.jpg)
Validity of Ch. 13 LAM order on conversion to Chapter 11
Thank you for not sending them to me. I'm done taking tiny retainers.
On Apr 29, 2011 2:21 PM, "Mark J. Markus" wrote:
> It was Judge Tighe. Clients couldn't afford my exorbitant $10,000
> pre-conversion retainer for a Chapter 11, so I sent them elsewhere.
>
> All good information to have though. Thanks 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.
>
> On 4/29/2011 2:18 PM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
>>
>>
>> Who is your judge?
>> Robles won't even entertain them - I've tried.
>> AA will grant them.
>> VZ expects a 506(a) & (d) AP and thinks the lien cannot be avoided
>> through the plan -- ignoring Section 1141, btw.
>> BR doesn't require it
>> I cannot tell you about others because I've usually worked out
>> valuation or plan treatment before having to do them.
>> One pointer, though, if the Judge grants your 506 motion, your
>> disclosure statement can be slimmer and you will have certainty.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Mark J. Markus > > wrote:
>>
>> That's what I was thinking too. You do the 506 motion first,
>> then avoid the lien as part of the plan, right?
>>
>>
>>
>> *************************
>> 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 4/29/2011 2:11 PM, David A. Tilem wrote:
>>> I just do it as part of the plan.
>>> *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 *Jason Wallach
>>> *Sent:* Friday, April 29, 2011 12:13 PM
>>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Validity of Ch. 13 LAM order on
>>> conversion to Chapter 11
>>>
>>> Mark: I haven't seen or thought of a LAM motion in a Chapter
>>> 11, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there or possible.
>>> Hopefully the others can share their experiences on this.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>> On Apr 29, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree I would need a new order (or modification of the
>>>> prior order). But are you saying one cannot do a "Lam
>>>> Motion" in a Chapter 11? In other words, you just do a 506
>>>> motion and then you have to do a separate adversary
>>>> regardless? Or is there some other method? This would be a
>>>> Valley case, just FYI.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *************************
>>>> 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.
Who is your judge?
Robles won't even entertain them - I've tried.
AA will grant them.
VZ expects a 506(a) & (d) AP and thinks the lien cannot be avoided through
the plan -- ignoring Section 1141, btw.
BR doesn't require it
I cannot tell you about others because I've usually worked out valuation or
plan treatment before having to do them.
One pointer, though, if the Judge grants your 506 motion, your disclosure
statement can be slimmer and you will have certainty.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
>
> That's what I was thinking too. You do the 506 motion first, then avoid
> the lien as part of the plan, right?
>
>
> *************************
> 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 4/29/2011 2:11 PM, David A. Tilem wrote:
>
> I just do it as part of the plan.
>
>
> *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 *Jason Wallach
> *Sent:* Friday, April 29, 2011 12:13 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Validity of Ch. 13 LAM order on conversion to
> Chapter 11
>
>
>
> Mark: I haven't seen or thought of a LAM motion in a Chapter 11, but that
> doesn't mean it isn't out there or possible. Hopefully the others can share
> their experiences on this.
> Jason
> On Apr 29, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree I would need a new order (or modification of the prior order). But
> are you saying one cannot do a "Lam Motion" in a Chapter 11? In other
> words, you just do a 506 motion and then you have to do a separate adversary
> regardless? Or is there some other method? This would be a Valley case,
> just FYI.
>
> *************************
> 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 4/29/2011 9:58 AM, Jason Wallach wrote:
>
> You need a new order, in part because of the limitations on a LAM motion.
> Bank probably didn't oppose the LAM motion; if it had counsel, maybe they
> will stipulate to an order avoiding the lien on 506 grounds?
> Jason
> On Apr 28, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Debtor filed a Chapter 13 case, filed a LAM motion which was
> granted. The order has language that says that it isn't effective
> until discharge in the CHAPTER 13, etc. It specifically references
> "chapter 13".
>
> Turns out, debtor omitted some debts from their petition and is not
> eligible for Chapter 13. If I take on the case and convert to Ch.
> 11, will the prior Order be binding, or do I need to file an
> entirely new LAM motion, or is there some easier way to modify the
> prior order under Rule 60(b)?
>
> Weird, I know....Clients---go figure....
>
> *************************
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
Who is your judge?
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charsetndows-1252
I was working on it when the Staff Appreciation Day Luncheon started. ETA 3pm.
Jason
On Apr 29, 2011, at 1:14 PM, P L wrote:
>
> RN granted by motion for my ch11 clients 10-29429.
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>
> The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>
>
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, April 29, 2011 12:13:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Validity of Ch. 13 LAM order on conversion to Chapter 11
>
>
> Mark: I haven't seen or thought of a LAM motion in a Chapter 11, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there or possible. Hopefully the others can share their experiences on this.
