704.730.
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Larry Simons larry@lsimonslaw.com
> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> *Neff v. Denoce (In re Neff*, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 471, *25 (9th Cir. BAP
> 2014).
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:35 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
> I have been searching for exactly that issue and cannot find that
> requirement.
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:45 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
> Under CCP 704.730, you can claim the higher $175,000 exemption if a
> debtor is disabled as of the date of the petition. In Re Rolland, 317 B.R.
> 402 (C.D. Cal. 2004). Is anybody aware of an interpretation of that
> statute requiring that the disability be "permanent"?
>
> --
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
> Commercial Litigation
> Estate Planning
> Outside General Counsel
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
> AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>
> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
> information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
> e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed
> by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
> 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 herein.
>
>
>
> --
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
> Commercial Litigation
> Estate Planning
> Outside General Counsel
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
> AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>
> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
> information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
> e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed
> by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
> 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 herein.
>
>
>
>
>
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
*Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
*Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
Commercial Litigation
Estate Planning
Outside General Counsel
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed
by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
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 herein.
Well, the trustee can argue that an exemption cannot be taken, but he or she must still file an objection with the Court and the Judge decides if the trustee carries the burden.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:31 PM, axel richter arichterlaw@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
the Limited Income is the Issue, not the disability, if the debtor has more than a limited income, more than only disability income or SSI, than the trustee will not allow the excemption, happened to me before, the trustee is the one who allows or disallows the excemtion, call the trustee,
regards
axel
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 3:48 PM, "Giovanni Orantes go@gobklaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
Thank you, Larry.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 15, 2014, at 12:39 PM, "Larry Simons larry@lsimonslaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>There are several Neff cases. Try this link:
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thank you, Larry.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 15, 2014, at 12:39 PM, "Larry Simons larry@lsimonslaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
> There are several Neff cases. Try this link:
>
>
>
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... as_sdt2006
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:33 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
>
>
>
> In re Neff does not discuss ccp 704.730.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Larry Simons larry@lsimonslaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
>
> Neff v. Denoce (In re Neff, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 471, *25 (9th Cir. BAP 2014).
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:35 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
>
>
>
> I have been searching for exactly that issue and cannot find that requirement.
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:45 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
>
>
>
> Under CCP 704.730, you can claim the higher $175,000 exemption if a debtor is disabled as of the date of the petition. In Re Rolland, 317 B.R. 402 (C.D. Cal. 2004). Is anybody aware of an interpretation of that statute requiring that the disability be "permanent"?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
>
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>
> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>
> Commercial Litigation
>
> Estate Planning
>
> Outside General Counsel
>
>
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>
> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail >
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
>
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>
> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
>
> Commercial Litigation
>
> Estate Planning
>
> Outside General Counsel
>
>
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>
> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail >
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
In response to:
I have a client that is married and retired that will claim the Homestead
Exemption but is filing alone. Both the client and the spouse are
retired. There is about $120,000.00 of equity in the home. Would the
debtor be able to claim the $175,000.00 Homestead Exemption for a community
property even if he is filing alone?
If your only concern is that one spouse is filing and the other is not,
your client may claim the entire 175k. If you have other concerns, like if
at least one of them is not 65 or older (you said retired) or if they are
55 and over but there may be income issues then more analysis is necessary.
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Tuan Le tuanl@stevelopezlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> I have a question that is in the realm of the Homestead exemption that
> is not the same as this one but hope that someone could answer. I have a
> client that is married and retired that will claim the Homestead Exemption
> but is filing alone. Both the client and the spouse are retired. There is
> about $120,000.00 of equity in the home. Would the debtor be able to claim
> the $175,000.00 Homestead Exemption for a community property even if he is
> filing alone?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Tuan Le
>
>
>
> Tuan Le, Esq.
>
> Law Offices of Steve Lopez
>
> 8562 Florence Avenue, Suite A
>
> Downey, California 90240
>
> Main: (562)904-1193
>
> Fax: (562)262-2846
>
>
>
> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail may contain confidential information and may also
> be legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, as indicated
> above, please notify us immediately. In such event, you should not copy or
> use this e-mail for any purpose nor disclose its contents to anyone.
> Enclosed information and attachments remain the property of the LAW OFFICE
> OF STEVE LOPEZ. Opinions, conclusions, attachments, and neither information
> in this message that do not relate to the official business of the LAW
> OFFICE OF STEVE LOPEZ should be understood as my personal responsibility,
> and as neither given nor endorsed by the LAW OFFICE OF STEVE LOPEZ.
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:39 AM
>
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
>
>
>
> *Neff v. Denoce (In re Neff*, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 471, *25 (9th Cir. BAP
> 2014).
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:35 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
>
>
>
> I have been searching for exactly that issue and cannot find that
> requirement.
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:45 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Urgent: Homestead Exemption Based on Disability
>
>
>
>
>
> Under CCP 704.730, you can claim the higher $175,000 exemption if a debtor
> is disabled as of the date of the petition. In Re Rolland, 317 B.R. 402
> (C.D. Cal. 2004). Is anybody aware of an interpretation of that statute
> requiring that the disability be "permanent"?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
>
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
>
> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
>
> Commercial Litigation
>
> Estate Planning
>
> Outside General Counsel
>
>
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
> AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>
> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
> information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
> e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed
> by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
> 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 herein.
>
>
>
In response to:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.