.jpg)
Determining debt amounts under 109(e)
Opps, Imeant KT not KL.
Peter M. Lively, J.D./M.B.A.
Law Offices of Peter M. Lively
Personal Financial Law Center I
11965 Venice Blvd, Suite 301
Los Angeles, CA 90066-3977
310-899-0630
800-307-DEBT (3328)
Fax: 310-899-0632
A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Personal Financial Law Center II
1706 Newport Boulevard, Suite B
Costa Mesa, California 92627-3073
Telephone: 949-650-DEBT(3328)
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: Wed, December 23, 2009 6:07:58 PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: Determining debt amounts under 109(e) [1 Attachment]
[Attachment(s) from Joseph E. Caceres included below]
5 judges signed off on the Smith decision after it was issued, decision amended for that purpose (Mund and Thompson, plus Zurzolo, Riblet, and Albert). Copy attached, also on website.
Joseph E. Caceres, Esq.
Caceres & Shamash, LLP
8200 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Tel: (310) 205-3400 x 65
Fax: (310) 878-8308
E-mail: jec@locs.com
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com [mailto:cdcbaa@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of jonhayes6666
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 5:27 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Determining debt amounts under 109(e)
Unfortunately, its not "our district." Its not even "our division." All we know for sure is its our favorite judges in Woodland Hills. And there at least, only totally unsecured secured creditors are unsecured for eligibility purposes. And that is only Judge Tighe for sure. I believe that Judges Mund and Thompson agree with Tighe. You have entered the "eligibility zone."
Anybody know about any other judge for sure?
>
> Lou,
>
>
>
> Sorry to bring up an old thread - but let me see if I understand this
> correctly. In our district:
>
>
>
> Partially undersecured first OR wholly undersecured first wholly secured
> for 109(e) evaluation purposes.
>
> Wholly undersecured third/second wholly undersecured for 109(e) evaluation
> purposes.
>
>
>
>
>
> What about a partially undersecured second/third?
>
>
>
>
>
> Donny Brand
>
> Brand & Spellman PC
>
> 3836 E. Anaheim St.
>
> Long Beach, CA 90804
>
> 562-438-7500
>
> 888-99-BKRPT (888-992-5778)
>
> www.brandspellman. com
>
>
>
> ------------ --------
>
> This message originates from the law firm of Brand & Spellman PC and may
> contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for
> the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient and have
> received this message in error, please notify us at
> info@... and delete this email
> from your system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other
> use of this email or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
>
>
>
Of
> californiadebtrelie fagency
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:58 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Determining debt amounts under 109(e)
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
> In the Files section of this ListServ there is the Smith decision under the
> 109(e) appeal. As well, there are the materials from a couple of years ago
> when Lee Raphael and I did the MCLE on Motions to Value. In this district,
> the partially undersecured first is treated as secured for the full amount
> of the indebtedness, even though the Schedules may reflect otherwise
> (another example of why Scovis is improperly applied to consensual liens).
> The wholly undersecured second or third, however, is treated as part of the
> unsecured debt. There is a rogue ruling out of San Diego that bifurcates the
> partially undersecured first into secured and unsecured, following to the
> letter the Scovis decision.
>
> Happy Thanksgiving to all.
>
> Lou Esbin
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com , "Mark J.
> Markus" wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can't keep straight what the current rule is for determining debt
> > amounts for 109(e) purposes (Ch. 13 eligibility) .
> >
> > If a trust deed holder on real estate is partially unsecured based on
> > whatever valuation one uses, is only that secured portion used for the> > $1,010,000 limit for secured debt (and the remaining unsecured portion> > used for the unsecured limit)? Or, is the full amount of the lien
> > considered secured? I guess what I'm asking is, can a 506 motion be
> > used to establish 109(e) eligibility?
> >
> > Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
> >
> > ************ ********* ****
> > 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/ 09/debt-relief- agencies- definition/)
> > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.722 / Virus Database: 270.14.117/2583 - Release Date: 12/23/09 00:28:00
Opps, I meant KT not KL.
Peter M. Lively, J.D./M.B.A.Law Offices of Peter M. Lively Personal Financial Law Center I11965 Venice Blvd, Suite 301 Los Angeles, CA 90066-3977 310-899-0630 800-307-DEBT (3328)Fax: 310-899-0632 A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Personal Financial Law Center II1706 Newport Boulevard, Suite BCosta Mesa, California 92627-3073Telephone: 949-650-DEBT(3328)
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: Joseph E. Caceres <JEC@locs.com>To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com" <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>Sent: Wed, December 23, 2009 6:07:58 PMSubject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: Determining debt amounts under 109(e) [1 Attachment]
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Jon,
sionon debt limits.
See attached.
