.jpg)
When you convert from CH 13 to CH 7 do you file Form
For someone who's never done a 13, you provide valuable material. That
case you cited regarding the inapplicability of the means test when
converting may come in handy. Of course, not everyone follows it, but it's
a start.
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
**Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal
Specialization*
*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.
For someone who's never done a 13, you provide valuable material. That case you cited regarding the inapplicability of the means test when converting may come in handy. Of course, not everyone follows it, but it's a start.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
That is really interesting. I am pretty sure in this jurisdiction if we
don't file that form, we'll get one of those little ECF notices saying we
have X amount of time to get it filed.
How about I don't file it and just see what happens? Has anyone else
fought this battle? Chime in.
Holly Roark
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
*and Sports Lawyer*
holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California - Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
**Counsel for Chapter 13 Trustee Kathleen A. McCallister (Idaho) T (208)
922-5100
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Why do you say the form *has to be filed*?
>
> Some would say (see case below, not trying to be rude), by filing the
> form, you're succumbing to the words of a rube in contradicting the
> unambiguous language of a statute! Thereby violating the principles of
> federalism! In other words, sometimes you want someone like Justice Thomas
> to render an opinion. This issue is a toss up and it's up to the Debtor's
> bar to determine how it ends up in the central district.
>
> See e.g. In re Fox, 370 BR 639 - Bankr. Court, D. New Jersey 2007 "This
> Court holds that the Debtor, having converted her case from one under
> chapter 13 to one under chapter 7, is not subject to the means test under
> the plain language of 707(b)(1) and is, thus, not required to file a Form
> B22A under Rule 1007(b)(4)."
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> *Michael Avanesian, Esq. *AVANESIAN LAW FIRM
> 101 N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920
> Glendale, California 91203
> Tel: 818.276.2477 Fax: 818.208.4550
>
> *Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
> legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
> use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
> copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
> to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
>
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
> or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
> 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 Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Holly Roark hollyroark22@gmail.com
> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The form has to be filed. The problem arises when you have to check that
>> box that says it's presumed abusive. Although you can respond to the UST,
>> it's still a hassle. I've typed in at the bottom of the form that he lost
>> his job. Hopefully that will suffice.
>>
>> Holly Roark
>> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
>> *and Sports Lawyer*
>> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
>> www.roarklawoffices.com
>> Central District of California - Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>> 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
>> T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
>>
>> *By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>>
>> **Counsel for Chapter 13 Trustee Kathleen A. McCallister (Idaho) T (208)
>> 922-5100
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Michael Avanesian
>> michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have zero Chapter 13s under my belt and I am above average aggressive
>>> in taking legal positions. With that in mind:
>>>
>>> My initial thought to your question is why do you assume the means test
>>> even applies to a case converted from Chapter 13 to 7? 707(b) says, "...may
>>> dismiss *a case filed* ... under this chapter ..." My position would be
>>> the case was not filed under Chapter 7, so 707(b) does not apply.
>>>
>>> The Judge may still dismiss under 707(a) for cause, particularly if the
>>> totality of the circumstances warrant it or if this was a bad faith filing
>>> -- even though it's not implicit in that part of the code.
>>>
>>> A quick aside: It's really up to the Debtor's bar to make a stand;
>>> particularly when the facts are good. Why not set a standard where a good
>>> faith Chapter 13 filer does not get any additional hassle after converting?
>>> Two years is enough, give the guy a break!
>>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>>
>>> *Michael Avanesian, Esq. *AVANESIAN LAW FIRM
>>> 101 N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920
>>> Glendale, California 91203
>>> Tel: 818.276.2477 Fax: 818.208.4550
>>>
>>> *Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
>>> legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
>>> use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
>>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
>>> copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
>>> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
>>> to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
>>>
>>> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
>>> imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
>>> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
>>> or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
>>> 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 Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Holly Roark hollyroark22@gmail.com
>>> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My recollection is that you use prepetition 6 month CMI figures, but
>>>> how does this work? If Debtor is showing DMI of $500, he doesn't qualify
>>>> for Chapter 7, but he's been in a 13 for 2 years and lost his job and now
>>>> needs to convert. What am I using for form 22A so he "passes" the means
>>>> test and qualifies to be in a Chapter 7?
>>>>
>>>> In this case, even current CMI figures would not work either since
>>>> Debtor just lost the job a few weeks ago.
