.jpg)
Reply-To: "Christie C."
X-Original-Return-Path: "Christie C."
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: groups-system
The whole reaffirmation thing is complicated. I think it requires a case-by-case analysis; however, I generally don't advise my clients to reaffirm. I always call the car company and make sure they're OK with the "retain and pay" option. Other than some credit unions, Ford, and perhaps Chrysler, I find they have all reached the same conclusion regarding reaffirmations. Incidentally, I believe it was Ford and Chrysler who paid the most in lobbyists for this law? Therefore, they are going to enforce it, and have not yet realized its futility. Yet, I could just be making that last part up.
Christie Cronenweth
Law Offices of Christie Cronenweth
25202 Crenshaw Blvd., Suite 207
Torrance, CA 90505
310-257-4995 ph
310-257-4996 fx
cronenwethlaw@yahoo.com
www.cronenwethlaw.com
Confidentiality
The information contained in this email message is legally privileged
and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual
or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
you are advised not to read the attachments and you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. This email is an Attorney-Client communication, and an Attorney-Client work product.
If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us by
telephone and delete the email. Thank you.
The Law Offices of Christie Cronenweth is a debt relief agency engaged in the practice of aiding people to file for bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Code.
> On Jun 29, 2016, at 9:31 AM, 'Christine A. Kingston' attorneychristine@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> The Code reads that either party (debtor or creditor) may file the reaffirmation based on debtor's intentions.
>
> Normally, creditors send these agreements out without debtors or counsel taking action. My concern is that other creditors will follow in Ford's steps by forcing debtor's counsel to make the call, or otherwise initiate reaffirmation. This places even more burden on debtors and their counsel to hustle up these agreements.
>
> The hardest part is that we don't support these agreements and generally don't represent our clients in these matters, yet we need to be certain the work is done.
>
> It's complicated.
>
> Christine
>
> Christine A. Kingston, Esq.
> Law Office of Christine A. Kingston
> 5011 Argosy Avenue, Suite 3
> Huntington Beach, CA 92649
> Office: 714-533-9210
> Fax: 714-489-8150
> Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
> Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
> ************************************************************
> Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments, is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
>
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:32 AM, David Jacob david@dpjacob.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>> Not new in that I remember the case in re Lamont in Arizona Ford took the car even though the debtor was current but the debtor did not sign the agreement.
>>
>> https://scholar.google.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
In a Chapter 7 where debtor plans to keep the vehicle I got this from FORD MOTOR
In re dumont is the correct case name
This message is from an attorney and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential, including, without limitation, attorney-client privileged communication(s) and/or confidential attorney work product. Unless you are the addressee or authorized to receive messages for the addressee, you may not use, copy,or disclose this message or any information contained herein. If you havereceived this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete any version, response, or reference to it. Thank you.
> On Jun 29, 2016, at 8:32 AM, David Jacob david@dpjacob.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> Not new in that I remember the case in re Lamont in Arizona Ford took the car even though the debtor was current but the debtor did not sign the agreement.
>
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... 526958&qfo
The post was migrated from Yahoo.