707(b)(3) decision by Judge Robles

Yahoo Bot · Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:52 am

Yes, it is.
***************************************************
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)
e-mail: bklawr@bklaw.com
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Yahoo Bot · Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:48 am

Is this the case where the debtor was trying to keep the luxury secured items (boat and RV, etc.)?

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Yahoo Bot · Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:45 pm

charset-ascii;
formatowed;
delsps
That's my case. The oust has filed a motion for reconsideration to be
heard in February
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 19, 2008, at 4:18 PM, "Hale Andrew Antico"
wrote:
> This time I'll just copy/paste rather than paraphrase -
>
> 2) REAFFIRMATION OF EXPENSIVE LOANS SECURED BY LUXURY ITEMS WAS NOT
> ABUSIVE
>
> The "totality of the circumstances" test for determining abuse under
> Section 707(b)(3) must produce a result that is consistent with
> Section 707(b)(2)'s Means Test, according to Judge Ernest M. Robles.
> Ruling in In re Jensen, No. 2:08-bk-15225 ER (Bankr. C.D. Cal.
> 11/17/08), Judge Robles found that a debtor's decision to reaffirm a
> high amount of secured debt could not in and of itself be the basis
> for a finding of abuse.
>
> Hale
>
That's my case. The oust has filed a motion for reconsideration to be heard in February Sent from my iPhoneOn Dec 19, 2008, at 4:18 PM, "Hale Andrew Antico" <bk.lawyer@gmail.com> wrote:
This time I'll just copy/paste rather than
paraphrase -
2) REAFFIRMATION OF
EXPENSIVE LOANS SECURED BY LUXURY ITEMS WAS NOT ABUSIVE
The
"totality of the circumstances" test for determining abuse under Section
707(b)(3) must produce a result that is consistent with Section 707(b)(2)'s
Means Test, according to Judge Ernest M. Robles. Ruling in In re
Jensen, No. 2:08-bk-15225 ER (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 11/17/08), Judge Robles
found that a debtor's decision to reaffirm a high amount of secured debt could
not in and of itself be the basis for a finding of
abuse.
Hale

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Yahoo Bot · Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:18 pm

This time I'll just copy/paste rather than paraphrase -
2) REAFFIRMATION OF EXPENSIVE LOANS SECURED BY LUXURY ITEMS WAS NOT ABUSIVE
The "totality of the circumstances" test for determining abuse under Section
707(b)(3) must produce a result that is consistent with Section 707(b)(2)'s
Means Test, according to Judge Ernest M. Robles. Ruling in In re Jensen, No.
2:08-bk-15225 ER (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 11/17/08), Judge Robles found that a
debtor's decision to reaffirm a high amount of secured debt could not in and
of itself be the basis for a finding of abuse.
Hale
This time I'll just copy/paste rather than
paraphrase -
2) REAFFIRMATION OF
EXPENSIVE LOANS SECURED BY LUXURY ITEMS WAS NOT ABUSIVE
The
"totality of the circumstances" test for determining abuse under Section 707(b)(3) must produce a result that is consistent with Section 707(b)(2)'s
Means Test, according to Judge Ernest M. Robles. Ruling in In re
Jensen, No. 2:08-bk-15225 ER (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 11/17/08), Judge Robles
found that a debtor's decision to reaffirm a high amount of secured debt could
not in and of itself be the basis for a finding of
abuse.
Hale

The post was migrated from Yahoo.