.jpg)
Late-discovered fraud discharged?
I agree with Mark that anyone who relies on merely a verbal statement and fails to check with the country recorder regarding the status of a parcel of real estate isn't likely to get very far trying to persuading a court to find fraud.
Peter M. Lively, J.D., M.B.A.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400 * Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:49 PM, "Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
In re Santos, 112 BR 1001 was cited for the proposition that equitable tolling does not apply to 523(a)(3). Citing pages 1006 to 1007. But what about equitable estoppel which is discussed further in?
Equitable estoppel requires reasonable reliance on a defendant's words or conduct in forebearing suit within the applicable limitations period. The doctrine of equitable estoppel, contrary to the doctrine of equitable tolling, is not dependant on the language of the limitations period. Rather, the application of estoppel is independent of the language of the statute and takes its life from the principle that no person will be permitted to profit from his or her wrongdoing in a court of justice. Id.
The strict application of equitable estoppel will not significantly impair the purposes of the bar dates because the expansion of the time period and any resultant delay and uncertainty would be caused by the debtor's words or conduct.
IN RE LOMBARD FLATS, LLC, Dist. Court, ND California 2014 and In re Raanan, 181 BR 480 - Bankr. Court, CD California 1995. My favorite quote is: This defense "is a rule of justice which, in its proper field, prevails over all other rules."
Is there a case out there that specifically deals with A defrauds B. A files for bk, tells B about the bk, and continues to commit fraud to prevent B from knowing he has a claim, then discharges the fraud?
Maybe the answer is that to the extent any fraud was committed postpetition to prevent B from knowing about the prepetition fraud is now a postpetition fraud which can be the cause of action?
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
>I am uncomfortable with any evildoer being able to commit fraud and get
away with it under the bankruptcy code too, but that does not mean it cannot
happen. Equity does not trump the plain meaning of the code and
rules.
>
>John M. Lamie v. United States Trustee 124 540 U.S. 526
(2004) stands for the proposition that the Courts should look to the plainlanguage of the bankruptcy code. This reinforced the same principles set
forth by the 9th circuit BAP in Schnuck v. Santos (In Re Santos),
112 B.R. 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. BAP 1990). The Santos Court rejected
the concept of equitable tolling "Any equitable doctrines must be applied in a
manner consistent with the plain language of the rules and the purposes served
by those rules and with a mind to the strict construction of the rules
consistently followed in the Ninth Circuit." It held the doctrine of
equitable tolling is precluded because of the plain language of Rules 4004(a)
and 4007(c). The running of this period is not dependant on thediscovery or accrual of a cause of action as it would be in a statute whichtolling is more appropriately applied. In addition to being contrary
to the language of the rules, the application of equitable tolling could dosignificant harm to the purposes underlying the rules. The fresh
start, prompt administration, finality and certainty purposes of the bar dates
would be significantly impaired by allowing the application of a doctrine, such
as equitable tolling., which could feasibly allow a creditor to bring a
dischargeability action years after the time period should have passed.... Id at
1006 -1007.
> ..
>
>Mark T.
Jessee
>Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
>"A Debt Relief Agency"
>50 W.
Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
>Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
>(805) 497-5868 (805)
497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
>NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY
THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED
TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE,
DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE
THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
>
>In a message dated 9/23/2014 10:11:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
>>I am uncomfortable with the result. A defrauds B and continues to hide the fraud from B. A files for bankruptcy, tells B all about it. B later finds out that A committed fraud. You're saying since there was actual knowledge of the bk, the fraud claim was discharged.
>>
>>
>>Is there a case that specifically addresses this issue?
>>
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>Michael Avanesian
>>
>>On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:03 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The iphone was banished...!
>>>
>>>To finish my thought, Section 523(a)(19)(A)(i) could theoretically apply if there was somehow a violation of any federal or state security law or related regulation or if the facts show section 523(a)(19)(A)(ii) applies because the deceitful actions of the debtor were undertaken in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. John's facts looked more like embezzlement and breach of fiduciary duty after the fact than relating to the inducement of the investment, but John you can analyze the Santo holding with your facts and see if it gives you anything to run with.
>>>
>>>Mark Jessee
>>>
>>>In a message dated 9/23/2014 8:46:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
>>>Section 523(a)(19) could theoreticallydoes not apply I suppose if there was somehow a violation of any federal or state security law or
>>>>related regulation. It section ii does not apply because the deceitful actions of the debtor were not undertaken in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.
