.jpg)
Service on Lam Motion?
There is no harm in serving anyone and everyone. It costs you about $1 per
service and the costs of failing to serve are, at a minimum, being
embarrassed at having screwed up the service, having to re-do the paperwork,
having to make another trip to court and having to explain to your client
why things got delayed. This is a no-brainer.
David A. Tilem
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
* Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
Specialization.
Giovanni Orantes
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 11:36 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Service on Lam Motion?
I think the parties you propose to serve should be served. Otherwise, you
may get entangled in proving that either HFC or HSBC was the proper party
and you served the proper party if you serveeither one of them, not both,
which would be more expensive than just paying for the extra copies and
stamps.
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:17 AM, jbsesq1965 wrote:
On a Lam lien strip MOTION, (judge AA) I only notice the subject lienholder
(at about 15 different addresses, see below) the CH13 Trustee & the OUST and
of course anyone who is on the ECF list will get it anyway.
Is it required, prudent, or advisable to serve anyone else, for instance the
holder of the senior lien?
More importantly, it seems like the company that files the POC for the
junior lien is NEVER the same company that is listed on the deed of trust
that I am attacking, and there is nothing in the public record or the POC
documents that tells me or the court how the POC claimant came to have the
right to file that claim. I know that this is the subject to much discussion
when OBJECTING to a POC, and in some courts (SB) a big subject in MFRs, but
I don't want to go off on those tangents here. I want opinions on how to
properly notice the Lam motion only.
The specific facts in my case today are that the second loan and deed of
trust were with HFC. HSBC Mortgage, Inc. filed a POC in the case attaching
the HFC loan docs, without explination of HSBC's role (assignee?, servicer?,
successor in interest through merger?).
In an abundance of caution, I am inclined to serve the motion on:
1. HFC at the address listed in the deed of trust;
2. HFC at the address for their agent for service in California;
3. HFC at their corporate headquarters per a search of them on Google, and
including the name of a corporate officer;
4. HSBC at the address listed in the POC, (of which there are two);
6 HSBC at the address for their agent for service in California;
7. HSBC at their corporate headquarters per a search of them on Google, and
including the name of a corporate officer;
8. The OUST;
9. The CH 13 Trustee.
Am I unneccessarily killing trees, or just being thorough?
-Jeffrey B. Smith**
CURD, GALINDO & SMITH, L.L.P.
301 East Ocean Blvd. #1700
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 624-1177
(562) 624-1178 fax
(31
0) 993-6560 cellular
www.expertbk. com
jsmith@cgsattys. com
**Certified By The State Bar
Of California As A Specialist
In Bankruptcy Law
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Phone: (888) 619-8222 x101
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw. com
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA.
Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by
the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
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 herein.
Message
There is no harm in serving
anyone and everyone. It costs you about $1 per service and the costs of
failing to serve are, at a minimum, being embarrassed at having screwed up the
service, having to re-do the paperwork, having to make another trip to court and
having to explain to your client why things got delayed. This is a
no-brainer.
David A.
Tilem
Certified Bankruptcy
Specialist*
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I think the parties you propose to serve should be served. Otherwise, you
may get entangled in proving that either HFC or HSBC was the proper party
and you served the proper party if you serveeither one of them, not both,
which would be more expensive than just paying for the extra copies and
stamps.
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:17 AM, jbsesq1965 wrote:
>
>
> On a Lam lien strip MOTION, (judge AA) I only notice the subject lienholder
> (at about 15 different addresses, see below) the CH13 Trustee & the OUST and
> of course anyone who is on the ECF list will get it anyway.
>
> Is it required, prudent, or advisable to serve anyone else, for instance
> the holder of the senior lien?
>
> More importantly, it seems like the company that files the POC for the
> junior lien is NEVER the same company that is listed on the deed of trust
> that I am attacking, and there is nothing in the public record or the POC
> documents that tells me or the court how the POC claimant came to have the
> right to file that claim. I know that this is the subject to much discussion
> when OBJECTING to a POC, and in some courts (SB) a big subject in MFRs, but
> I don't want to go off on those tangents here. I want opinions on how to
> properly notice the Lam motion only.
>
> The specific facts in my case today are that the second loan and deed of
> trust were with HFC. HSBC Mortgage, Inc. filed a POC in the case attaching
> the HFC loan docs, without explination of HSBC's role (assignee?, servicer?,
> successor in interest through merger?).
>
> In an abundance of caution, I am inclined to serve the motion on:
> 1. HFC at the address listed in the deed of trust;
> 2. HFC at the address for their agent for service in California;
> 3. HFC at their corporate headquarters per a search of them on Google, and
> including the name of a corporate officer;
> 4. HSBC at the address listed in the POC, (of which there are two);
> 6 HSBC at the address for their agent for service in California;
> 7. HSBC at their corporate headquarters per a search of them on Google, and
> including the name of a corporate officer;
> 8. The OUST;
> 9. The CH 13 Trustee.
