.jpg)
Non-consumer debt case
Just curious. Has any CDCA Judge granted the UST's motion ?
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
Torrance, California 90503
Telephone: (310) 792-5864
E-mail: 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 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.
***NOTICE OF EX PARTE HEARINGS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY EMAIL***
To: cdcbaa
Sent: Thu, Jun 18, 2015 3:57 pm
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Non-consumer debt case
Yes. That's why they seek Ch. 11 under 706(b).
On 6/18/2015 3:54 PM, mitnicklaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] wrote: How does that work when the debtor must consent, per 706(c), to conversion to chapter 13 ? Is UST really seeking conversion to Chapter 11 under Section 706(b)?
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
Torrance, California 90503
Telephone: (310) 792-5864
E-mail: 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 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.
***NOTICE OF EX PARTE HEARINGS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY EMAIL*** -----Original Message-----
To: cdcbaa
Sent: Thu, Jun 18, 2015 3:41 pm
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Non-consumer debt case
I found it. They are bringing under 706(b). The OUST doesn't have much ammunition under 707(a), so they have resorted to 706(b). As I said, it's very problematic and if that happens, you need to handle it carefully because one of these will end up on appeal somewhere. --
*************************
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 6/18/2015 3:37 PM, 'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
There was a recent case, and I can't find it now, but the OUST has started attempting to force conversion to Chapter 11 in these cases under a certain Code Section. I can't find it right now though. It's a very problematic pursuit since it implicates obvious Constitutional issues. On 6/18/2015 2:38 PM, Shannon Doyle sdoyle@ebankruptcyassistants.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
Debtor has primarily business debt so the Means Test is irrelevant; however debtor pays $1250 + month for tuition and housing for his daughter to attend college. Will this be an issue on Sched J? Shannon A. Doyle Attorney | Virtual Bankruptcy Assistant Phone: 855-378-4080 Fax: 562-249-8435
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
How does that work when the debtor must consent, per 706(c), to conversion to chapter 13 ? Is UST really seeking conversion to Chapter 11 under Section 706(b)?
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
Torrance, California 90503
Telephone: (310) 792-5864
E-mail: 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 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.
***NOTICE OF EX PARTE HEARINGS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY EMAIL***
To: cdcbaa
Sent: Thu, Jun 18, 2015 3:41 pm
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Non-consumer debt case
I found it. They are bringing under 706(b). The OUST doesn't have much ammunition under 707(a), so they have resorted to 706(b). As I said, it's very problematic and if that happens, you need to handle it carefully because one of these will end up on appeal somewhere.
*************************
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 6/18/2015 3:37 PM, 'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
There was a recent case, and I can't find it now, but the OUST has started attempting to force conversion to Chapter 11 in these cases under a certain Code Section. I can't find it right now though. It's a very problematic pursuit since it implicates obvious Constitutional issues.
On 6/18/2015 2:38 PM, Shannon Doyle sdoyle@ebankruptcyassistants.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
Debtor has primarily business debt so the Means Test is irrelevant; however debtor pays $1250 + month for tuition and housing for his daughter to attend college. Will this be an issue on Sched J?
Shannon A. Doyle
Attorney | Virtual Bankruptcy Assistant
Phone: 855-378-4080
Fax: 562-249-8435
*************************
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.
How does that work when the debtor must consent, per 706(c), to conversion to chapter 13 ? Is UST really seeking conversion to Chapter 11 under Section 706(b)?
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
Torrance, California 90503
Telephone: (310) 792-5864
E-mail: 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 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.
.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}
***NOTICE OF EX PARTE HEARINGS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY EMAIL***
-----Original Message-----
>
To: cdcbaa <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 18, 2015 3:41 pm
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Non-consumer debt case
I found it. They are bringing under 706(b). The OUST doesn't have much ammunition under 707(a), so they have resorted to 706(b). As I said, it's very problematic and if that happens, you need to handle it carefully because one of these will end up on appeal somewhere.
