.jpg)
Settlement of 2nd mortgage with Chapter 7 pending>=
charset="windows-1251"
The other information I need is: what is your question? Since when is money
given TO a debtor ever the subject of an avoidable transfer action. Those
are actions to recover money given BY the debtor to someone else. Why would
it be a stay violation? Sorry, but I don't see your question.
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.
clifford_bordeaux
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 6:54 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Settlement of 2nd mortgage with Chapter 7 pending
What other information is needed?
Based on further research, it looks like the loan from the parents should
not be considered property of the estate, since the loan was made to the
clients post-petition (and it was in fact a loan--not a gift or
inheritance). So these funds should not be subject to trustee avoidance or
"clawback" for the benefit of other creditors.
The next issue is whether borrowers were within their rights to use the
proceeds of their loan from their parents to settle their second mortgage.
Since the money was not property of the estate, I don't see why court
approval would be required--seems to me that this is analogous to a debtor
simply borrowing money from parents post-petition in order to make a regular
mortgage payment (even though in this case they were able to settle the debt
in full). I guess it could technically be a stay violation if the creditor
demanded the settlement, but in this case the debtors initiated the
settlement discussions and were happy with the result.
Am I missing something?
Tilem" wrote:
>
> not enough information to answer your question.
>
>
> 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-----
[mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf
Of
> clifford_bordeaux
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 2:46 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Settlement of 2nd mortgage with Chapter 7 pending
>
>
>
>
> Clients filed Chapter 7 in August. Shortly thereafter, borrowed $10K from
> parents to settle a second mortgage of more than $100K. Deed of
Reconveyance
> was recorded in September.
>
> Later, UST filed a 707b motion for unrelated reasons and clients
stipulated
> to a conversion to Chapter 13. I am planning to report the $10K loan from
> parents as a new unsecured debt and disclose that 2nd was paid off. Is
there
> any problem with any of this? If this was a stay violation, do I need to
> file a motion to try to ratify the arrangement? I am not sure if the
clients
> ever had physical possession of the money, or if parents obtained a
> cashier's check to settle with the 2nd directly.
>
charset="windows-1251"
Message
The other information I
need is: what is your question? Since when is money given TO a debtor
ever the subject of an avoidable transfer action. Those are actions to
recover money given BY the debtor to someone else. Why would it be a stay
violation? Sorry, but I don't see your question.
David A.
Tilem
Certified Bankruptcy
Specialist*
The post was migrated from Yahoo.