>>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
In re Santos, 112 BR 1001 was cited for the proposition that equitable
tolling does not apply to 523(a)(3). Citing pages 1006 to 1007. But what
about equitable estoppel which is discussed further in?
Equitable estoppel requires reasonable reliance on a defendant's words or
conduct in forebearing suit within the applicable limitations period. The
doctrine of equitable estoppel, contrary to the doctrine of equitable
tolling, is not dependant on the language of the limitations period.
Rather, the application of estoppel is independent of the language of the
statute and takes its life from the principle that no person will be
permitted to profit from his or her wrongdoing in a court of justice. Id.
The strict application of equitable estoppel will not significantly impair
the purposes of the bar dates because the expansion of the time period and
any resultant delay and uncertainty would be caused by the debtor's words
or conduct.
IN RE LOMBARD FLATS, LLC, Dist. Court, ND California 2014 and In re Raanan,
181 BR 480 - Bankr. Court, CD California 1995. My favorite quote is: This
defense "is a rule of justice which, in its proper field, prevails over all
other rules."
Is there a case out there that specifically deals with A defrauds B. A
files for bk, tells B about the bk, and continues to commit fraud to
prevent B from knowing he has a claim, then discharges the fraud?
Maybe the answer is that to the extent any fraud was committed postpetition
to prevent B from knowing about the prepetition fraud is now a postpetition
fraud which can be the cause of action?
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> I am uncomfortable with any evildoer being able to commit fraud and get
> away with it under the bankruptcy code too, but that does not mean it
> cannot happen. Equity does not trump the plain meaning of the code and
> rules.
>
> *John M. Lamie v. United States Trustee* 124 540 U.S. 526 (2004) stands
> for the proposition that the Courts should look to the plain language of
> the bankruptcy code. This reinforced the same principles set forth by the
> 9th circuit BAP in *Schnuck v. Santos* (In Re Santos), 112 B.R. 1001,
> 1006 (9th Cir. BAP 1990). The Santos Court rejected the concept of
> equitable tolling "Any equitable doctrines must be applied in a manner
> consistent with the plain language of the rules and the purposes served by
> those rules and with a mind to the strict construction of the rules
> consistently followed in the Ninth Circuit." It held the doctrine of
> equitable tolling is precluded because of the plain language of Rules
> 4004(a) and 4007(c). The running of this period is not dependant on the
> discovery or accrual of a cause of action as it would be in a statute which
> tolling is more appropriately applied. In addition to being contrary to
> the language of the rules, the application of equitable tolling could do
> significant harm to the purposes underlying the rules. The fresh start,
> prompt administration, finality and certainty purposes of the bar dates
> would be significantly impaired by allowing the application of a doctrine,
> such as equitable tolling., which could feasibly allow a creditor to bring
> a dischargeability action years after the time period should have
> passed.... Id at 1006 -1007.
> ..
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
> NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT
> OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY
> LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,
> DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE
> NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS
> MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
>
> In a message dated 9/23/2014 10:11:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
>
>
> I am uncomfortable with the result. A defrauds B and continues to hide the
> fraud from B. A files for bankruptcy, tells B all about it. B later finds
> out that A committed fraud. You're saying since there was actual knowledge
> of the bk, the fraud claim was discharged.
>
> Is there a case that specifically addresses this issue?
>
> Sincerely,
> Michael Avanesian
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:03 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The iphone was banished...!
>>
>> To finish my thought, Section 523(a)(19)(A)(i) could theoretically apply
>> if there was somehow a violation of any federal or state security law or
>> related regulation or if the facts show section 523(a)(19)(A)(ii) applies
>> because the deceitful actions of the debtor were undertaken in connection
>> with the purchase or sale of a security. John's facts looked more like
>> embezzlement and breach of fiduciary duty after the fact than relating to
>> the inducement of the investment, but John you can analyze the Santo
>> holding with your facts and see if it gives you anything to run with.
>>
>> Mark Jessee
>>
>> In a message dated 9/23/2014 8:46:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>> cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
>>
>> Section 523(a)(19) could theoreticallydoes not apply I suppose if there
>> was somehow a violation of any federal or state security law or
>> related regulation. It section ii does not apply because the deceitful
>> actions of the debtor were not undertaken in connection with the purchase
>> or sale of a security.