Law Offices of Peter M. Lively
Personal Financial Law Center I
11965 Venice Blvd, Suite 301
Los Angeles, CA 90066-3977
310-899-0630
800-307-DEBT (3328)
Fax: 310-899-0632
A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Personal Financial Law Center II
1706 Newport Boulevard, Suite B
Costa Mesa, California 92627-3073
Telephone: 949-650-DEBT(3328)
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: Wed, December 23, 2009 5:26:36 PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Determining debt amounts under 109(e)
Unfortunately, its not "our district." Its not even "our division." All we know for sure is its our favorite judges in Woodland Hills. And there at least, only totally unsecured secured creditors are unsecured for eligibility purposes. And that is only Judge Tighe for sure. I believe that Judges Mund and Thompson agree with Tighe. You have entered the "eligibility zone."
Anybody know about any other judge for sure?
>
> Lou,
>
>
>
> Sorry to bring up an old thread - but let me see if I understand this
> correctly. In our district:
>
>
>
> Partially undersecured first OR wholly undersecured first wholly secured
> for 109(e) evaluation purposes.
>
> Wholly undersecured third/second wholly undersecured for 109(e) evaluation
> purposes.
>
>
>
>
>
> What about a partially undersecured second/third?
>
>
>
>
>
> Donny Brand
>
> Brand & Spellman PC
>
> 3836 E. Anaheim St.
>
> Long Beach, CA 90804
>
> 562-438-7500
>
> 888-99-BKRPT (888-992-5778)
>
> www.brandspellman. com
>
>
>
> ------------ --------
>
> This message originates from the law firm of Brand & Spellman PC and may
> contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for
> the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient and have
> received this message in error, please notify us at
> info@... and delete this email
> from your system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other
> use of this email or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
>
>
>
Of
> californiadebtrelie fagency
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:58 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Determining debt amounts under 109(e)
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
> In the Files section of this ListServ there is the Smith decision under the
> 109(e) appeal. As well, there are the materials from a couple of years ago
> when Lee Raphael and I did the MCLE on Motions to Value. In this district,
> the partially undersecured first is treated as secured for the full amount
> of the indebtedness, even though the Schedules may reflect otherwise
> (another example of why Scovis is improperly applied to consensual liens).
> The wholly undersecured second or third, however, is treated as part of the
> unsecured debt. There is a rogue ruling out of San Diego that bifurcates the
> partially undersecured first into secured and unsecured, following to the
> letter the Scovis decision.
>
> Happy Thanksgiving to all.
>
> Lou Esbin
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com , "Mark J.
> Markus" wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can't keep straight what the current rule is for determining debt
> > amounts for 109(e) purposes (Ch. 13 eligibility) .
> >
> > If a trust deed holder on real estate is partially unsecured based on
> > whatever valuation one uses, is only that secured portion used for the> > $1,010,000 limit for secured debt (and the remaining unsecured portion> > used for the unsecured limit)? Or, is the full amount of the lien
> > considered secured? I guess what I'm asking is, can a 506 motion be
> > used to establish 109(e) eligibility?
> >
> > Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
> >
> > ************ ********* ****
> > 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/ 09/debt-relief- agencies- definition/)
> > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
Jon,
TA, RR, VZ, KL & GM also signed on the MT's decision on debt limits.
See attached. Peter M. Lively, J.D./M.B.A.Law Offices of Peter M. Lively Personal Financial Law Center I11965 Venice Blvd, Suite 301 Los Angeles, CA 90066-3977 310-899-0630 800-307-DEBT (3328)Fax: 310-899-0632 A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Personal Financial Law Center II1706 Newport Boulevard, Suite BCosta Mesa, California 92627-3073Telephone: 949-650-DEBT(3328)
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: jonhayes6666 <Jhayes@polarisnet.net>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Wed, December 23, 2009 5:26:36 PMSubject: [cdcbaa] Re: Determining debt amounts under 109(e)
Unfortunately, its not "our district." Its not even "our division." All we know for sure is its our favorite judges in Woodland Hills. And there at least, only totally unsecured secured creditors are unsecured for eligibility purposes. And that is only Judge Tighe for sure. I believe that Judges Mund and Thompson agree with Tighe. You have entered the "eligibility zone." Anybody know about any other judge for sure? --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com, "Donny Brand" <dbrand@...> wrote:>> Lou, > > > > Sorry to bring up an old thread - but let me see if I understand this> correctly. In our district:> > > > Partially undersecured first OR wholly undersecured first wholly secured> for 109(e) evaluation purposes.> > Wholly
undersecured third/second wholly undersecured for 109(e) evaluation> purposes.> > > > > > What about a partially undersecured second/third? > > > > > > Donny Brand> > Brand & Spellman PC> > 3836 E. Anaheim St.> > Long Beach, CA 90804> > 562-438-7500> > 888-99-BKRPT (888-992-5778)> > <http://www.brandspellman.com/> www.brandspellman. com> > > > ------------ --------> > This message originates from the law firm of Brand & Spellman PC and may> contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for> the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient and have> received this message in error, please notify us at> <mailto:info@ ...> info@... and delete this