>
> Am I unneccessarily killing trees, or just being thorough?
>
> -Jeffrey B. Smith**
> CURD, GALINDO & SMITH, L.L.P.
> 301 East Ocean Blvd. #1700
> Long Beach, CA 90802
> (562) 624-1177
> (562) 624-1178 fax
> (31
> 0) 993-6560 cellular
> www.expertbk.com
> jsmith@cgsattys.com
>
> **Certified By The State Bar
> Of California As A Specialist
> In Bankruptcy Law
>
>
>
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Phone: (888) 619-8222 x101
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA.
Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by
the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
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 herein.
I think the parties you propose to serve should be served. Otherwise, you may get entangled in proving that either HFC or HSBC was the proper party and you served the proper party if you serveeither one of them, not both, which would be more expensive than just paying for the extra copies and stamps.
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:17 AM, jbsesq1965 <jsmith@cgsattys.com> wrote:
On a Lam lien strip MOTION, (judge AA) I only notice the subject lienholder (at about 15 different addresses, see below) the CH13 Trustee & the OUST and of course anyone who is on the ECF list will get it anyway.
Is it required, prudent, or advisable to serve anyone else, for instance the holder of the senior lien?
More importantly, it seems like the company that files the POC for the junior lien is NEVER the same company that is listed on the deed of trust that I am attacking, and there is nothing in the public record or the POC documents that tells me or the court how the POC claimant came to have the right to file that claim. I know that this is the subject to much discussion when OBJECTING to a POC, and in some courts (SB) a big subject in MFRs, but I don't want to go off on those tangents here. I want opinions on how to properly notice the Lam motion only.
The specific facts in my case today are that the second loan and deed of trust were with HFC. HSBC Mortgage, Inc. filed a POC in the case attaching the HFC loan docs, without explination of HSBC's role (assignee?, servicer?, successor in interest through merger?).
In an abundance of caution, I am inclined to serve the motion on:
1. HFC at the address listed in the deed of trust;
2. HFC at the address for their agent for service in California;
3. HFC at their corporate headquarters per a search of them on Google, and including the name of a corporate officer;
4. HSBC at the address listed in the POC, (of which there are two);
6 HSBC at the address for their agent for service in California;
7. HSBC at their corporate headquarters per a search of them on Google, and including the name of a corporate officer;
8. The OUST;
9. The CH 13 Trustee.
Am I unneccessarily killing trees, or just being thorough?
-Jeffrey B. Smith**
CURD, GALINDO & SMITH, L.L.P.
301 East Ocean Blvd. #1700
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 624-1177
(562) 624-1178 fax
(31
0) 993-6560 cellular
www.expertbk.com
jsmith@cgsattys.com
**Certified By The State Bar
Of California As A Specialist
In Bankruptcy Law
-- Giovanni Orantes, Esq. Orantes Law Firm, P.C.3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980Los Angeles, CA 90010Tel: (213) 389-4362Phone: (888) 619-8222 x101Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.comwebsite: www.gobklaw.comWE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA.
Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
In a message dated 5/6/2010 10:19:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jsmith@cgsattys.com writes:
On a Lam lien strip MOTION, (judge AA) I only notice the subject lienholder (at about 15 different addresses, see below) the CH13 Trustee & the OUST and of course anyone who is on the ECF list will get it anyway.
Is it required, prudent, or advisable to serve anyone else, for instance
the holder of the senior lien?
More importantly, it seems like the company that files the POC for the
junior lien is NEVER the same company that is listed on the deed of trust that
I am attacking, and there is nothing in the public record or the POC
documents that tells me or the court how the POC claimant came to have the right
to file that claim. I know that this is the subject to much discussion
when OBJECTING to a POC, and in some courts (SB) a big subject in MFRs, but I
don't want to go off on those tangents here. I want opinions on how to
properly notice the Lam motion only.
The specific facts in my case today are that the second loan and deed of
trust were with HFC. HSBC Mortgage, Inc. filed a POC in the case attachingthe HFC loan docs, without explination of HSBC's role (assignee?, servicer?,
successor in interest through merger?).
In an abundance of caution, I am inclined to serve the motion on:
1. HFC at the address listed in the deed of trust;
2. HFC at the address for their agent for service in California;
3. HFC at their corporate headquarters per a search of them on Google, andincluding the name of a corporate officer;
4. HSBC at the address listed in the POC, (of which there are two);
6 HSBC at the address for their agent for service in California;
7. HSBC at their corporate headquarters per a search of them on Google,
and including the name of a corporate officer;
8. The OUST;
9. The CH 13 Trustee.
Am I unneccessarily killing trees, or just being thorough?
-Jeffrey B. Smith**
CURD, GALINDO & SMITH, L.L.P.