>>
>>
>
>
In re Santos, 112 BR 1001 was cited for the proposition that equitable tolling does not apply to 523(a)(3). Citing pages 1006 to 1007. But what about equitable estoppel which is discussed further in?Equitable estoppel requires reasonable reliance on a defendant's words or conduct in forebearing suit within the applicable limitations period. The doctrine of equitable estoppel, contrary to the doctrine of equitable tolling, is not dependant on the language of the limitations period. Rather, the application of estoppel is independent of the language of the statute and takes its life from the principle that no person will be permitted to profit from his or her wrongdoing in a court of justice. Id.The strict application of equitable estoppel will not significantly impair the purposes of the bar dates because the expansion of the time period and any resultant delay and uncertainty would be caused by the debtor's words or conduct.IN RE LOMBARD FLATS, LLC, Dist. Court, ND California 2014 andIn re Raanan, 181 BR 480 - Bankr. Court, CD California 1995. My favorite quote is:This defense "is a rule of justice which, in its proper field, prevails over all other rules."Is there a case out there that specifically deals with A defrauds B. A files for bk, tells B about the bk, and continues to commit fraud to prevent B from knowing he has a claim, then discharges the fraud?Maybe the answer is that to the extent any fraud was committed postpetition to prevent B from knowing about the prepetition fraud is now a postpetition fraud which can be the cause of action?Michael AvanesianOn Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I am uncomfortable with any evildoer being able to commit fraud and get
away with it under the bankruptcy code too, but that does not mean it cannot
happen. Equity does not trump the plain meaning of the code and
rules.
John M. Lamie v. United States Trustee 124 540 U.S.526
(2004) stands for the proposition that the Courts should look to the plain
language of the bankruptcy code. This reinforced the same principles set
forth by the 9th circuit BAP in Schnuck v. Santos (In Re Santos),
112 B.R. 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. BAP 1990). The Santos Courtrejected
the concept of equitable tolling "Any equitable doctrines must be applied in a
manner consistent with the plain language of the rules and the purposes served
by those rules and with a mind to the strict construction of the rules
consistently followed in the Ninth Circuit."It held the doctrine of
equitable tolling is precluded because of the plain language of Rules 4004(a)
and 4007(c). The running of this period is not dependant on the
discovery or accrual of a cause of action as it would be in a statute whichtolling is more appropriately applied.In addition to being contrary
to the language of the rules, the application of equitable tolling could dosignificant harm to the purposes underlying the rules. The fresh
start, prompt administration, finality and certainty purposes of the bar dates
would be significantly impaired by allowing the application of a doctrine, such
as equitable tolling., which could feasibly allow a creditor to bring a
dischargeability action years after the time period should have passed.... Id at
1006 -1007. ..
Mark T.
JesseeLaw Offices of Mark T. Jessee"A Debt Relief Agency"50 W.
Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200Thousand Oaks, CA 91360(805) 497-5868 (805)
497-5864 (Facsimile)NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY
THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED
TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE,
DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE
THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
In a message dated 9/23/2014 10:11:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
I am uncomfortable with the result. A defrauds B and continues to
hide the fraud from B. A files for bankruptcy, tells B all about it. B later
finds out that A committed fraud. You're saying since there was actual
knowledge of the bk, the fraud claim was discharged.
Is there a case that specifically addresses this
issue?
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:03 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The iphone was
banished...!
To finish my thought, Section 523(a)(19)(A)(i) could
theoreticallyapply if there was somehow a violation of any federal or
state security law or related regulation or if the facts show section
523(a)(19)(A)(ii)applies because the deceitful actions of the debtor
wereundertaken in connection with the purchase or sale of a
security. John's facts looked more like embezzlement and breach of
fiduciary duty after the fact than relating to the inducement of the
investment, but John you can analyze the Santo holding with your facts and
see if it gives you anything to run with.
Mark Jessee
In a message dated 9/23/2014 8:46:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
Section 523(a)(19) could theoreticallydoes not apply I suppose
if there was somehow a violation of any federal or state security law or
related regulation. It section iidoes not apply because
the deceitful actions of the debtor were not undertaken in connection with
the purchase or sale of a
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thanks for all your feedback. I'm afraid I, too, have to agree with the consensus.
Jeff, your ideas are probably where I will go with this. Also, I think my client can assert derivative claims on behalf of Asset Corp., as he's a managing shareholder.
- John D. Faucher
818/889-8080
On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:10 AM, "jsmith@cgsattys.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
John, I think I agree with the consensus here. Completely unfair result, but the Code is the Code.
