.jpg)
Does an ex-spouse qualify as an insider under 101(31)(A)(I)?
It's not a DSO if it is a 523(a)(15) debt. 523(a)(15) debts are not
priority debts and are dischargeable in the Chapter 13. Accordingly, it isapplicable for debtor to undertake a 522(g) - (i) analysis to whether to pursue
recovery of the involuntary transfer to the former spouse.
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 6/23/2016 12:40:57 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
I am a bit hesitant to respond but just foolish enough to do so.
DSO are very high on the priority chain; even (a)(15) which I believe are covered under 507(a)(1)(B). Are you sure the former spouse received more
than he would have under a hypothetical chapter 7 (without those transfers)? I
really doubt it.
I agree with Mark that this is not an insider transaction but for a
different reason. Often, insiders fabricate involuntary transfers to make them
look legitimate; so I do not look to see whether a transfer was voluntary or
involuntary. First, I look at the definition of insider to see if the target
fits one of those categories. If the target does not fit into a category,I look to see whether there is a special relationship which could help me classify someone as an insider.
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian, Esq.
Avanesian Law Firm
801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130
Glendale, CA 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 youhave 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 Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Mark Jessee _jesseelaw@aol.com_
(mailto:jesseelaw@aol.com) [cdcbaa] wrote:
Clearly it's an involuntary transfer. I have a hard time seeing how it
could be an insider transaction under the circumstances. You may be looking
at through the wrong lens If using 703's and there is wild card exemptionremaining. Debtor can pursue monies garnished during the preference period
in trustee's stead if involuntary and exempted, unless there is a family
law equalization exception that I am not remembering. (No code with me)
Mark Jessee
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Holly Roark _hollyroark22@gmail.com_
(mailto:hollyroark22@gmail.com) [cdcbaa] wrote:
If debtor was garnished for the last one year for a 523(a)(15) debt to anex-spouse, is this a "preference" that the trustee could potentially go
after in a chapter 13, and is the ex-spouse an "insider".
Normally, the debtor proposes to pay the equivalent into the plan so as tobe fair to the other creditors. and the trustee would have the transfereesign a tolling agreement so to the extent not paid in the plan, the trustee
could pursue the transferee outside the 2 year period to do so. Is the
debtor required to pay this in the plan or can debtor just ask trustee topursue the transferee? Obviously in this scenario, the debtor would prefer the
trustee pursue it against the transferee. She was compelled to make thosepayments via court order.
Holly Roark
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
and Sports Lawyer
_holly@roarklawoffices.com_ (mailto:holly@roarklawoffices.com) **primary
email address**
_www.roarklawoffices.com_ (http://www.roarklawoffices.com/)
Central District of California & District of Idaho - Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
T _(310) 553-2600_ (tel:(310)%20553-2600) ; F _(310) 553-2601_
(tel:(310)%20553-2601)
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
It's not a DSO if it is a 523(a)(15) debt. 523(a)(15) debts are not
priority debts and are dischargeable in the Chapter 13. Accordingly, it is
applicable for debtor to undertake a 522(g) - (i) analysis to whether to
pursue recovery of the involuntary transfer to the former spouse.
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 6/23/2016 12:40:57 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
I am a bit hesitant to respond but just foolish enough to do
so.
DSO are very high on the priority chain; even (a)(15) which I believe are
covered under 507(a)(1)(B). Are you sure the former spouse received more than
he would have under a hypothetical chapter 7 (without those transfers)? I really doubt it.
I agree with Mark that this is not an insider transaction but for a different reason. Often, insiders fabricate involuntary transfers to make them
look legitimate; so I do not look to see whether a transfer was voluntary or
involuntary. First, I look at the definition of insider to see if the target
fits one of those categories. If the target does not fit into a category, I
look to see whether there is a special relationship which could help me
classify someone as an insider.
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian,
Esq.
Avanesian Law Firm
801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130Glendale, CA 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.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I am a bit hesitant to respond but just foolish enough to do so.
DSO are very high on the priority chain; even (a)(15) which I believe are
covered under 507(a)(1)(B). Are you sure the former spouse received more
than he would have under a hypothetical chapter 7 (without those
transfers)? I really doubt it.
I agree with Mark that this is not an insider transaction but for a
different reason. Often, insiders fabricate involuntary transfers to make
them look legitimate; so I do not look to see whether a transfer was
voluntary or involuntary. First, I look at the definition of insider to see
if the target fits one of those categories. If the target does not fit into
a category, I look to see whether there is a special relationship which
could help me classify someone as an insider.