email> from your system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other> use of this email or its attachments is strictly pr%40yahoogroups.com" relnofollow target_blank ymailto"mailto:cdcbaa%40yahoogroups.com">cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of> californiadebtrelie fagency> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:58 PM> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com> Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Determining debt amounts under 109(e)> > > > > > Mark,> > In the Files section of this ListServ there is the Smith decision under the>
109(e) appeal. As well, there are the materials from a couple of years ago> when Lee Raphael and I did the MCLE on Motions to Value. In this district,> the partially undersecured first is treated as secured for the full amount> of the indebtedness, even though the Schedules may reflect otherwise> (another example of why Scovis is improperly applied to consensual liens).> The wholly undersecured second or third, however, is treated as part of the> unsecured debt. There is a rogue ruling out of San Diego that bifurcates the> partially undersecured first into secured and unsecured, following to the> letter the Scovis decision.> > Happy Thanksgiving to all.> > Lou Esbin> > --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com <mailto:cdcbaa% 40yahoogroups. com> ,
"Mark J.> Markus" <bklawr@> wrote:> >> > > > I can't keep straight what the current rule is for determining debt > > amounts for 109(e) purposes (Ch. 13 eligibility) .> > > > If a trust deed holder on real estate is partially unsecured based on > > whatever valuation one uses, is only that secured portion used for the > > $1,010,000 limit for secured debt (and the remaining unsecured portion > > used for the unsecured limit)? Or, is the full amount of the lien > > considered secured? I guess what I'm asking is, can a 506 motion be > > used to establish 109(e) eligibility?> > > > Happy Thanksgiving everyone!> > > > ************ ********* ****> > 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/ 09/debt-relief- agencies- definition/)> > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________> > 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.
Jim, Thanks. That certainly clears that up.
Client: "So can I file chapter 13 or not?"
Atty: "I don't know."
Client: "You're a bankruptcy atty?"
Atty: "Yes, but I don't know which judge you are going to get."
Client: "If I can file, how much will my plan payments be?"
Atty: "I don't know."
Client: "Can I strip the second lien in chapter 13?"
Atty: "Yes, but then your case will be dismissed."
There has to be an article here.
Client: "Jon Hayes go home."
Atty: Ok.
>
> 5 judges signed off on the Smith decision after it was issued, decision amended for that purpose (Mund and Thompson, plus Zurzolo, Riblet, and Albert). Copy attached, also on website.
>
> Joseph E. Caceres, Esq.
> Caceres & Shamash, LLP
> 8200 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
> Beverly Hills, CA 90211
> Tel: (310) 205-3400 x 65
> Fax: (310) 878-8308
> E-mail: jec@...
>
jonhayes6666
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 5:27 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Determining debt amounts under 109(e)
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, its not "our district." Its not even "our division." All we know for sure is its our favorite judges in Woodland Hills. And there at least, only totally unsecured secured creditors are unsecured for eligibility purposes. And that is only Judge Tighe for sure. I believe that Judges Mund and Thompson agree with Tighe. You have entered the "eligibility zone."
>
> Anybody know about any other judge for sure?
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, "Donny Brand" wrote:
> >
> > Lou,
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry to bring up an old thread - but let me see if I understand this
> > correctly. In our district:
> >
> >
> >
> > Partially undersecured first OR wholly undersecured first wholly secured
> > for 109(e) evaluation purposes.
> >
> > Wholly undersecured third/second wholly undersecured for 109(e) evaluation
> > purposes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What about a partially undersecured second/third?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Donny Brand
> >
> > Brand & Spellman PC
> >
> > 3836 E. Anaheim St.
> >
> > Long Beach, CA 90804
> >
> > 562-438-7500
> >
> > 888-99-BKRPT (888-992-5778)
> >
> > www.brandspellman.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------
> >
> > This message originates from the law firm of Brand & Spellman PC and may
> > contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for
> > the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient and have
> > received this message in error, please notify us at
> > info@ and delete this email
> > from your system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other
> > use of this email or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
> >
> >
> >
dcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > californiadebtreliefagency
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:58 PM
> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Determining debt amounts under 109(e)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > In the Files section of this ListServ there is the Smith decision under the
> > 109(e) appeal. As well, there are the materials from a couple of years ago
> > when Lee Raphael and I did the MCLE on Motions to Value. In this district,
> > the partially undersecured first is treated as secured for the full amount
> > of the indebtedness, even though the Schedules may reflect otherwise
> > (another example of why Scovis is improperly applied to consensual liens).
