.jpg)
Reconversion 341 after 7 to 13 back to 7
Technically it is a creditors meeting. Debtor may have incurred new debts. As long as the conversions are in good faith I would think the only issue is that they meeting needs to be held for the benefit of the creditors.
Law Office of Catherine Christiansen
On Monday, July 21, 2014 4:42 PM, "'Larry Webb' larry@webbklaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
In the original Ch7 case the trustee conducted the 341 and issued a no asset report. Clients convert to 13 to solve arrearage issues and discovers tax return problems; confirmation is delayed, client loses job, motion to convert back to 7 (without ch13 confirmation) granted by Judge P. Carroll by a generic (not the form with instructions) order with the court taking judicial notice of the prior no asset report. The system generates a new 341 with the original ch7 7 trustee when the case is converted back to CH7.
Why does the trustee need a new 341? In a chapter 13 to 7 conversion I understand there are property of the estate issues s1306 after acquired property. But in this case the original bankruptcy estate was a chapter 7 which has already been examined by the CH7 trustee. The conversion from 7 to 13 and then back to 7 should not change the original 7 filing date or the original bankruptcy estate.
348(a) conversion does not effect the filing date, commencement of the case or the order for relief. 9th Circuit and the BAP have the following opinions.
From the 9th circuit In re John Douglas Smith 235 F.3d 472 (9th Cir. 2000) citing a 2nd circuit case
"The purpose of section 348 is to preserve actions already taken in the case before conversion. . . . To effect this purpose, section 348(a) establishes the general rule that, in a converted case, the dates of the filing, the commencement of the case and the order for relief remain unchanged by the conversion." In re Bell, 225 F.3d 203, 213 (2nd Cir. 2000)
From the 9th circuit BAP IN RE TILLMAN BAP No. CC-07-1432
A proper reading of 348 indicates that it is not a source of disruption but, instead, preserves the continuity of the bankruptcy proceedings. It should not be read as a nullification act. It is not designed to change what has gone before but, rather, to leave matters as they existed on the date of conversion.
Also the debtor has started a new job in Portland Oregon and travel back for the 341 will be a hardship.
I have asked the Chapter 7 trustee why he needs another 341 meeting, given that he has already issued a no asset report on the original filing.
Does anyone have any thoughts to share?
Best regards
Larry Webb
California Board of Legal Specialization
Certified Specialist in Bankruptcy Law
State Bar of California 229344
Central District California
"A Debt Relief Agency"
Check out my Blog
Larry@webbklaw. com
Law Offices of Larry Webb
484 Mobil Ste 43
Camarillo Ca 93010
P 805.987.1400
F 805.987.2866
C 805.750.2150
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
In the original Ch7 case the trustee conducted the 341 and issued a no asset
report. Clients convert to 13 to solve arrearage issues and discovers tax
return problems; confirmation is delayed, client loses job, motion to
convert back to 7 (without ch13 confirmation) granted by Judge P. Carroll
by a generic (not the form with instructions) order with the court taking
judicial notice of the prior no asset report. The system generates a new
341 with the original ch7 7 trustee when the case is converted back to CH7.
Why does the trustee need a new 341? In a chapter 13 to 7 conversion I
understand there are property of the estate issues s1306 after acquired
property. But in this case the original bankruptcy estate was a chapter 7
which has already been examined by the CH7 trustee. The conversion from 7
to 13 and then back to 7 should not change the original 7 filing date or the
original bankruptcy estate.
348(a) conversion does not effect the filing date, commencement of the case
or the order for relief. 9th Circuit and the BAP have the following
opinions.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.