.jpg)
Revisiting judges & Chapter 13 eligibility
I stand corrected. Judge Tighe did rule in :
In order to avoid treating a lien one way for confirmation and another for
eligibility, and to treat the partially secured senior trust deeds
consistent with *Nobleman *and *Zimmer*, any lien which is partially secured
on debtors primary residence will be treated as a secured debt for 109(e)
purposes as well.
Other judges in San Fernando Valley usually follow such opinions.
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Holly Roark wrote:
>
>
> Thanks, Larry. Do we have a list of judges who do this? It looks like
> Riverside and EC downtown. Anyone else?
> Holly Roark
> holly@roarklawoffices.com
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:46 PM, wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Judge Tighe in her memorandum stated that the unsecured portion of first
>> trust deeds are not counted as part of the unsecured debt amount to
>> determine eligibility. However, she ruled that wholly unsecured liens are to
>> be treated as unsecured.
>>
>> You are correct that there are differing opinions among the judges and it
>> will continue that way until we get an appellate decision on the matter.
>>
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>> ------------------------------
>> *Date: *Thu, 3 Jun 2010 22:40:51 -0700
>> *To: *
>> *Subject: *Re: [cdcbaa] Revisiting judges Chapter 13 eligibility
>>
>>
>>
>> For some reason I thought there was a split in that only the liens that
>> could be stripped were considered for eligibility purposes while the merely
>> "undersecured" were generally not considered except by certain judges.
>>
>> Holly Roark
>> CDCA
>> holly@roarklawoffices.com
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
>>
>>> All of them see in re scovis.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 3, 2010, Holly Roark wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I know this came up before but I wanted to revisit it. I was at
>>> a Chapter 13 confirmation hearing in Ellen Carroll's courtroom today and I
>>> heard her tell countless attorneys that "considering all the unsecured
>>> mortgages your client is way over the debt limit for Chapter 13". Am I
>>> correct that she is one of the judges who now considers even the unsecured
>>> portion of a first mortgage as part of the "unsecured debt" for Chapter 13
>>> eligibility purposes? Who else does this?
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Holly Roark
>>> > holly@roarklawoffices.com
>>> > www.roarklawoffices.com
>>> > Central District of California
>>> > Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Holly Roark
>> holly@roarklawoffices.com
>> www.roarklawoffices.com
>> Central District of California
>> Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Holly Roark
> holly@roarklawoffices.com
> www.roarklawoffices.com
> Central District of California
> Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>
>
>
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 stand corrected. Judge Tighe did rule in :In order to avoid treating a lien one
way for confirmation and another for eligibility, and to treat the partially
secured senior trust deeds consistent with Nobleman and Zimmer,
any lien which is partially secured on debtors primary residence will be
treated as a secured debt for 109(e) purposes as well.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thanks, Larry. Do we have a list of judges who do this? It looks like
Riverside and EC downtown. Anyone else?
Holly Roark
holly@roarklawoffices.com
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:46 PM, wrote:
>
>
> Judge Tighe in her memorandum stated that the unsecured portion of first
> trust deeds are not counted as part of the unsecured debt amount to
> determine eligibility. However, she ruled that wholly unsecured liens are to
> be treated as unsecured.
>
> You are correct that there are differing opinions among the judges and it
> will continue that way until we get an appellate decision on the matter.
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> ------------------------------
> *Date: *Thu, 3 Jun 2010 22:40:51 -0700
> *To: *
> *Subject: *Re: [cdcbaa] Revisiting judges Chapter 13 eligibility
>
>
>
> For some reason I thought there was a split in that only the liens that
> could be stripped were considered for eligibility purposes while the merely
> "undersecured" were generally not considered except by certain judges.
>
> Holly Roark
> CDCA
> holly@roarklawoffices.com
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
>
>> All of them see in re scovis.
>>
>> On Thursday, June 3, 2010, Holly Roark wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I know this came up before but I wanted to revisit it. I was at a
>> Chapter 13 confirmation hearing in Ellen Carroll's courtroom today and I
>> heard her tell countless attorneys that "considering all the unsecured
>> mortgages your client is way over the debt limit for Chapter 13". Am I
>> correct that she is one of the judges who now considers even the unsecured
>> portion of a first mortgage as part of the "unsecured debt" for Chapter 13
>> eligibility purposes? Who else does this?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Holly Roark
>> > holly@roarklawoffices.com
>> > www.roarklawoffices.com
>> > Central District of California
>> > Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Holly Roark
> holly@roarklawoffices.com
> www.roarklawoffices.com
> Central District of California
> Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>
>
>
Holly Roark
holly@roarklawoffices.com
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
Thanks, Larry. Do we have a list of judges who do this? It looks like Riverside and EC downtown. Anyone else?