>>>>
>>>> How to handle? Does the "Lanning" change in circumstance apply in a
>>>> chapter 7?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Holly Roark
>>>> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
>>>> *and Sports Lawyer*
>>>> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
>>>> www.roarklawoffices.com
>>>> Central District of California - Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>>>> 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
>>>> T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
>>>>
>>>> *By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>>>>
>>>> **Counsel for Chapter 13 Trustee Kathleen A. McCallister (Idaho) T (208)
>>>> 922-5100
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
That is really interesting. I am pretty sure in this
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Why do you say the form *has to be filed*?
Some would say (see case below, not trying to be rude), by filing the form,
you're succumbing to the words of a rube in contradicting the unambiguous
language of a statute! Thereby violating the principles of federalism! In
other words, sometimes you want someone like Justice Thomas to render an
opinion. This issue is a toss up and it's up to the Debtor's bar to
determine how it ends up in the central district.
See e.g. In re Fox, 370 BR 639 - Bankr. Court, D. New Jersey 2007 "This
Court holds that the Debtor, having converted her case from one under
chapter 13 to one under chapter 7, is not subject to the means test under
the plain language of 707(b)(1) and is, thus, not required to file a Form
B22A under Rule 1007(b)(4)."
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *AVANESIAN LAW FIRM
101 N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920
Glendale, California 91203
Tel: 818.276.2477 Fax: 818.208.4550
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
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 Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Holly Roark hollyroark22@gmail.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> The form has to be filed. The problem arises when you have to check that
> box that says it's presumed abusive. Although you can respond to the UST,
> it's still a hassle. I've typed in at the bottom of the form that he lost
> his job. Hopefully that will suffice.
>
> Holly Roark
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
> *and Sports Lawyer*
> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
> www.roarklawoffices.com
> Central District of California - Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
> 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
> T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
>
> *By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>
> **Counsel for Chapter 13 Trustee Kathleen A. McCallister (Idaho) T (208)
> 922-5100
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Michael Avanesian
> michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I have zero Chapter 13s under my belt and I am above average aggressive
>> in taking legal positions. With that in mind:
>>
>> My initial thought to your question is why do you assume the means test
>> even applies to a case converted from Chapter 13 to 7? 707(b) says, "...may
>> dismiss *a case filed* ... under this chapter ..." My position would be
>> the case was not filed under Chapter 7, so 707(b) does not apply.
>>
>> The Judge may still dismiss under 707(a) for cause, particularly if the
>> totality of the circumstances warrant it or if this was a bad faith filing
>> -- even though it's not implicit in that part of the code.
>>
>> A quick aside: It's really up to the Debtor's bar to make a stand;
>> particularly when the facts are good. Why not set a standard where a good
>> faith Chapter 13 filer does not get any additional hassle after converting?
>> Two years is enough, give the guy a break!
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>> *Michael Avanesian, Esq. *AVANESIAN LAW FIRM
>> 101 N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920
>> Glendale, California 91203
>> Tel: 818.276.2477 Fax: 818.208.4550
>>
>> *Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
>> legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
>> use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
>> copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
>> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
>> to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
>>
>> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
>> imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
>> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
>> or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
>> 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 Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Holly Roark hollyroark22@gmail.com
>> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My recollection is that you use prepetition 6 month CMI figures, but how
>>> does this work? If Debtor is showing DMI of $500, he doesn't qualify for
>>> Chapter 7, but he's been in a 13 for 2 years and lost his job and now needs
>>> to convert. What am I using for form 22A so he "passes" the means test and
>>> qualifies to be in a Chapter 7?
>>>
>>> In this case, even current CMI figures would not work either since
>>> Debtor just lost the job a few weeks ago.
>>>
>>> How to handle? Does the "Lanning" change in circumstance apply in a
>>> chapter 7?
>>>
>>>
>>> Holly Roark
>>> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
>>> *and Sports Lawyer*
>>> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
>>> www.roarklawoffices.com
>>> Central District of California - Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>>> 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
>>> T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
>>>
>>> *By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>>>
>>> **Counsel for Chapter 13 Trustee Kathleen A. McCallister (Idaho) T (208)
>>> 922-5100
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Why do you say the form has to be filed?e), by filing the form, you're succumbing to the words of a rube in contradicting the unambiguous language of a statute! Thereby violating the principles of federalism! In other words, sometimes you want someone like Justice Thomas to render an opinion. This issue is a toss up and it's up to the Debtor's bar to determine how it ends up in the central district.See e.g.In re Fox, 370 BR 639 - Bankr. Court, D. New Jersey 2007 "This Court holds that the Debtor, having converted her case from one under chapter 13 to one under chapter 7, is not subject to the means test under the plain language of 707(b)(1) and is, thus, not required to file a Form B22A under Rule 1007(b)(4)."Sincerely,
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
The form has to be filed. The problem arises when you have to check that
box that says it's presumed abusive. Although you can respond to the UST,
it's still a hassle. I've typed in at the bottom of the form that he lost
his job. Hopefully that will suffice.