*************************
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 6/18/2015 3:37 PM, 'Mark J. Markus'
bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
There was a recent case, and I can't find it now, but the OUST has started attempting to force conversion to Chapter 11 in these cases under a certain Code Section. I can't find it right now though. It's a very problematic pursuit since it implicates obvious Constitutional issues.
On 6/18/2015 2:38 PM, Shannon Doyle
sdoyle@ebankruptcyassistants.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
Debtor has primarily business debt so the Means Test is irrelevant; however debtor pays $1250 + month for tuition and housing for his daughter to attend college. Will this be an issue on Sched J?
Shannon A. Doyle
Attorney | Virtual Bankruptcy Assistant
Phone: 855-378-4080
Fax: 562-249-8435
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
In re Perlin, 497 F.3d 364 (3rd Cir. August, 2007)
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
On Thursday, June 18, 2015 2:38 PM, "Shannon Doyle sdoyle@ebankruptcyassistants.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
Debtor has primarily business debt so the Means Test is irrelevant; however debtor pays $1250 + month for tuition and housing for his daughter to attend college. Will this be an issue on Sched J? | Shannon A. Doyle Attorney | Virtual Bankruptcy Assistant Phone: 855-378-4080 Fax: 562-249-8435 |
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
In a message dated 5/8/2010 6:26:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
easky1@yahoo.com writes:
Think gambling is a consumer pleasure, unless client is a professional
gambler.
Dennis McGoldrick
350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B
Torrance, CA 90503
On May 7, 2010, at 11:19 AM, _mitnicklaw@aol.mit_
(mailto:mitnicklaw@aol.com) wrote:
PC chapter 7 client has cc debt that mostly arises from gambling that
comprises more than 50% of the total debt. Leaving aside the host of other
issues, would it be wrong to file this case as a non-consumer debt case ?
Dennis-
While I tend to agree, the "profit motive" factor seems to blur the lines when you compare gambling to pay your bills to investing in hedge funds.
In a message dated 5/8/2010 6:26:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
easky1@yahoo.com writes:
Think gambling is a consumer pleasure, unless client is a professional
gambler.Dennis McGoldrick
350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B
Torrance, CA 90503
On May 7, 2010, at 11:19 AM, mitnicklaw@aol.com
wrote:
PC chapter 7 client has cc debt that mostly arises from gambling that
comprises more than 50% of the total debt. Leaving aside the host of
other issues, would it be wrong to file this case as a non-consumer debt
case ?
Dennis-
While I tend to agree, the "profit motive" factor seems to blur the lines
when you compare gambling to pay your bills to investing in hedge funds.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I have met individuals in Beverly Hills bars who told me, after a few
drinks, that for them the repeating cycles of marriage, divorce, &
alimony have been a veritable "career ladder" which they have been
climbing. They refer to this as "divorcing well," as in "I divorced
well, so I don't have to work anymore."
Jokes aside, I think an argument can be made that whenever people are
fighting over money or property, whether in a divorce or personal
injury action, the attorney fee is an investment that is hoped to
bring financial rewards. Thus the attorney fee debt incurred in
pursued of an advantageous ruling on the issue of support or property
division is arguably non-consumer. On the other hand, attorney fee
debt incurred in family court litigation over child custody and
visitation is purely family should be clearly consumer debt.
Alik Segal
On 5/7/10, vicki temkin wrote:
> I'm not an expert, but I agree with Pat and David. If a divorce is NOT for
> a personal or family reason, than what is it for? I'm sympathetic to the
> wife and many divorce atty's rake in the megabucks, but it would be hard to
> argue it's not consumer debt.