Lets go down a different path for a moment and see where it leads. Debtor A made a transfer of Balckacre, to Asset Corp (an insider) for no consideration. Was THAT transfer within one or two years of the BK and was it disclosed? If the answers are yes then no, how about reopening for the purpose of asking the court to appoint a trustee to recover an undisclosed asset, in this case a voidable preference to an insider (one year) or fraudulent conveyance (two years)?
Going further down that rabbit hole, if the court says OK, then the Chapter 7 trustee can sue Asset Corp. (likely defunct) and its transferee (Shady) the recipient of yet a further fraudelunt conveyance. The question is whether the buyer from Shady is a BFP. Is there any relation whatsover between the Buyer and Shady/Asset Corp. or "A" that might call into question Buyer's status as a BFP? Have there been more transfers in the intervening time?
Sounds like a long shot, but could be worth looking into.
Jeff Smith
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I am uncomfortable with any evildoer being able to commit fraud and get away with it under the bankruptcy code too, but that does not mean it cannot
happen. Equity does not trump the plain meaning of the code and rules. John M. Lamie v. United States Trustee 124 540 U.S. 526 (2004) stands forthe proposition that the Courts should look to the plain language of the
bankruptcy code. This reinforced the same principles set forth by the 9thcircuit BAP in Schnuck v. Santos (In Re Santos), 112 B.R. 1001, 1006 (9thCir. BAP 1990). The Santos Court rejected the concept of equitable tolling
"Any equitable doctrines must be applied in a manner consistent with the
plain language of the rules and the purposes served by those rules and with a
mind to the strict construction of the rules consistently followed in theNinth Circuit." It held the doctrine of equitable tolling is precluded
because of the plain language of Rules 4004(a) and 4007(c). The running of
this period is not dependant on the discovery or accrual of a cause of
action as it would be in a statute which tolling is more appropriately applied.
In addition to being contrary to the language of the rules, the
application of equitable tolling could do significant harm to the purposes underlying
the rules. The fresh start, prompt administration, finality and
certainty purposes of the bar dates would be significantly impaired by allowing the
application of a doctrine, such as equitable tolling., which could
feasibly allow a creditor to bring a dischargeability action years after the time
period should have passed.... Id at 1006 -1007.
..
Mark T. Jessee
Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
"A Debt Relief Agency"
50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENTOF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY
LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE
NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THISMESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
In a message dated 9/23/2014 10:11:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
I am uncomfortable with the result. A defrauds B and continues to hide thefraud from B. A files for bankruptcy, tells B all about it. B later findsout that A committed fraud. You're saying since there was actual knowledgeof the bk, the fraud claim was discharged.
Is there a case that specifically addresses this issue?
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:03 PM, _jesseelaw@aol.com_
(mailto:jesseelaw@aol.com) [cdcbaa]
wrote:
The iphone was banished...!
To finish my thought, Section 523(a)(19)(A)(i) could theoretically apply
if there was somehow a violation of any federal or state security law or
related regulation or if the facts show section 523(a)(19)(A)(ii) appliesbecause the deceitful actions of the debtor were undertaken in connection with
the purchase or sale of a security. John's facts looked more like
embezzlement and breach of fiduciary duty after the fact than relating to the
inducement of the investment, but John you can analyze the Santo holding with
your facts and see if it gives you anything to run with.
Mark Jessee
In a message dated 9/23/2014 8:46:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
_cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com) writes:
Section 523(a)(19) could theoreticallydoes not apply I suppose if there
was somehow a violation of any federal or state security law or
related regulation. It section ii does not apply because the deceitful
actions of the debtor were not undertaken in connection with the purchase or
sale of a security.
I am uncomfortable with any evildoer being able to commit fraud and get
away with it under the bankruptcy code too, but that does not mean it cannot
happen. Equity does not trump the plain meaning of the code and
rules.
John M. Lamie v. United States Trustee 124 540 U.S. 526
(2004) stands for the proposition that the Courts should look to the plain
language of the bankruptcy code. This reinforced the same principles set
forth by the 9th circuit BAP in Schnuck v. Santos (In Re Santos),
112 B.R. 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. BAP 1990). The Santos Court rejected
the concept of equitable tolling "Any equitable doctrines must be applied in a
manner consistent with the plain language of the rules and the purposes served
by those rules and with a mind to the strict construction of the rules
consistently followed in the Ninth Circuit." It held the doctrine of
equitable tolling is precluded because of the plain language of Rules 4004(a)
and 4007(c). The running of this period is not dependant on the
discovery or accrual of a cause of action as it would be in a statute whichtolling is more appropriately applied. In addition to being contrary
to the language of the rules, the application of equitable tolling could dosignificant harm to the purposes underlying the rules. The fresh
start, prompt administration, finality and certainty purposes of the bar dates
would be significantly impaired by allowing the application of a doctrine, such
as equitable tolling., which could feasibly allow a creditor to bring a
dischargeability action years after the time period should have passed.... Id at
1006 -1007. ..