301 East Ocean Blvd. #1700
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 624-1177
(562) 624-1178 fax
(31
0) 993-6560 cellular
www.expertbk.www
_jsmith@cgsattys.jsm_ (mailto:jsmith@cgsattys.com)
**Certified By The State Bar
Of California As A Specialist
In Bankruptcy Law
Yes.
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 1080
Torrance, CA 90503
(310) 792-5864; 792-5866 (fax)
MitnickLaw@aol.com
Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any
virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is
received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure
that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any
loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
The information contained in this email message and any attached files maybe privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are notthe intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is
strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in
error, please notify the sender by reply email, and delete the email message
you received and all of the attached files.
In a message dated 5/6/2010 10:19:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jsmith@cgsattys.com writes:
On a Lam lien strip MOTION, (judge AA) I only notice the subject lienholder
(at about 15 different addresses, see below) the CH13 Trustee & the OUST
and of course anyone who is on the ECF list will get it anyway.Is it
required, prudent, or advisable to serve anyone else, for instance the holder
of the senior lien?More importantly, it seems like the company that
files the POC for the junior lien is NEVER the same company that is listed on
the deed of trust that I am attacking, and there is nothing in the public record or the POC documents that tells me or the court how the POC claimant
came to have the right to file that claim. I know that this is the subject to
much discussion when OBJECTING to a POC, and in some courts (SB) a big subject
in MFRs, but I don't want to go off on those tangents here. I want opinions on
how to properly notice the Lam motion only.The specific facts in my
case today are that the second loan and deed of trust were with HFC. HSBC Mortgage, Inc. filed a POC in the case attaching the HFC loan docs, without
explination of HSBC's role (assignee?, servicer?, successor in interest
through merger?).In an abundance of caution, I am inclined to serve
the motion on:1. HFC at the address listed in the deed of trust;2. HFC
at the address for their agent for service in California;3. HFC at their
corporate headquarters per a search of them on Google, and including the name
of a corporate officer;4. HSBC at the address listed in the POC, (of which
there are two);6 HSBC at the address for their agent for service in
California;7. HSBC at their corporate headquarters per a search of them on
Google, and including the name of a corporate officer;8. The OUST;9.
The CH 13 Trustee.Am I unneccessarily killing trees, or just being
thorough?-Jeffrey B. Smith**CURD, GALINDO & SMITH,
L.L.P.301 East Ocean Blvd. #1700Long Beach, CA 90802(562)
624-1177(562) 624-1178 fax(310) 993-6560
cellularwww.expertbk.comjsmith@cgsattys.com**Certified
By The State BarOf California As A Specialist In Bankruptcy
Law
Yes.
Law Office
of Eric Alan Mitnick21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 1080Torrance,
CA 90503(310) 792-5864; 792-5866
(fax)MitnickLaw@aol.comAlthough this email and any attachments
are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect anycomputer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility
of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is
accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way from its
use. The information contained in this email message and any
attached files may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If
you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying
is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message
in error, please notify the sender by reply email, and delete the email message
you received and all of the attached
files.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
On a Lam lien strip MOTION, (judge AA) I only notice the subject lienholder (at about 15 different addresses, see below) the CH13 Trustee & the OUST and of course anyone who is on the ECF list will get it anyway.
Is it required, prudent, or advisable to serve anyone else, for instance the holder of the senior lien?
More importantly, it seems like the company that files the POC for the junior lien is NEVER the same company that is listed on the deed of trust that I am attacking, and there is nothing in the public record or the POC documents that tells me or the court how the POC claimant came to have the right to file that claim. I know that this is the subject to much discussion when OBJECTING to a POC, and in some courts (SB) a big subject in MFRs, but I don't want to go off on those tangents here. I want opinions on how to properly notice the Lam motion only.
The specific facts in my case today are that the second loan and deed of trust were with HFC. HSBC Mortgage, Inc. filed a POC in the case attaching the HFC loan docs, without explination of HSBC's role (assignee?, servicer?, successor in interest through merger?).
In an abundance of caution, I am inclined to serve the motion on:
1. HFC at the address listed in the deed of trust;
2. HFC at the address for their agent for service in California;
3. HFC at their corporate headquarters per a search of them on Google, and including the name of a corporate officer;
4. HSBC at the address listed in the POC, (of which there are two);
6 HSBC at the address for their agent for service in California;
7. HSBC at their corporate headquarters per a search of them on Google, and including the name of a corporate officer;
8. The OUST;
9. The CH 13 Trustee.
Am I unneccessarily killing trees, or just being thorough?
-Jeffrey B. Smith**
CURD, GALINDO & SMITH, L.L.P.
301 East Ocean Blvd. #1700
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 624-1177
(562) 624-1178 fax
(31
0) 993-6560 cellular
www.expertbk.com
jsmith@cgsattys.com
**Certified By The State Bar
Of California As A Specialist
In Bankruptcy Law
The post was migrated from Yahoo.