>
> Vicki L. Temkin Law Office of Vicki L. Temkin 15030 Ventura Blvd.,
> Ste. 19-780 Sherman Oaks, Ca 91403 Ph: (818) 501-4658 / Fx: (818)
> 501-0903
>
> --- On Fri, 5/7/10, David A. Tilem wrote:
>
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: non-consumer debt case
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 4:30 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In my typical contrarian
> fashion, I believe that such a debt is primarily for a family or household
> purpose. Hard to argue that fighting over family status and assets is NOT
> for a family purpose.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of
> Certification
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:cdcbaa@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Kenneth Jay
> Schwartz
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 3:47 PM
> To:
> cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: non-consumer debt
> case
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I would take the position that it is not incurred primarily for a personal,
> family, or household purpose.
> Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
> LAW
> OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
> 21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th
> Floor
> Woodland Hills, California 91364-2203
> Telephone: (818)
> 226-1205
> Facsimile: (818) 226-1213
>
>
>
>
> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL
> AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS
> MESSAGE
> MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND
> CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR
> AN
> AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE
> HEREBY
> NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW,
> DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY
> PROHIBITED.
> IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US
> IMMEDIATELY.
> THANK YOU.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups .com"
>
> Sent: Fri, May 7, 2010 3:43:31
> PM
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re:
> non-consumer debt case
>
>
>
>
> How is this debt non- consumer?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 7, 2010, at 3:37 PM, "David A. Tilem"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yeah, glad I'm not the
> divorce attorney.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of
> Certification
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com [mailto:cdcbaa@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
> Larry Simons
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 2:34 PM
> To:
> cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: non-consumer debt
> case
>
>
>
>
>
> I have a client that
> owes $100K to her divorce attorney. Just wondering if that debt has to
> be classified as consumer debt. Any thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com [mailto: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of
> jonhayes6666
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 11:26
> AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.
> com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Re:
> non-consumer debt case
>
>
>
>
>
> I'll help
> with the appeal.
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com,
> mitnicklaw@. .. wrote:
>>
>> PC chapter 7 client has cc debt that
> mostly arises from gambling that
>> comprises more than 50% of the total
> debt. Leaving aside the host of other
>> issues, would it be wrong to
> file this case as a non-consumer debt case ?
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Alik Segal
Alik.Segal@gmail.com
310-362-6157
Cal. CD, Los Angeles
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Think gambling is a consumer pleasure, unless client is a professional gambler.
Dennis McGoldrick
350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B
Torrance, CA 90503
On May 7, 2010, at 11:19 AM, mitnicklaw@aol.com wrote:
PC chapter 7 client has cc debt that mostly arises from gambling that comprises more than 50% of the total debt. Leaving aside the host of other issues, would it be wrong to file this case as a non-consumer debt case ?
Think gambling is a consumer pleasure, unless client is a professional gambler.Dennis McGoldrick350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207BTorrance, CA 90503On May 7, 2010, at 11:19 AM, mitnicklaw@aol.com wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I'm not an expert, but I agree with Pat and David. If a divorce is NOT for a personal or family reason, than what is it for? I'm sympathetic to the wife and many divorce atty's rake in the megabucks, but it would be hard to argue it's not consumer debt.
Vicki L. Temkin Law Office of Vicki L. Temkin 15030 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 19-780 Sherman Oaks, Ca 91403
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
In my typical contrarian fashion, I believe that such a debt is primarily
for a family or household purpose. Hard to argue that fighting over family
status and assets is NOT for a family purpose.
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.
Kenneth Jay Schwartz
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 3:47 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: non-consumer debt case
I would take the position that it is not incurred primarily for a personal,
family, or household purpose.
Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th Floor
Woodland Hills, California 91364-2203
Telephone: (818) 226-1205
Facsimile: (818) 226-1213
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL
AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS
MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED
AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT OR AN AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED
RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN
ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS
MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN
ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU.
_____
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
As with many things, it is probably fact dependent in each case
Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th Floor
Woodland Hills, California 91364-2203
Telephone: (818) 226-1205
Facsimile: (818) 226-1213
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU.
