.jpg)
Effect of Lanning Decision on Chapter 7 cases
Timing of Bankruptcy: In my very humble opinion, wouldn't it be advisable
to see what else is going on financially and legally to make that decision
and not just rely the Lanning decision and how Trustee's might apply the
"special circumstances" to decide timing?
That is to say, usually it doesn't take more than one or two months for
debtor's unemployment income to lower the averages to below median. So in
that case I wait IF we don't have creditors filing lawsuits or threats of
garnishments, repossession or foreclosure. The FDCP letter of
representation to creditors usually gets the creditors to simmer down a bit
while we are waiting to file the bankruptcy.
I would even go as far as 6 months after the severance pay to reach below
median.
So my question becomes, even in light of the Lanning decision, in an
abundance of caution, if not much waiting is involved would it be okay to
wait? Or is it a disservice to clients to suggest that they wait under
those circumstances?
PS: See you all at the golf course!
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
>
> In light of the recent Lanning decision, how do you all think our courts
> (and OUST) will treat the following and similar scenarios?
>
> Debtor loses their job and seeks to file bankruptcy. Their income for
> the 6 months prior was above median and they likely do not pass the
> means test. In many cases this is compounded by the fact that debtor
> receives a severance payment in the 6 months CMI period.
>
> However, with only unemployment income, debtor has no disposable income.
>
> Is it still advisable to wait a couple months until there is no
> presumption of abuse and then file the Chapter 7 case, or is it now more
> likely that it's safe to file with the presumption?
>
> I guess the key factor is how long it is "projected" that the
> unemployment will last (and good luck figuring that out).
>
> The Lanning decision talks in terms of "special" and "unusual"
> circumstances, but I think there is a large number of cases that fall
> into the fact category of Lanning.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> *************************
> 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.
>
>
>
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (323) 304-5496
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.
Timing of Bankruptcy: In my very humble opinion, wouldn't it be advisable to see what else is going on financially and legally to make that decision and not just rely the Lanning decision and how Trustee's might apply the "special circumstances" to decide timing?
That is to say, usually it doesn't take more than one or two months for debtor's unemployment income to lower the averages to below median. So in that case I wait IF we don't have creditors filing lawsuits or threats of garnishments, repossession or foreclosure. The FDCP letter of representation to creditors usually gets the creditors to simmer down a bit while we are waiting to file the bankruptcy.
I would even go as far as 6 months after the severance pay to reach below median.So my question becomes, even in light of the Lanning decision, in an abundance of caution, if not much waiting is involved would it be okay to wait? Or is it a disservice to clients to suggest that they wait under those circumstances?
PS: See you all at the golf course!On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Mark J. Markus <bklawr@yahoo.com> wrote:
In light of the recent Lanning decision, how do you all think our courts
(and OUST) will treat the following and similar scenarios?
Debtor loses their job and seeks to file bankruptcy. Their income for
the 6 months prior was above median and they likely do not pass the
means test. In many cases this is compounded by the fact that debtor
receives a severance payment in the 6 months CMI period.
However, with only unemployment income, debtor has no disposable income.
Is it still advisable to wait a couple months until there is no
presumption of abuse and then file the Chapter 7 case, or is it now more
likely that it's safe to file with the presumption?
I guess the key factor is how long it is "projected" that the
unemployment will last (and good luck figuring that out).
The Lanning decision talks in terms of "special" and "unusual"
circumstances, but I think there is a large number of cases that fall
into the fact category of Lanning.
Thoughts?
*************************
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.
-- R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.OFF: (818) 734-7223CEL: (323) 304-5496NO 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.
Isn't there always the looming issue of when and if the debtor will
become re-employed?
*************************
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 6/9/2010 4:36 PM, David A. Tilem wrote:
>
>
> I don't see any problem with filing the case quickly. The USTE is
> reasonable enough to understand that people lose their jobs and don't
> have continuing income. Presumption is rebuttable. I can't think of
> an easier case to prove than one which is proven with a pink slip.
> *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 *Mark J. Markus
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 09, 2010 3:28 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Effect of Lanning Decision on Chapter 7 cases
>
> In light of the recent Lanning decision, how do you all think our courts
> (and OUST) will treat the following and similar scenarios?
>
> Debtor loses their job and seeks to file bankruptcy. Their income for
> the 6 months prior was above median and they likely do not pass the
> means test. In many cases this is compounded by the fact that debtor
> receives a severance payment in the 6 months CMI period.
>
> However, with only unemployment income, debtor has no disposable income.
>
> Is it still advisable to wait a couple months until there is no
> presumption of abuse and then file the Chapter 7 case, or is it now more
> likely that it's safe to file with the presumption?
>
> I guess the key factor is how long it is "projected" that the
> unemployment will last (and good luck figuring that out).
>
> The Lanning decision talks in terms of "special" and "unusual"
> circumstances, but I think there is a large number of cases that fall
> into the fact category of Lanning.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> *************************
> 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.
>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I don't see any problem with filing the case quickly. The USTE is
reasonable enough to understand that people lose their jobs and don't have
continuing income. Presumption is rebuttable. I can't think of an easier
case to prove than one which is proven with a pink slip.
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.
Mark J. Markus
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 3:28 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Effect of Lanning Decision on Chapter 7 cases
In light of the recent Lanning decision, how do you all think our courts
(and OUST) will treat the following and similar scenarios?
Debtor loses their job and seeks to file bankruptcy. Their income for
the 6 months prior was above median and they likely do not pass the
means test. In many cases this is compounded by the fact that debtor
receives a severance payment in the 6 months CMI period.
However, with only unemployment income, debtor has no disposable income.
Is it still advisable to wait a couple months until there is no
presumption of abuse and then file the Chapter 7 case, or is it now more
likely that it's safe to file with the presumption?
I guess the key factor is how long it is "projected" that the
unemployment will last (and good luck figuring that out).
The Lanning decision talks in terms of "special" and "unusual"
circumstances, but I think there is a large number of cases that fall
into the fact category of Lanning.
Thoughts?
*************************
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.
In light of the recent Lanning decision, how do you all think our courts
(and OUST) will treat the following and similar scenarios?
Debtor loses their job and seeks to file bankruptcy. Their income for
the 6 months prior was above median and they likely do not pass the
means test. In many cases this is compounded by the fact that debtor
receives a severance payment in the 6 months CMI period.
However, with only unemployment income, debtor has no disposable income.
Is it still advisable to wait a couple months until there is no
presumption of abuse and then file the Chapter 7 case, or is it now more
likely that it's safe to file with the presumption?
I guess the key factor is how long it is "projected" that the
unemployment will last (and good luck figuring that out).
The Lanning decision talks in terms of "special" and "unusual"
circumstances, but I think there is a large number of cases that fall
into the fact category of Lanning.
Thoughts?
*************************
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.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.