.jpg)
Means Test - Business v. Consumer debts
Mark:
The code is not so limited. The definition of claim does not have any limit relating to the claim having been liquidated. 101(5) says, "whether or not such right has been liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent ......"
My reading is whatever the creditor is demanding is a claim and should be listed on the schedules at the full amount demanded.
So list the claim at the full amount demanded (list it as disputed, contingent, whatever) and consider the debtor to be a nonconsumer case with no means test.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Oct 8, 2014, at 11:34 AM, 'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> Agreed, except since the debt is unliquidated it's unclear what amount you can use towards the consumer vs. nonconsumer portions. I have a similar case now where they are seeking like $8 million, but prior to trial I'm not sure what amount can be used.
>
> Would like to get others' opinions on this.
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> Mailing Address Only:
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written 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 in this communication.
> On 10/8/2014 10:27 AM, 'Gary R. Wallace' garyrwallace@ymail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>> Question:
>>
>> A debt arising from a lawsuit brought against the debtor due to her allegedly negligent (not a dui situation) operation of an automobile is NOT a consumer debt as defined in sec 101(8). Moreover, if the amount of this dischargeable debt is more than 50% of the debtor's total debts, she need not complete the means test for a ch 7 filing. Agree?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Gary R. Wallace
>> Law Office of Gary R. Wallace
>> 4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 300
>> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
>> Email: garyrwallace@ymail.com
>> Office: (310) 775-8719
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Gary, I don't think the fact that the complaint has an actual, precise
number for damages makes a difference as to whether it is disputed,
unliquidated, or contingent. Mark's case has an exact/precise number, the
number happens to be $8,000,000.
For both situations, I would be surprised if a court would not count the
debt because it is unliquidated. From the U.S. Trustee's perspective, does
he want to go to court and ask the judge to dismiss the case, so that the
creditor can win a default judgment before a case is filed?
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
Law Offices of David A. Tilem
www.tilemlaw.com
818-507-6000
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:02 PM, 'Gary R. Wallace' garyrwallace@ymail.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Thanks, and good point. However, I am fortunate in that the complaint
> states precisely the amount of damages sought. I don't see how a trustee
> or creditor might bother to argue that issue.
>
> Gary R. Wallace
> Law Office of Gary R. Wallace
> 4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 300
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Email: garyrwallace@ymail.com
> Office: (310) 775-8719
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* "'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa]" cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:34 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Means Test - Business v. Consumer debts
>
>
> Agreed, except since the debt is unliquidated it's unclear what amount
> you can use towards the consumer vs. nonconsumer portions. I have a
> similar case now where they are seeking like $8 million, but prior to trial
> I'm not sure what amount can be used.
>
> Would like to get others' opinions on this.
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> *Mailing Address Only:*
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office
> of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for
> the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
> disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
> prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
> the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
> communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written 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 in this communication.
> On 10/8/2014 10:27 AM, 'Gary R. Wallace' garyrwallace@ymail.com [cdcbaa]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Question:
>
> A debt arising from a lawsuit brought against the debtor due to her
> allegedly negligent (not a dui situation) operation of an automobile is NOT
> a consumer debt as defined in sec 101(8). Moreover, if the amount of this
> dischargeable debt is more than 50% of the debtor's total debts, she need
> not complete the means test for a ch 7 filing. Agree?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Gary R. Wallace
> Law Office of Gary R. Wallace
> 4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 300
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Email: garyrwallace@ymail.com
> Office: (310) 775-8719
>
>
>
>
>
>
Gary, I don't think the fact that the complaint has an actual, precise number for damages makes a difference as to whether it is disputed, unliquidated, or contingent. Mark's case has an exact/precise number, the number happens to be $8,000,000.For both situations, I would be surprised if a court would not count the debt because it is unliquidated. From the U.S. Trustee's perspective, does he want to go to court and ask the judge to dismiss the case, so that the creditor can win a default judgment before a case is filed?Sincerely, Michael AvanesianLaw Offices of David A. Tilem
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thanks, and good point. However, I am fortunate in that the complaint states precisely the amount of damages sought. I don't see how a trustee or creditor might bother to argue that issue.Gary R. WallaceLaw Office of Gary R. Wallace4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 300Marina del Rey, CA 90292Email: garyrwallace@ymail.comOffice: (310) 775-8719
s.com>
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Means Test - Business v. Consumer debts
mount you can use towards the consumer vs. nonconsumer portions. I have a similar case now where they are seeking like $8 million, but prior to trial I'm not sure what amount can be used.
Would like to get others' opinions on this.
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
Mailing Address Only:
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written 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 in this communication. On 10/8/2014 10:27 AM, 'Gary R. Wallace' garyrwallace@ymail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
Question:
A debt arising from a lawsuit brought against the debtor due to her allegedly negligent (not a dui situation) operation of an automobile is NOT a consumer debt as defined in sec 101(8). Moreover, if the amount of this dischargeable debt is more than 50% of the debtor's total debts, she need not complete the means test for a ch 7 filing. Agree?
Thanks.
Gary R. Wallace Law Office of Gary R. Wallace 4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 300 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Email: garyrwallace@ymail.com Office: (310) 775-8719
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Question:
A debt arising from a lawsuit brought against the debtor due to her allegedly negligent (not a dui situation) operation of an automobile is NOT a consumer debt as defined in sec 101(8). Moreover, if the amount of this dischargeable debt is more than 50% of the debtor's total debts, she need not complete the means test for a ch 7 filing. Agree?
Thanks.
e 300Marina del Rey, CA 90292Email: garyrwallace@ymail.comOffice: (310) 775-8719
The post was migrated from Yahoo.