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
Avanesian Law Firm
801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130
Glendale, CA 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 Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Mark Jessee jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Clearly it's an involuntary transfer. I have a hard time seeing how it
> could be an insider transaction under the circumstances. You may be
> looking at through the wrong lens If using 703's and there is wild card
> exemption remaining. Debtor can pursue monies garnished during the
> preference period in trustee's stead if involuntary and exempted, unless
> there is a family law equalization exception that I am not remembering.
> (No code with me)
>
> Mark Jessee
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Holly Roark hollyroark22@gmail.com [cdcbaa] cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> If debtor was garnished for the last one year for a 523(a)(15) debt to an
> ex-spouse, is this a "preference" that the trustee could potentially go
> after in a chapter 13, and is the ex-spouse an "insider".
>
> Normally, the debtor proposes to pay the equivalent into the plan so as to
> be fair to the other creditors. and the trustee would have the transferee
> sign a tolling agreement so to the extent not paid in the plan, the trustee
> could pursue the transferee outside the 2 year period to do so. Is the
> debtor required to pay this in the plan or can debtor just ask trustee to
> pursue the transferee? Obviously in this scenario, the debtor would prefer
> the trustee pursue it against the transferee. She was compelled to make
> those payments via court order.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Holly Roark
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
> *and Sports Lawyer*
> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
> www.roarklawoffices.com
> *Central District of California & District of Idaho* - 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
>
>
>
>
>
I am a bit hesitant to respond but just foolish enough to do so.DSO are very high on the priority chain; even (a)(15) which I believe are covered under 507(a)(1)(B). Are you sure the former spouse received more than he would have under a hypothetical chapter 7 (without those transfers)? I really doubt it.I agree with Mark that this is not an insider transaction but for a different reason. Often, insiders fabricate involuntary transfers to make them look legitimate; so I do not look to see whether a transfer was voluntary or involuntary. First, I look at the definition of insider to see if the target fits one of those categories. If the target does not fit into a category, I look to see whether there is a special relationship which could help me classify someone as an insider.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Clearly it's an involuntary transfer. I have a hard time seeing how it could be an insider transaction under the circumstances. You may be looking at through the wrong lens If using 703's and there is wild card exemption remaining. Debtor can pursue monies garnished during the preference period in trustee's stead if involuntary and exempted, unless there is a family law equalization exception that I am not remembering. (No code with me)
Mark Jessee
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Holly Roark hollyroark22@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> If debtor was garnished for the last one year for a 523(a)(15) debt to an ex-spouse, is this a "preference" that the trustee could potentially go after in a chapter 13, and is the ex-spouse an "insider".
>
>
> Normally, the debtor proposes to pay the equivalent into the plan so as to be fair to the other creditors. and the trustee would have the transferee sign a tolling agreement so to the extent not paid in the plan, the trustee could pursue the transferee outside the 2 year period to do so. Is the debtor required to pay this in the plan or can debtor just ask trustee to pursue the transferee? Obviously in this scenario, the debtor would prefer the trustee pursue it against the transferee. She was compelled to make those payments via court order.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Holly Roark
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
> and Sports Lawyer
> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
> www.roarklawoffices.com
> Central District of California & District of Idaho - 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
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
If debtor was garnished for the last one year for a 523(a)(15) debt to an
ex-spouse, is this a "preference" that the trustee could potentially go
after in a chapter 13, and is the ex-spouse an "insider".
Normally, the debtor proposes to pay the equivalent into the plan so as to
be fair to the other creditors. and the trustee would have the transferee
sign a tolling agreement so to the extent not paid in the plan, the trustee
could pursue the transferee outside the 2 year period to do so. Is the
debtor required to pay this in the plan or can debtor just ask trustee to
pursue the transferee? Obviously in this scenario, the debtor would prefer
the trustee pursue it against the transferee. She was compelled to make
those payments via court order.
Holly Roark
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
*and Sports Lawyer*
holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
*Central District of California & District of Idaho* - 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
If debtor was garnished for the last one year for a 523(a)(15) debt to an ex-spouse, is this a "preference" that the trustee could potentiallygo after in a chapter 13, and is the ex-spouse an "insider".Normally, the debtor proposes to pay the equivalent into the plan so as to be fair to the other creditors. andthe trustee would have the transferee sign a tolling agreement so to the extent not paid in the plan, the trustee could pursue the transferees in the plan or can debtor just ask trustee to pursue the transferee? Obviously in this scenario, the debtor would prefer the trustee pursue it against the transferee. She was compelled to make those payments via court order.-- Holly RoarkCertified Bankruptcy Specialist*and Sports Lawyer
holly@roarklawoffices.com**primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California & District of Idaho - Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
The post was migrated from Yahoo.