>
> Jason
> On Apr 29, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree I would need a new order (or modification of the prior order). But are you saying one cannot do a "Lam Motion" in a Chapter 11? In other words, you just do a 506 motion and then you have to do a separate adversary regardless? Or is there some other method? This would be a Valley case, just FYI.
>>
>>
>> *************************
>> 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 4/29/2011 9:58 AM, Jason Wallach wrote:
>>>
>>> You need a new order, in part because of the limitations on a LAM motion. Bank probably didn't oppose the LAM motion; if it had counsel, maybe they will stipulate to an order avoiding the lien on 506 grounds?
>>> Jason
>>> On Apr 28, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Debtor filed a Chapter 13 case, filed a LAM motion which was
>>>> granted. The order has language that says that it isn't effective
>>>> until discharge in the CHAPTER 13, etc. It specifically references
>>>> "chapter 13".
>>>>
>>>> Turns out, debtor omitted some debts from their petition and is not
>>>> eligible for Chapter 13. If I take on the case and convert to Ch.
>>>> 11, will the prior Order be binding, or do I need to file an
>>>> entirely new LAM motion, or is there some easier way to modify the
>>>> prior order under Rule 60(b)?
>>>>
>>>> Weird, I know....Clients---go figure....
>>>>
>>>> *************************
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
charsetndows-1252
I was working on it when the Staff Appreciation Day Luncheon started. ETA 3pm.JasonOn Apr 29, 2011, at 1:14 PM, P L wrote:
RN granted by motion for my ch11 clients 10-29429. Peter M. Lively, JD, MBAThe Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
From: Jason Wallach <
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charsetndows-1252
Mark: I haven't seen or thought of a LAM motion in a Chapter 11, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there or possible. Hopefully the others can share their experiences on this.
Jason
On Apr 29, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
> I agree I would need a new order (or modification of the prior order). But are you saying one cannot do a "Lam Motion" in a Chapter 11? In other words, you just do a 506 motion and then you have to do a separate adversary regardless? Or is there some other method? This would be a Valley case, just FYI.
>
> *************************
> 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 4/29/2011 9:58 AM, Jason Wallach wrote:
>>
>> You need a new order, in part because of the limitations on a LAM motion. Bank probably didn't oppose the LAM motion; if it had counsel, maybe they will stipulate to an order avoiding the lien on 506 grounds?
>> Jason
>> On Apr 28, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Debtor filed a Chapter 13 case, filed a LAM motion which was
>>> granted. The order has language that says that it isn't effective
>>> until discharge in the CHAPTER 13, etc. It specifically references
>>> "chapter 13".
>>>
>>> Turns out, debtor omitted some debts from their petition and is not
>>> eligible for Chapter 13. If I take on the case and convert to Ch.
>>> 11, will the prior Order be binding, or do I need to file an
>>> entirely new LAM motion, or is there some easier way to modify the
>>> prior order under Rule 60(b)?
>>>
>>> Weird, I know....Clients---go figure....
>>>
>>> *************************
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>
>
charsetndows-1252
Mark: I haven't seen or thought of a LAM motion in a Chapter 11, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there or possible. Hopefully the others can share their experiences on this.JasonOn Apr 29, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
motion.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
>
> I agree I would need a new order (or modification of the prior order). But
> are you saying one cannot do a "Lam Motion" in a Chapter 11? In other
> words, you just do a 506 motion and then you have to do a separate adversary
> regardless? Or is there some other method? This would be a Valley case,
> just FYI.
>
>
> *************************
> 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 4/29/2011 9:58 AM, Jason Wallach wrote:
>
> You need a new order, in part because of the limitations on a LAM motion.
> Bank probably didn't oppose the LAM motion; if it had counsel, maybe they
> will stipulate to an order avoiding the lien on 506 grounds?
> Jason
> On Apr 28, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Debtor filed a Chapter 13 case, filed a LAM motion which was
> granted. The order has language that says that it isn't effective
> until discharge in the CHAPTER 13, etc. It specifically references
> "chapter 13".
>
> Turns out, debtor omitted some debts from their petition and is not
> eligible for Chapter 13. If I take on the case and convert to Ch.
> 11, will the prior Order be binding, or do I need to file an
> entirely new LAM motion, or is there some easier way to modify the
> prior order under Rule 60(b)?
>
> Weird, I know....Clients---go figure....
>
> *************************
> 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.
>
>
>
>
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA.
Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by
the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
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 herein.
motion.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Mark J. Markus <bklawr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I agree I would need a new order (or modification of the prior order). But are you saying one cannot do a "Lam Motion" in a Chapter 11? In other words, you just do a 506 motion and then you have to do a separate adversary regardless? Or is there some other method? This would be a Valley case, just FYI.
*************************Mark J. MarkusLaw Office of Mark J. Markus11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403Studio 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 4/29/2011 9:58 AM, Jason Wallach wrote:
You need a new order, in part because of the limitations on a LAM motion. Bank probably didn't oppose the LAM motion; if it had counsel, maybe they will stipulate to an order avoiding the lien on 506 grounds?
Jason
On Apr 28, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
Debtor filed a Chapter 13 case, filed a LAM motion which was granted. The order has language that says that it isn't effective until discharge in the CHAPTER 13, etc. It specifically references "chapter 13".
Turns out, debtor omitted some debts from their petition and is not eligible for Chapter 13. If I take on the case and convert to Ch. 11, will the prior Order be binding, or do I need to file an entirely new LAM motion, or is there some easier way to modify the
prior order under Rule 60(b)?Weird, I know....Clients---go figure....*************************Mark J. MarkusLaw Office of Mark J. Markus11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403Studio 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.
charsetndows-1252
You need a new order, in part because of the limitations on a LAM motion. Bank probably didn't oppose the LAM motion; if it had counsel, maybe they will stipulate to an order avoiding the lien on 506 grounds?
Jason
On Apr 28, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
> Debtor filed a Chapter 13 case, filed a LAM motion which was
> granted. The order has language that says that it isn't effective
> until discharge in the CHAPTER 13, etc. It specifically references
> "chapter 13".
>
> Turns out, debtor omitted some debts from their petition and is not
> eligible for Chapter 13. If I take on the case and convert to Ch.
> 11, will the prior Order be binding, or do I need to file an
> entirely new LAM motion, or is there some easier way to modify the
> prior order under Rule 60(b)?
>
> Weird, I know....Clients---go figure....
>
> *************************
> 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.
>
>
charsetndows-1252
You need a new order, in part because of the limitations on a LAM motion. Bank probably didn't oppose the LAM motion; if it had counsel, maybe they will stipulate to an order avoiding the lien on 506 grounds?JasonOn Apr 28, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
Debtor filed a Chapter 13 case, filed a LAM motion which was
granted. The order has language that says that it isn't effective
until discharge in the CHAPTER 13, etc. It specifically references
"chapter 13".
Turns out, debtor omitted some debts from their petition and is not
eligible for Chapter 13. If I take on the case and convert to Ch.
11, will the prior Order be binding, or do I need to file an
entirely new LAM motion, or is there some easier way to modify the
prior order under Rule 60(b)?
Weird, I know....Clients---go figure....
*************************
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.
Brainstorming I see motion to clarify order, but then value of property in a
Chapter 11 case is as of confirmation, which you would have to account for.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
>
>
> Debtor filed a Chapter 13 case, filed a LAM motion which was
> granted. The order has language that says that it isn't effective
> until discharge in the CHAPTER 13, etc. It specifically references
> "chapter 13".
>
> Turns out, debtor omitted some debts from their petition and is not
> eligible for Chapter 13. If I take on the case and convert to Ch.
> 11, will the prior Order be binding, or do I need to file an
> entirely new LAM motion, or is there some easier way to modify the
> prior order under Rule 60(b)?
>
> Weird, I know....Clients---go figure....
>
> *************************
> 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.
>
>
>
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
Brainstorming I see motion to clarify order, but then value of property in a Chapter 11 case is as of confirmation, which you would have to account for.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Mark J. Markus <bklawr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Debtor filed a Chapter 13 case, filed a LAM motion which was granted. The order has language that says that it isn't effective until discharge in the CHAPTER 13, etc. It specifically references "chapter 13".
Turns out, debtor omitted some debts from their petition and is not eligible for Chapter 13. If I take on the case and convert to Ch. 11, will the prior Order be binding, or do I need to file an entirely new LAM motion, or is there some easier way to modify the
prior order under Rule 60(b)?Weird, I know....Clients---go figure....*************************Mark J. MarkusLaw Office of Mark J. Markus11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403Studio 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.
Debtor filed a Chapter 13 case, filed a LAM motion which was
granted. The order has language that says that it isn't effective
until discharge in the CHAPTER 13, etc. It specifically references
"chapter 13".
Turns out, debtor omitted some debts from their petition and is not
eligible for Chapter 13. If I take on the case and convert to Ch.
11, will the prior Order be binding, or do I need to file an
entirely new LAM motion, or is there some easier way to modify the
prior order under Rule 60(b)?
Weird, I know....Clients---go figure....
*************************
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.