.jpg)
FYI: Judge Bason dismissed cases today.....
Peter better stated my "bomb-throwing" sarcasm.
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
means at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Debtor hasan argument thatthe confirmed planbinds the creditors despite that the stay doesn't apply between the petition date and plan confirmation. Judge could havegiven the debtor a run for the goal line rather than dropping the guillotine. Moving up the confirmaiton would have beenmore equitable.
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center
A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Culver City (310) 391-2400
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] FYI: Judge Bason dismissed cases today.....
For those of us that don't consider ourselves "bomb-throwers", that principle would be stated, "In a chapter 13 case in which the stay is not extended, any plan based on assets of the estate may be infeasible."
Jason Wallach
jwallach@gladstonemichel.com
On Feb 9, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>So by that interpretation of law, Judges have the power to unilaterally render a plan infeasible by denying the motion for extension of the stay?
>
>
>*************************
>Mark J. Markus
>Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
>web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what
this means at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charsetndows-1252
For those of us that don't consider ourselves "bomb-throwers", that principle would be stated, "In a chapter 13 case in which the stay is not extended, any plan based on assets of the estate may be infeasible."
Jason Wallach
jwallach@gladstonemichel.com
On Feb 9, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
> So by that interpretation of law, Judges have the power to unilaterally render a plan infeasible by denying the motion for extension of the stay?
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> 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 2/9/2012 3:46 PM, R Grace Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> Akihito Koyama
>> Judge Bason dismissed two cases today because the attorneys had not filed motions to extend the stay stating that the cases were infeasible due to the lack of an automatic stay.
>>
>>
>> --
>> R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
>> OFF: (818) 734-7223
>> CEL: (818) 554-9922
>>
>> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
>
>
charsetndows-1252
For those of us that don't consider ourselves "bomb-throwers", that principle would be stated, "In a chapter 13 case in which the stay is not extended, any plan based on assets of the estate may be infeasible."
Jason Wallach
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
So by that interpretation of law, Judges have the power to
unilaterally render a plan infeasible by denying the motion for
extension of the stay?
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
means at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Akihito Koyama
Judge Bason dismissed two cases today because the attorneys had not filed
motions to extend the stay stating that the cases were infeasible due to
the lack of an automatic stay.
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (818) 554-9922
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice
for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If
you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute,
store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.