Mark T.
JesseeLaw Offices of Mark T. Jessee"A Debt Relief Agency"50 W.Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200Thousand Oaks, CA 91360(805) 497-5868 (805)
497-5864 (Facsimile)NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY
THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED
TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE,
DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE
THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
In a message dated 9/23/2014 10:11:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
I am uncomfortable with the result. A defrauds B and continues to
hide the fraud from B. A files for bankruptcy, tells B all about it. B later
finds out that A committed fraud. You're saying since there was actual
knowledge of the bk, the fraud claim was discharged.
Is there a case that specifically addresses this issue?
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:03 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The iphone was
banished...!
To finish my thought, Section 523(a)(19)(A)(i) could
theoretically apply if there was somehow a violation of any federal or
state security law or related regulation or if the facts show section
523(a)(19)(A)(ii) applies because the deceitful actions of the debtor
were undertaken in connection with the purchase or sale of a
security. John's facts looked more like embezzlement and breach of
fiduciary duty after the fact than relating to the inducement of the
investment, but John you can analyze the Santo holding with your facts and
see if it gives you anything to run with.
Mark Jessee
In a message dated 9/23/2014 8:46:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
Section 523(a)(19) could theoreticallydoes not apply I suppose
if there was somehow a violation of any federal or state security law or
related regulation. It section ii does not apply because
the deceitful actions of the debtor were not undertaken in connection with
the purchase or sale of a
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I am uncomfortable with the result. A defrauds B and continues to hide the
fraud from B. A files for bankruptcy, tells B all about it. B later finds
out that A committed fraud. You're saying since there was actual knowledge
of the bk, the fraud claim was discharged.
Is there a case that specifically addresses this issue?
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:03 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> The iphone was banished...!
>
> To finish my thought, Section 523(a)(19)(A)(i) could theoretically apply
> if there was somehow a violation of any federal or state security law or
> related regulation or if the facts show section 523(a)(19)(A)(ii) applies
> because the deceitful actions of the debtor were undertaken in connection
> with the purchase or sale of a security. John's facts looked more like
> embezzlement and breach of fiduciary duty after the fact than relating to
> the inducement of the investment, but John you can analyze the Santo
> holding with your facts and see if it gives you anything to run with.
>
> Mark Jessee
>
> In a message dated 9/23/2014 8:46:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
> Section 523(a)(19) could theoreticallydoes not apply I suppose if there
> was somehow a violation of any federal or state security law or
> related regulation. It section ii does not apply because the deceitful
> actions of the debtor were not undertaken in connection with the purchase
> or sale of a security.
>
>
>
I am uncomfortable with the result. A defrauds B and continues to hide the fraud from B. A files for bankruptcy, tells B all about it. B later finds out that A committed fraud. You're saying since there was actual knowledge of the bk, the fraud claim was discharged.Is there a case that specifically addresses this issue?Sincerely, Michael Avanesian
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:03 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The iphone was banished...!
To finish my thought, Section 523(a)(19)(A)(i) could
theoreticallyapply if there was somehow a violation of any federal orstate security law or related regulation or if the facts show section
523(a)(19)(A)(ii)applies because the deceitful actions of the debtorwereundertaken in connection with the purchase or sale of a
security. John's facts looked more like embezzlement and breach of
fiduciary duty after the fact than relating to the inducement of the investment,
but John you can analyze the Santo holding with your facts and see if it gives
you anything to run with.
Mark Jessee
In a message dated 9/23/2014 8:46:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
Section 523(a)(19) could theoreticallydoes not apply I suppose if
there was somehow a violation of any federal or state security law or
related regulation. It section iidoes not apply because the
deceitful actions of the debtor were not undertaken in connection with the
purchase or sale of a
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
The iphone was banished...!