Holly Roark
holly@roarklawoffices.com
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:46 PM, <larry@lsimonslaw.com> wrote:
Judge Tighe in her memorandum stated that the unsecured portion of first trust deeds are not counted as part of the unsecured debt amount to determine eligibility. However, she ruled that wholly unsecured liens are to be treated as unsecured.
You are correct that there are differing opinions among the judges and it will continue that way until we get an appellate decision on the matter.Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
target"_blank">hollyroark22@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 22:40:51 -0700
To: <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Revisiting judges Chapter 13 eligibility
For some reason I thought there was a split in that only the liens that could be stripped were considered for eligibility purposes while the merely "undersecured" were generally not considered except by certain judges.
Holly Roark
CDCA
holly@roarklawoffices.com
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Giovanni Orantes <go@gobklaw.com> wrote:
All of them see in re scovis.
On Thursday, June 3, 2010, Holly Roark <hollyroark22@gmail.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
For some reason I thought there was a split in that only the liens that
could be stripped were considered for eligibility purposes while the merely
"undersecured" were generally not considered except by certain judges.
Holly Roark
CDCA
holly@roarklawoffices.com
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
> All of them see in re scovis.
>
> On Thursday, June 3, 2010, Holly Roark wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I know this came up before but I wanted to revisit it. I was at a
> Chapter 13 confirmation hearing in Ellen Carroll's courtroom today and I
> heard her tell countless attorneys that "considering all the unsecured
> mortgages your client is way over the debt limit for Chapter 13". Am I
> correct that she is one of the judges who now considers even the unsecured
> portion of a first mortgage as part of the "unsecured debt" for Chapter 13
> eligibility purposes? Who else does this?
> >
> > --
> > Holly Roark
> > holly@roarklawoffices.com
> > www.roarklawoffices.com
> > Central District of California
> > Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Holly Roark
holly@roarklawoffices.com
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
For some reason I thought there was a split in that only the liens that could be stripped were considered for eligibility purposes while the merely "undersecured" were generally not considered except by certain judges.
Holly Roark
CDCA
holly@roarklawoffices.com
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Giovanni Orantes <go@gobklaw.com> wrote:
All of them see in re scovis.
On Thursday, June 3, 2010, Holly Roark <hollyroark22@gmail.com> wrote:&g
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Riverside. Won't even make it out of the 341(a) to the Confirmation hearing.
Law Office of Catherine Christiansen
1077 E Pacific Coast Hwy #210
Seal Beach, CA, 90740
Tel: (562) 361-8721
Fax: (562) 490-8572
attorneychristiansen@gmail.comThis e-mail is private and confidential and is intended solely for the recipient(s) named or otherwise identified herein. If you are not named or otherwise identified as an intended recipient, please delete this e-mail message and any copies thereof and immediately notify Christiansen Law Offices by e-mail or by telephone (562)608-8368.f representation, Christiansen Law Offices does not represent you, and this email does not contain anylegal advicefor you. NOTICE:ates Bankruptcy Laws.We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems,including filing petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code
"Don't be afraid, for I am with you. Do not be dismayed, for I amyour God. I will strengthen you. I will help you. I will uphold you with myvictorious right hand." Isaiah 41:10 NLT
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
All of them see in re scovis.
On Thursday, June 3, 2010, Holly Roark wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I know this came up before but I wanted to revisit it. I was at a Chapter 13 confirmation hearing in Ellen Carroll's courtroom today and I heard her tell countless attorneys that "considering all the unsecured mortgages your client is way over the debt limit for Chapter 13". Am I correct that she is one of the judges who now considers even the unsecured portion of a first mortgage as part of the "unsecured debt" for Chapter 13 eligibility purposes? Who else does this?
>
> --
> Holly Roark
> holly@roarklawoffices.com
> www.roarklawoffices.com
> Central District of California
> Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I know this came up before but I wanted to revisit it. I was at a Chapter
13 confirmation hearing in Ellen Carroll's courtroom today and I heard her
tell countless attorneys that "considering all the unsecured mortgages your
client is way over the debt limit for Chapter 13". Am I correct that she is
one of the judges who now considers even the unsecured portion of a first
mortgage as part of the "unsecured debt" for Chapter 13 eligibility
purposes? Who else does this?
Holly Roark
holly@roarklawoffices.com
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
I know this came up before but I wanted to revisit it. I was at a Chapter 13 confirmation hearing in Ellen Carroll's courtroom today and I heard her tell countless attorneys that "considering all the unsecured mortgages your client is way over the debt limit for Chapter 13". Am I correct that she is one of the judges who now considers even the unsecured portion of a first mortgage as part of the "unsecured debt" for Chapter 13 eligibility purposes? Who else does this?
-- Holly Roarkholly@roarklawoffices.comwww.roarklawoffices.comCentral District of CaliforniaConsumer Bankruptcy Attorney
The post was migrated from Yahoo.