.jpg)
Addendum
Good point. I have yet to have an 11 as you describe, but I now know where to look should one come my way. All the same, there is a sweet feeling of success when an 11 gets confirmed, and Dennis' 55 is a lot of confirmed plans. Best Regards,
Link Schrader, Attorney
Law Office of Link W. Schrader
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Don't forget that confirming a Chapter 11 is not the only successful outcome, except perhaps in Super 13s. Sometimes it is counterproductive, in fact. For example, when it is better to sell the company in a sweetheart deal and then just dismiss the case, but you need time (which is why you file the 11) and the purchaser wants to buy free and clear of liens, claims, etc.
Sent from my iPad.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Don't forget, I put a check box on the individual Ch 11 plan to add the addendum. Confirmed my 55th Ch 11 today before the lovely Bluebond.
D
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 19, 2012, at 6:54 PM, "Steven B. Lever" wrote:
> Nancy;
>
>
>
> Perhaps you can address us on Saturday on the basics of the addendumt. I have a vague idea and know its good for our clients so I always include it, but I have a feeling you can illuminate it much more.
>
>
>
> Steve Lever
>
>
>
Nancy Clark
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 5:04 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Case/Authority for Change in Need for Ch13 Addendum [1 Attachment]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Attachment(s) from Nancy Clark included below]
>
> Attached is a tentative on an objection to confirmation due to the Addendum. Judge Houle stated that the new and revised bankruptcy rules do not render the Addendum "improper and superfluous." Please do not let creditors intimidate you into striking the Addendum. The new and revised rules do not provide you or your client with as much information as the Addendum. If your plan has been confirmed with the Addendum intact, and the creditors are not providing the statements, file a request for an OSC and ask for attorney fees.
>
>
>
> It's a beautiful thing!!!
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Nancy B. Clark
>
> Attorney at Law
>
>
>
> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
>
> West Covina, CA 91791-1600
>
> Tel: (626) 646-2555
>
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
>
> www.blclaw.com
>
>
>
Nancy Clark
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:36 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Case/Authority for Change in Need for Ch13 Addendum
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry to respond so late to this inquiry.
>
>
>
> Please keep using the Addendum. I believe that the Addendum is still a good form and good law. US Bank has been filing objections to confirmation stating that the revised Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c) and 3002.1 render the Addendum improper and superfluous. This is incorrect. US Bank has yet to understand the ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (adopting the ruling made by the BAP) regarding the Addendum.
>
>
>
> As you know the Addendum requires the mortgage creditor/servicer to send monthly statements if statements were send prior to filing. It also requires the mortgage creditor/servicer to send upon written request quarterly reports. If creditor fails to send the statements or requested quarterly reports, the debtor or trustee can request from the court an OSC as to why the creditor is not complying with the confirmation order. Several creditors appealed the Addendum first to the BAP and then to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and lost. The ruling is quite lengthy but the Appellate Court stated in its ruling that TILAs Regulation Z requires the servicer to provide a final payout report, which would require the servicer to have access to information on all costs and balance, not only those specified by the Addendum, and to provide that payout report on five days notice. Id. at 37.
>
>
>
> The revised and new rules of bankruptcy procedure require mortgage creditors to provide notice of mortgage payment change within 21 days and notice of escrow account changes within 180 days of the date first incurred, among other things. These rules to not prevent the debtors from requesting payoff statements from creditors under Regulation Z. Therefore, these rules do not affect the requirement of the Addendum.
>
>
>
> By the way, US Bank is trying to blackmail debtors into striking the Addendum stating that they are entitled to charge the debtor $50 per monthly statement and $75 for each quarterly report. These fees have not been subjected to the reasonable test. In the case of In re Vu (on appeal to the BAP), US Bank made this argument and Judge Ahart disagreed. Creditor stated that the cost were due to the fact that an attorney would have to review every statement and report. The Judge stated that he did not see why an attorney would have to review every statement and report. He found that the fee was not reasonable.
>
>
>
> I would urge everyone to read In re Monroy, 650 F. 3d 1300, and continue using the Addendum. You should also consider requesting OSCs.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Nancy B. Clark
>
>
>
> 100 N. Barranca Ave, Suite 250
>
> West Covina, CA 91791
>
> Tele: (626) 332-8600
>
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
>
> www.blclaw.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
JMB2BLB
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 1:42 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Case/Authority for Change in Need for Ch13 Addendum
>
>
>
>
>
> Has the need for a Ch13 addendum changed as of the end of the year due to decisional law?? I've got a lender that wants me to stipulate to withdraw or modify the addendum.
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2411/4946 - Release Date: 04/19/12
>
>
Don't forget, I put a check box on the individual Ch 11 plan to add the addendum. Confirmed my 55th Ch 11 today before the lovely Bluebond. DSent from my iPhoneOn Apr 19, 2012, at 6:54 PM, "Steven B. Lever" <sblever@leverlaw.com> wrote:
Perhaps you can address us on Saturday on the basics of the addendumthe problem it was designed to solve and what we should expect from it. I have a vague idea and know its good for our clients so I always include it, but I have a feeling you can illuminate it much more.Steve Lever From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nancy ClarkSent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 5:04 PMTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSubject: RE: [cdcbaa] Case/Authority for Change in Need for Ch13 Addendum [1 Attachment] [Attachment(s) from Nancy Clark included below] Attached is a tentative on an objection to confirmation due to the Addendum. Judge Houle stated that the new and revised bankruptcy rules do not render the Addendum "improper and superfluous." Please do not let creditors intimidate you into striking the Addendum. The new and revised rules do not provide you or your client with as much information as the Addendum. If your plan has been confirmed with the Addendum intact, and the creditors are not providing the statements, file a request for an OSC and ask for attorney fees. It's a beautiful thing!!!
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
The Judges in Woodland Hills ruled in favor of the addendum with the exception to A7.
Update on Addendum:
Zurzolo: in favor.
Ahart:in favor.
Kaufman: in favor except for A7.
Mund: in favor except for A7.
Tighe: in favor except for A7.
Thompson: in favor except for A7.
Jury: in favor except for A7.
P. Carroll: in favor but striking several provisions.
E. Carroll: unknown.
Albert: unknown
Smith: unknown
Kwan: unknown
Riblets: unknown
Donavan: unknown
If anyone has any information about the Judges listed as unknown, please let me know. As you can see, I am trying to keep track.
Nancy Clark
Borowitz, Lozano & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication was
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
So far Judges Zurzolo, Kaufman, Ahart and Jury have approved the Addendum over Creditor's objection. Judge Peter Carroll has stated that he does not like the Addendum and was one of the only Judges to vote against it. However, he is taking our brief under submission. The Judges in Woodland Hills have also taken briefs under submission. I have no idea if the Addendum has been challenged in Santa Ana but I believe that Judge Kwan was on the committee that wrote the Addendum. Therefore, it is important to keep up the fight.
Has anyone who has had a case confirmed with the Addendum recieved mortgage statements yet?
Nancy B. Clark
Borowitz, Lozano & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication was
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.