.jpg)
MBZ wants a car lease "affirmed" not just assumed
The answer is number 3. However, I was informed by their attorney that
they will repossess if the lease is not assumed and the debt is not
reaffirmed. I have dealt with this attorney a lot in other cases unrelated
to MBZ and she means it.
Alik Segal
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 9:52 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] MBZ wants a car lease "affirmed" not just assumed
Stella,
You say, "They have been doing this for about 6 months." Which of
these has MBZ been doing for 6 months:
1. Repossessing unless the lease has been assumed
2. Repossessing unless the lease has been assumed and the debt affirmed
3. Requesting that the debt related to an assumed lease was also affirmed
Thanks,
Alik Segal
On 2/25/11, havkinlaw@earthlink.net
wrote:
> They have been doing this for about 6 months.
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Sender: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:27:15
> To: CDCBAA Listserv; bk;
> bootcamp-attorneys
> Reply-To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] MBZ wants a car lease "affirmed" not just assumed
>
> MBZ wants a car lease "affirmed" not just assumed. They say in a letter:
>
> "Although Daimler Trust would normally require a lease agreement to be
> assumed and not
> reaffirmed, it appears that several Bankruptcy courts have disapproved of
> this basic approach.
> Instead, these courts have indicated that in order to stipulate to a
> post-petition waiver of a
> discharge for specific debt, the waiver should be subject to the
> requirements for a reaffirmation
> agreement under 11 U.S.C. 524. As such, please find enclosed a proposed
> reaffirmation
> agreement and cover sheet "assuming" the lease with respect to the
> above-referenced vehicle."
>
> Has anyone seen this? Why would they want this?
>
> --
> Alik Segal
> Alik.Segal@gmail.com
> 310-362-6157
> Cal. CD, Los Angeles
>
>
Alik Segal
Alik.Segal@gmail.com
310-362-6157
Cal. CD, Los Angeles
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Stella,
You say, "They have been doing this for about 6 months." Which of
these has MBZ been doing for 6 months:
1. Repossessing unless the lease has been assumed
2. Repossessing unless the lease has been assumed and the debt affirmed
3. Requesting that the debt related to an assumed lease was also affirmed
Thanks,
Alik Segal
On 2/25/11, havkinlaw@earthlink.net wrote:
> They have been doing this for about 6 months.
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sender: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:27:15
> To: CDCBAA Listserv; bk;
> bootcamp-attorneys
> Reply-To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] MBZ wants a car lease "affirmed" not just assumed
>
> MBZ wants a car lease "affirmed" not just assumed. They say in a letter:
>
> "Although Daimler Trust would normally require a lease agreement to be
> assumed and not
> reaffirmed, it appears that several Bankruptcy courts have disapproved of
> this basic approach.
> Instead, these courts have indicated that in order to stipulate to a
> post-petition waiver of a
> discharge for specific debt, the waiver should be subject to the
> requirements for a reaffirmation
> agreement under 11 U.S.C. 524. As such, please find enclosed a proposed
> reaffirmation
> agreement and cover sheet "assuming" the lease with respect to the
> above-referenced vehicle."
>
> Has anyone seen this? Why would they want this?
>
> --
> Alik Segal
> Alik.Segal@gmail.com
> 310-362-6157
> Cal. CD, Los Angeles
>
>
Alik Segal
Alik.Segal@gmail.com
310-362-6157
Cal. CD, Los Angeles
The post was migrated from Yahoo.