To finish my thought, Section 523(a)(19)(A)(i) could theoretically apply
if there was somehow a violation of any federal or state security law or
related regulation or if the facts show section 523(a)(19)(A)(ii) applies
because the deceitful actions of the debtor were undertaken in connection with
the purchase or sale of a security. John's facts looked more like
embezzlement and breach of fiduciary duty after the fact than relating to the
inducement of the investment, but John you can analyze the Santo holding with
your facts and see if it gives you anything to run with.
Mark Jessee
In a message dated 9/23/2014 8:46:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
Section 523(a)(19) could theoreticallydoes not apply I suppose if there
was somehow a violation of any federal or state security law or
related regulation. It section ii does not apply because the deceitful
actions of the debtor were not undertaken in connection with the purchase or
sale of a security.
The iphone was banished...!
To finish my thought, Section 523(a)(19)(A)(i) could
theoretically apply if there was somehow a violation of any federal orstate security law or related regulation or if the facts show section
523(a)(19)(A)(ii) applies because the deceitful actions of the debtorwere undertaken in connection with the purchase or sale of a
security. John's facts looked more like embezzlement and breach of
fiduciary duty after the fact than relating to the inducement of the investment,
but John you can analyze the Santo holding with your facts and see if it gives
you anything to run with.
Mark Jessee
In a message dated 9/23/2014 8:46:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
Section 523(a)(19) could theoreticallydoes not apply I suppose if
there was somehow a violation of any federal or state security law or
related regulation. It section ii does not apply because the
deceitful actions of the debtor were not undertaken in connection with the
purchase or sale of a
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I don't like the latest iPhone upgrades impact on my ability to edit these emails. Sending them off before him done editing. I can see how section 523 a 1919)
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Mark Jessee jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> Section 523 (A)(3) does not apply because the creditor have actual notice of the bankruptcy in time to file an objection to discharge.
>
> Section 523(a)(19) could theoreticallydoes not apply I suppose if there was somehow a violation of any federal or state security law or
> related regulation. It section ii does not apply because the deceitful actions of the debtor were not undertaken in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:10 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>>
>> If there is fraud involved, why isn't 523(a)(3)(B) or 523(a)(19) implicated?
>>
>> Specifically, why can't you open the bk case and file for determination of nondischargeability due to (a)(4)?
>>
>> If you want to see some good work courtesy of Mr. Hayes re: (a)(19), IN RE SATO, 512 BR 241
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Michael Avanesian
>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:10 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> A real estate transaction would provide record notice of the transaction, that B could relatively easily have verified. Section 727(d) would be the only available remedy, but I'm betting the case was closed more than a year ago if the discharge was entered 3 years ago. A likely gets away with it in the bankruptcy context. Criminal prosecution for fraud with restitution after conviction is the only potential remedy I can think of.
>>>
>>> Mark T. Jessee
>>> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
>>> "A Debt Relief Agency"
>>> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
>>> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
>>> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>>>
>>> NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
>>>
>>> In a message dated 9/23/2014 5:58:44 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
>>>
>>> They were aware and were notified.
>>> Is there no exception for fraud that isn't or can't be discovered until after the discharge?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 5:49 PM, "jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Were B or asset corp aware of A's bankruptcy filing, such that they could have timely filed a proof of claim or objection to discharge? If yes, the debt was discharged, if no its a 523(a)(3) situation.
>>>
>>> Mark T. Jessee
>>> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
>>> "A Debt Relief Agency"
>>> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
>>> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
>>> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>>>
>>> NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
>>>
>>> In a message dated 9/23/2014 5:42:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
>>>
>>> Gentle listserve members:
>>> A and B are partners owning a variety of entities and real properties. Their main asset is Management Corp, which owns, inter alia, Asset Corp. Asset Corp, in turn, owns Blackacre, a piece of real property. Prior to filing bankruptcy, and without notice to B, A transfers Blackacre from Asset Corp to ShadyCorp, his own corporation, for no consideration. Neither the transfer nor the ownership of ShadyCorp is reported on A's schedules, which several individuals on the federal government payroll find highly interesting after Blackacre sells to a third party for mucho dinero, but that's not where I'm going.
>>> Prior to A's bankruptcy petition, B asks A about Blackacre, and A says that it has been foreclosed on for no money back. Three years after A's bankruptcy discharge, B discovers the fraudulent transaction. Under California law, it seems clear that the statute of limitations for a fraud claim starts on the day that B discovers the transaction.
>>> My question: if B or Asset Corp sues A for fraud in state court now, can A claim that the debt was discharged?
>>> I have looked and cannot find a case on point.
