.jpg)
Lanning Decision from Supremes [1 Attachment]
Remember that there needs to be an objection before 1325(b)(1) requirement [of 5 years of PDI]is invoked, don't just cave in onyour 3 year plans without the Ch13 T or the holder of an allowedunsecuredclaim objecting.
Once there is an objection,since PDI is nowthe same as DI under I - J and we are back to the days of court determined budgets. The debtor $1 above median income with a postive PDI/DI will be in servitude to creditors for 2 years more. Oiy vey,the public policy implications forour economy, yikes! The barn door isopen andall the cows are gone...
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Blvd, Suite 203, Culver City, CA 90230-4647
Telephone: (310)391-2400 * (800)307-3328 * Fax: (310)391-2462
A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Personal Financial Law Center II - Costa Mesa, CA
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL OR BY TELEPHONE. THANK YOU.
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 12:01:28 PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Lanning Decision from Supremes
John;
Thanks for putting this out there. So, what about all the 3 year Kagenveama cases that are not confirmed yet we have pending? Thank G*d the main one that had a period of unemployment followed by good employment for a 3 year term is a done deal now, in my practice. I think we all need to scour our cases where we used Kagenveama.
Steve
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com [mailto:cdcbaa@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of John Faucher
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 10:06 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Lanning Decision from Supremes [1 Attachment]
[Attachment(s) from John Faucher included below]
They went with the forward-looking test, rather than the mechanical test for projected future income. nveighing against the loosey-goosey results of second-guessing Congress. John D. Faucher
>>>>Hurlbett & Faucher
>>>>5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 116
>>>>Westlake Village, CA 91362
>>>>(818) 889-8080
>>>>Fax: (805) 367-4154
>>>>http://www.hurlbett faucher.com/
>>>>
>>>>3324 State Street, Suite O
>>>>Santa Barbara, CA 93105
>>>>(805) 963-9111
This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential, contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to John Faucher (at 805/963-9111 x103 or john@hf-bklaw. com) indicating that you received this message and then delete the message without delay. Thank you for your cooperation.
Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.
Remember that there needs to be an objection before 1325(b)(1) requirement [of 5 years of PDI] is invoked, don't just cave in on your 3 year plans without the Ch13 T or the holder of an allowed unsecured claim objecting.
Once there is an objection, since PDI is now the same as DI under I - J and we are back to the days of court determined budgets. The debtor $1 above median income with a postive PDI/DI will be in servitude to creditors for 2 years more. Oiy vey, the public policy implications for our economy, yikes! The barn door is open and all the cows are gone... Peter M. Lively, JD/MBALaw Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I11268 Washington Blvd, Suite 203, Culver City, CA 90230-4647Telephone: (310)391-2400 * (800)307-3328 * Fax: (310)391-2462 A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.comPersonal Financial Law Center II - Costa Mesa, CA
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL OR BY TELEPHONE. THANK YOU.
From: Steven B. Lever <sblever@leverlaw.com>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Mon, June 7, 2010 12:01:28 PMSubject: RE: [cdcbaa] Lanning Decision from Supremes
John;
Thanks for putting this out there. So, what about all the 3 year Kagenveama cases that are not confirmed yet we have pending? Thank G*d the main one that had a period of unemployment followed by good employment for a 3 year term is a done deal now, in my practice. I think we all need to scour our cases where we used Kagenveama.
Steve
From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com [mailto:cdcbaa@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of John FaucherSent: Monday, June 07, 2010 10:06 AMTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. comSubject: [cdcbaa] Lanning Decision from Supremes [1 Attachment]
[
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
John;
Thanks for putting this out there. So, what about all the 3 year
Kagenveama cases that are not confirmed yet we have pending? Thank G*d
the main one that had a period of unemployment followed by good
employment for a 3 year term is a done deal now, in my practice. I
think we all need to scour our cases where we used Kagenveama.
Steve
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
What does "forwarding looking" test mean?
Thanks
Paul Horn, ESQ., CPA
Attorney at Law
Certified Public Accountant
1045 E. Valley Blvd., Suite A215
San Gabriel, CA 91770
626-695-7310
877-872-9997--fax
www.paulhornlawfirm.com
________________________________
To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 10:05:58 AM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Lanning Decision from Supremes [1 Attachment]
[Attachment(s) from John Faucher included below]
Hello All -
I attach the Supremes decision in Lanning. They went with the forward-looking test, rather than the mechanical test for projected future income. Judge Scalia predictably and grimly hung onto the text of the statute, inveighing against the loosey-goosey results of second-guessing Congress.
John D. Faucher
>>>>>>>>Hurlbett & Faucher
>>>>5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 116
>>>>>>>>Westlake Village, CA 91362
>>>>>>>>(818) 889-8080
>>>>Fax: (805) 367-4154
>>>>http://www.hurlbettfaucher.com/
>>>>
>>>>3324 State Street, Suite O
>>>>>>>>Santa Barbara, CA 93105
>>>>>>>>(805) 963-9111
>>>>
This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential, contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to John Faucher (at 805/963-9111 x103 or john@hf-bklaw. com) indicating that you received this message and then delete the message without delay. Thank you for your cooperation.
Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.
What does "forwarding looking" test mean?Thanks Paul Horn, ESQ., CPA Attorney at LawCertified Public Accountant1045 E. Valley Blvd., Suite A215San Gabriel, CA 91770626-695-7310877-872-9997--fax
The post was migrated from Yahoo.