> > The wholly undersecured second or third, however, is treated as part of the
> > unsecured debt. There is a rogue ruling out of San Diego that bifurcates the
> > partially undersecured first into secured and unsecured, following to the
> > letter the Scovis decision.
> >
> > Happy Thanksgiving to all.
> >
> > Lou Esbin
> >
> > --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com , "Mark J.
> > Markus" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I can't keep straight what the current rule is for determining debt
> > > amounts for 109(e) purposes (Ch. 13 eligibility).
> > >
> > > If a trust deed holder on real estate is partially unsecured based on
> > > whatever valuation one uses, is only that secured portion used for the
> > > $1,010,000 limit for secured debt (and the remaining unsecured portion
> > > used for the unsecured limit)? Or, is the full amount of the lien
> > > considered secured? I guess what I'm asking is, can a 506 motion be
> > > used to establish 109(e) eligibility?
> > >
> > > Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
> > >
> > > *************************
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.722 / Virus Database: 270.14.117/2583 - Release Date: 12/23/09 00:28:00
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
type="multipart/alternative"
5 judges signed off on the Smith decision after it was issued, decision amended for that purpose (Mund and Thompson, plus Zurzolo, Riblet, and Albert). Copy attached, also on website.
Joseph E. Caceres, Esq.
Caceres & Shamash, LLP
8200 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Tel: (310) 205-3400 x 65
Fax: (310) 878-8308
E-mail: jec@locs.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Unfortunately, its not "our district." Its not even "our division." All we know for sure is its our favorite judges in Woodland Hills. And there at least, only totally unsecured secured creditors are unsecured for eligibility purposes. And that is only Judge Tighe for sure. I believe that Judges Mund and Thompson agree with Tighe. You have entered the "eligibility zone."
Anybody know about any other judge for sure?
>
> Lou,
>
>
>
> Sorry to bring up an old thread - but let me see if I understand this
> correctly. In our district:
>
>
>
> Partially undersecured first OR wholly undersecured first wholly secured
> for 109(e) evaluation purposes.
>
> Wholly undersecured third/second wholly undersecured for 109(e) evaluation
> purposes.
>
>
>
>
>
> What about a partially undersecured second/third?
>
>
>
>
>
> Donny Brand
>
> Brand & Spellman PC
>
> 3836 E. Anaheim St.
>
> Long Beach, CA 90804
>
> 562-438-7500
>
> 888-99-BKRPT (888-992-5778)
>
> www.brandspellman.com
>
>
>
> --------------------
>
> This message originates from the law firm of Brand & Spellman PC and may
> contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for
> the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient and have
> received this message in error, please notify us at
> info@... and delete this email
> from your system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other
> use of this email or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
>
>
>
> californiadebtreliefagency
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:58 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Determining debt amounts under 109(e)
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
> In the Files section of this ListServ there is the Smith decision under the
> 109(e) appeal. As well, there are the materials from a couple of years ago
> when Lee Raphael and I did the MCLE on Motions to Value. In this district,
> the partially undersecured first is treated as secured for the full amount
> of the indebtedness, even though the Schedules may reflect otherwise
> (another example of why Scovis is improperly applied to consensual liens).
> The wholly undersecured second or third, however, is treated as part of the
> unsecured debt. There is a rogue ruling out of San Diego that bifurcates the
> partially undersecured first into secured and unsecured, following to the
> letter the Scovis decision.
>
> Happy Thanksgiving to all.
>
> Lou Esbin
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com , "Mark J.
> Markus" wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can't keep straight what the current rule is for determining debt
> > amounts for 109(e) purposes (Ch. 13 eligibility).
> >
> > If a trust deed holder on real estate is partially unsecured based on
> > whatever valuation one uses, is only that secured portion used for the> > $1,010,000 limit for secured debt (and the remaining unsecured portion> > used for the unsecured limit)? Or, is the full amount of the lien
> > considered secured? I guess what I'm asking is, can a 506 motion be
> > used to establish 109(e) eligibility?
> >
> > Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
> >
> > *************************
> > 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.
Lou,
Sorry to bring up an old thread - but let me see if I understand this
correctly. In our district:
Partially undersecured first OR wholly undersecured first = wholly secured
for 109(e) evaluation purposes.
Wholly undersecured third/second = wholly undersecured for 109(e) evaluation
purposes.
What about a partially undersecured second/third?
Donny Brand
Brand & Spellman PC
3836 E. Anaheim St.
Long Beach, CA 90804
562-438-7500
888-99-BKRPT (888-992-5778)
www.brandspellman.com
This message originates from the law firm of Brand & Spellman PC and may
contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for
the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient and have
received this message in error, please notify us at
info@brandspellman.com and delete this email
from your system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other
use of this email or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.