>>> - John D. Faucher
>>> 818/889-8080
>
>
A real estate transaction would provide record notice of the transaction,
that B could relatively easily have verified. Section 727(d) would be the
only available remedy, but I'm betting the case was closed more than a year
ago if the discharge was entered 3 years ago. A likely gets away with it
in the bankruptcy context. Criminal prosecution for fraud with restitution
after conviction is the only potential remedy I can think of.
Mark T.
JesseeLaw Offices of Mark T. Jessee"A Debt Relief Agency"50 W.Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200Thousand Oaks, CA 91360(805) 497-5868 (805)
497-5864 (Facsimile)NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY
THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED
TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE,
DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE
THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
In a message dated 9/23/2014 5:58:44 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Section 523 (A)(3) does not apply because the creditor have actual notice of the bankruptcy in time to file an objection to discharge.
Section 523(a)(19) could theoreticallydoes not apply I suppose if there was somehow a violation of any federal or state security law or
related regulation. It section ii does not apply because the deceitful actions of the debtor were not undertaken in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:10 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> If there is fraud involved, why isn't 523(a)(3)(B) or 523(a)(19) implicated?
>
> Specifically, why can't you open the bk case and file for determination of nondischargeability due to (a)(4)?
>
> If you want to see some good work courtesy of Mr. Hayes re: (a)(19), IN RE SATO, 512 BR 241
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Michael Avanesian
>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:10 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>>
>> A real estate transaction would provide record notice of the transaction, that B could relatively easily have verified. Section 727(d) would be the only available remedy, but I'm betting the case was closed more than a year ago if the discharge was entered 3 years ago. A likely gets away with it in the bankruptcy context. Criminal prosecution for fraud with restitution after conviction is the only potential remedy I can think of.
>>
>> Mark T. Jessee
>> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
>> "A Debt Relief Agency"
>> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
>> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
>> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>>
>> NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
>>
>> In a message dated 9/23/2014 5:58:44 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
>>
>> They were aware and were notified.
>> Is there no exception for fraud that isn't or can't be discovered until after the discharge?
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 5:49 PM, "jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Were B or asset corp aware of A's bankruptcy filing, such that they could have timely filed a proof of claim or objection to discharge? If yes, the debt was discharged, if no its a 523(a)(3) situation.
>>
>> Mark T. Jessee
>> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
>> "A Debt Relief Agency"
>> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
>> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
>> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>>
>> NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
>>
>> In a message dated 9/23/2014 5:42:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
>>
>> Gentle listserve members:
>> A and B are partners owning a variety of entities and real properties. Their main asset is Management Corp, which owns, inter alia, Asset Corp. Asset Corp, in turn, owns Blackacre, a piece of real property. Prior to filing bankruptcy, and without notice to B, A transfers Blackacre from Asset Corp to ShadyCorp, his own corporation, for no consideration. Neither the transfer nor the ownership of ShadyCorp is reported on A's schedules, which several individuals on the federal government payroll find highly interesting after Blackacre sells to a third party for mucho dinero, but that's not where I'm going.
>> Prior to A's bankruptcy petition, B asks A about Blackacre, and A says that it has been foreclosed on for no money back. Three years after A's bankruptcy discharge, B discovers the fraudulent transaction. Under California law, it seems clear that the statute of limitations for a fraud claim starts on the day that B discovers the transaction.
>> My question: if B or Asset Corp sues A for fraud in state court now, can A claim that the debt was discharged?
>> I have looked and cannot find a case on point.
>> - John D. Faucher
>> 818/889-8080
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
The creditor had actual notice of the bankruptcy so there is no 523(A)(3) action. 523 a 19 would not apply because any othe deceitful actions were not undertaken in connection with the purchase or sale of the security
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:10 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> If there is fraud involved, why isn't 523(a)(3)(B) or 523(a)(19) implicated?
>
> Specifically, why can't you open the bk case and file for determination of nondischargeability due to (a)(4)?
>
> If you want to see some good work courtesy of Mr. Hayes re: (a)(19), IN RE SATO, 512 BR 241
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Michael Avanesian
>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:10 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>>
>> A real estate transaction would provide record notice of the transaction, that B could relatively easily have verified. Section 727(d) would be the only available remedy, but I'm betting the case was closed more than a year ago if the discharge was entered 3 years ago. A likely gets away with it in the bankruptcy context. Criminal prosecution for fraud with restitution after conviction is the only potential remedy I can think of.