Holly Roark
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
*and Sports Lawyer*
holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California - Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
**Counsel for Chapter 13 Trustee Kathleen A. McCallister (Idaho) T (208)
922-5100
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> I have zero Chapter 13s under my belt and I am above average aggressive in
> taking legal positions. With that in mind:
>
> My initial thought to your question is why do you assume the means test
> even applies to a case converted from Chapter 13 to 7? 707(b) says, "...may
> dismiss *a case filed* ... under this chapter ..." My position would be
> the case was not filed under Chapter 7, so 707(b) does not apply.
>
> The Judge may still dismiss under 707(a) for cause, particularly if the
> totality of the circumstances warrant it or if this was a bad faith filing
> -- even though it's not implicit in that part of the code.
>
> A quick aside: It's really up to the Debtor's bar to make a stand;
> particularly when the facts are good. Why not set a standard where a good
> faith Chapter 13 filer does not get any additional hassle after converting?
> Two years is enough, give the guy a break!
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> *Michael Avanesian, Esq. *AVANESIAN LAW FIRM
> 101 N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920
> Glendale, California 91203
> Tel: 818.276.2477 Fax: 818.208.4550
>
> *Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
> legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
> use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
> copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
> to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
>
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
> or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
> 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 Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Holly Roark hollyroark22@gmail.com
> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> My recollection is that you use prepetition 6 month CMI figures, but how
>> does this work? If Debtor is showing DMI of $500, he doesn't qualify for
>> Chapter 7, but he's been in a 13 for 2 years and lost his job and now needs
>> to convert. What am I using for form 22A so he "passes" the means test and
>> qualifies to be in a Chapter 7?
>>
>> In this case, even current CMI figures would not work either since Debtor
>> just lost the job a few weeks ago.
>>
>> How to handle? Does the "Lanning" change in circumstance apply in a
>> chapter 7?
>>
>>
>> Holly Roark
>> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
>> *and Sports Lawyer*
>> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
>> www.roarklawoffices.com
>> Central District of California - Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>> 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
>> T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
>>
>> *By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>>
>> **Counsel for Chapter 13 Trustee Kathleen A. McCallister (Idaho) T (208)
>> 922-5100
>>
>>
>
>
The form has to be filed. The problem arises when you have to check that box that says it's presumed abusive. Although you
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I have zero Chapter 13s under my belt and I am above average aggressive in
taking legal positions. With that in mind:
My initial thought to your question is why do you assume the means test
even applies to a case converted from Chapter 13 to 7? 707(b) says, "...may
dismiss *a case filed* ... under this chapter ..." My position would be the
case was not filed under Chapter 7, so 707(b) does not apply.
The Judge may still dismiss under 707(a) for cause, particularly if the
totality of the circumstances warrant it or if this was a bad faith filing
A quick aside: It's really up to the Debtor's bar to make a stand;
particularly when the facts are good. Why not set a standard where a good
faith Chapter 13 filer does not get any additional hassle after converting?
Two years is enough, give the guy a break!
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *AVANESIAN LAW FIRM
101 N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920
Glendale, California 91203
Tel: 818.276.2477 Fax: 818.208.4550
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
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 Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Holly Roark hollyroark22@gmail.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> My recollection is that you use prepetition 6 month CMI figures, but how
> does this work? If Debtor is showing DMI of $500, he doesn't qualify for
> Chapter 7, but he's been in a 13 for 2 years and lost his job and now needs
> to convert. What am I using for form 22A so he "passes" the means test and
> qualifies to be in a Chapter 7?
>
> In this case, even current CMI figures would not work either since Debtor
> just lost the job a few weeks ago.
>
> How to handle? Does the "Lanning" change in circumstance apply in a
> chapter 7?
>
>
> Holly Roark
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
> *and Sports Lawyer*
> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
> www.roarklawoffices.com
> Central District of California - Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
> 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
> T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
>
> *By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>
> **Counsel for Chapter 13 Trustee Kathleen A. McCallister (Idaho) T (208)
> 922-5100
>
>
>
I have zero Chapter 13s under my belt and I am above average aggressive in taking legal positions. With that in mind:My initial thought to your question is why do you assume the means test even applies to a case converted from Chapter 13 to 7? 707(b) says, "...may dismissa case filed... under this chapter ..." My position would be the case was not filed under Chapter 7, so 707(b) does not apply.The Judge may still dismiss under 707(a) for cause, particularly if the totality of the circumstances warrant it or if this was a bad faith filing -- even though it's not implicit in that part of the code.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.