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, May 7, 2010 4:04:42 PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: non-consumer debt case
101(8) defines consumer debt as debt
incurred by an individual for a personal, family, or household purpose.the land of plain meaning, I think a divorce attorney is hired for a personal
purpose, not a business purpose.
If you have any questions or
concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green, Esq.
Fitzgerald & Green
Attorneys at Law
1010 E. Union Street
Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw. com
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com [mailto:cdcbaa@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Larry
Simons
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 2:34 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: non-consumer debt case
I have a
client that owes $100K to her divorce attorney. Just wondering if that
debt has to be classified as consumer debt. Any thoughts?
________________________________
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
[mailto:cdcbaa@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of jonhayes6666
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 11:26 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: non-consumer debt case
I'll help with the appeal.
mitnicklaw@. .. wrote:
>
> PC chapter 7 client has cc debt that mostly arises from gambling that
> comprises more than 50% of the total debt. Leaving aside the host of other
> issues, would it be wrong to file this case as a non-consumer debt case ?
>
As with many things, it is probably fact dependent in each case Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th FloorWoodland Hills, California 91364-2203Telephone: (818) 226-1205Facsimile: (818) 226-1213THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW, DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU.From: Patrick Green <pat@fitzgreenlaw.com>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Fri, May 7, 2010 4:04:42 PMSubject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: non-consumer debt case
101(8) defines consumer debt as debt
incurred by an individual for a personal, family, or household purpose.the land of plain meaning, I think a divorce attorney is hired for a personal
purpose, not a business purpose.
If you have any questions or
concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green, Esq.
Fitzgerald & Green
Attorneys at Law
1010 E. Union Street
Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw. com
From:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com [mailto:cdcbaa@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Larry
Simons
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 2:34 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: non-consumer debt case
I have a
client that owes $100K to her divorce attorney. Just wondering if that
debt has to be classified as consumer debt. Any thoughts?
From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
[mailto:cdcbaa@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of jonhayes6666
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 11:26 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: non-consumer debt case
I'll help with the appeal.
et"_blank" href"mailto:cdcbaa%40yahoogroups.com">cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com,
mitnicklaw@. .. wrote:
>
> PC chapter 7 client has cc debt that mostly arises from gambling that
> comprises more than 50% of the total debt. Leaving aside the host of other
> issues, would it be wrong to file this case as a non-consumer debt case ?
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
The modifier is "primarily". In many instances in family law matters, it is not primarily for personal, family or household purposes
Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th Floor
Woodland Hills, California 91364-2203
Telephone: (818) 226-1205
Facsimile: (818) 226-1213
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU.
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, May 7, 2010 4:04:42 PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: non-consumer debt case
101(8) defines consumer debt as debt
incurred by an individual for a personal, family, or household purpose.the land of plain meaning, I think a divorce attorney is hired for a personal
purpose, not a business purpose.
If you have any questions or
concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green, Esq.
Fitzgerald & Green
Attorneys at Law
1010 E. Union Street
Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw. com
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com [mailto:cdcbaa@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Larry
Simons
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 2:34 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: non-consumer debt case
I have a
client that owes $100K to her divorce attorney. Just wondering if that
debt has to be classified as consumer debt. Any thoughts?
________________________________
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
[mailto:cdcbaa@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of jonhayes6666
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 11:26 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: non-consumer debt case
I'll help with the appeal.
mitnicklaw@. .. wrote:
>
> PC chapter 7 client has cc debt that mostly arises from gambling that
> comprises more than 50% of the total debt. Leaving aside the host of other
> issues, would it be wrong to file this case as a non-consumer debt case ?
>
The modifier is "primarily". In many instances in family law matters, it is not primarily for personal, family or household purposes Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th FloorWoodland Hills, California 91364-2203Telephone: (818) 226-1205Facsimile: (818) 226-1213THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT YOU
HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.