>>
>> Mark T. Jessee
>> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
>> "A Debt Relief Agency"
>> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
>> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
>> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>>
>> NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
>>
>> In a message dated 9/23/2014 5:58:44 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
>>
>> They were aware and were notified.
>> Is there no exception for fraud that isn't or can't be discovered until after the discharge?
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 5:49 PM, "jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Were B or asset corp aware of A's bankruptcy filing, such that they could have timely filed a proof of claim or objection to discharge? If yes, the debt was discharged, if no its a 523(a)(3) situation.
>>
>> Mark T. Jessee
>> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
>> "A Debt Relief Agency"
>> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
>> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
>> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>>
>> NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
>>
>> In a message dated 9/23/2014 5:42:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
>>
>> Gentle listserve members:
>> A and B are partners owning a variety of entities and real properties. Their main asset is Management Corp, which owns, inter alia, Asset Corp. Asset Corp, in turn, owns Blackacre, a piece of real property. Prior to filing bankruptcy, and without notice to B, A transfers Blackacre from Asset Corp to ShadyCorp, his own corporation, for no consideration. Neither the transfer nor the ownership of ShadyCorp is reported on A's schedules, which several individuals on the federal government payroll find highly interesting after Blackacre sells to a third party for mucho dinero, but that's not where I'm going.
>> Prior to A's bankruptcy petition, B asks A about Blackacre, and A says that it has been foreclosed on for no money back. Three years after A's bankruptcy discharge, B discovers the fraudulent transaction. Under California law, it seems clear that the statute of limitations for a fraud claim starts on the day that B discovers the transaction.
>> My question: if B or Asset Corp sues A for fraud in state court now, can A claim that the debt was discharged?
>> I have looked and cannot find a case on point.
>> - John D. Faucher
>> 818/889-8080
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
If there is fraud involved, why isn't 523(a)(3)(B) or 523(a)(19)
implicated?
Specifically, why can't you open the bk case and file for determination of
nondischargeability due to (a)(4)?
If you want to see some good work courtesy of Mr. Hayes re: (a)(19), IN RE
SATO, 512 BR 241
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:10 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> A real estate transaction would provide record notice of the
> transaction, that B could relatively easily have verified. Section 727(d)
> would be the only available remedy, but I'm betting the case was closed
> more than a year ago if the discharge was entered 3 years ago. A likely
> gets away with it in the bankruptcy context. Criminal prosecution for
> fraud with restitution after conviction is the only potential remedy I can
> think of.
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
> NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT
> OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY
> LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,
> DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE
> NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS
> MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
>
> In a message dated 9/23/2014 5:58:44 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
>
>
> They were aware and were notified.
> Is there no exception for fraud that isn't or can't be discovered until
> after the discharge?
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 5:49 PM, "jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa]" cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Were B or asset corp aware of A's bankruptcy filing, such that they
> could have timely filed a proof of claim or objection to discharge? If
> yes, the debt was discharged, if no its a 523(a)(3) situation.
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
> NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT
> OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY
> LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,
> DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE
> NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS
> MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
>
> In a message dated 9/23/2014 5:42:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
>
> Gentle listserve members:
> A and B are partners owning a variety of entities and real properties.
> Their main asset is Management Corp, which owns, inter alia, Asset Corp.
> Asset Corp, in turn, owns Blackacre, a piece of real property. Prior to
> filing bankruptcy, and without notice to B, A transfers Blackacre from
> Asset Corp to ShadyCorp, his own corporation, for no consideration.
> Neither the transfer nor the ownership of ShadyCorp is reported on A's
> schedules, which several individuals on the federal government payroll find
> highly interesting after Blackacre sells to a third party for mucho dinero,
> but that's not where I'm going.
> Prior to A's bankruptcy petition, B asks A about Blackacre, and A says
> that it has been foreclosed on for no money back. Three years after A's
> bankruptcy discharge, B discovers the fraudulent transaction. Under
> California law, it seems clear that the statute of limitations for a fraud
> claim starts on the day that B discovers the transaction.
> My question: if B or Asset Corp sues A for fraud in state court now, can A
> claim that the debt was discharged?
> I have looked and cannot find a case on point.
> - John D. Faucher
> 818/889-8080
>
>
>
>
>
If there is fraud involved, why isn't 523(a)(3)(B) or 523(a)(19) implicated?Specifically, why can't you open the bk case and file for determination of nondischargeability due to (a)(4)?If you want to see some good work courtesy of Mr. Hayes re: (a)(19),
The post was migrated from Yahoo.