.jpg)
After Lanning, the same problems remain using PDI=
Yes, see myP&As on this issue attached to therecent MCLE Means Test
materials. Jim andt I tossed this up before VZ and ER and got shot down, but
decided it wasn't the best facts/time to appeal. I just bumped into Tara Towmey
who said she read my P&As and urged thatI move forward and NACBA will help. We
need to find a case with good facts.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Blvd, Suite 203, Culver City, CA 90230-4647
Telephone: (310)391-2400 * (800)307-3328 * Fax: (310)391-2462
A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Personal Financial Law Center II - Costa Mesa, CA
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: Thu, October 14, 2010 9:39:01 AM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: After Lanning, the same problems remain using PDI in
1325(b)(1).
Peter,
Didnt Dewsnup deal with a partially secured mortgage? Candistinguished when you have a wholly unsecured 2nd?
M. Erik Clark
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina , CA 91791
www.BLClaw.com
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Board Certified in Consumer Bankruptcy
American Board of Certification
________________________________
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
This line of argument isset forth in the cases that allowentirely undersecured
residential consensual lien stripping in Ch13s where nodischarge is available
as well. See In re Tran/In re Bennett (ND CA 2010)and In re2010).The argument is that debtor is "skirting" Dewsnup unless making payments
toClass 5 to distinguish from Ch7.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Blvd, Suite 203, Culver City, CA 90230-4647
Telephone: (310)391-2400 * (800)307-3328 * Fax: (310)391-2462
A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Personal Financial Law Center II - Costa Mesa, CA
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: Tue, October 12, 2010 1:46:51 PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: After Lanning, the same problems remain using PDI in
1325(b)(1).
I'm fighting a "good faith" objection in Eastern District on the same facts.
Way under median debtor, extremely tight budget, 1% plan and nothing for
clothing, lien strip. I see nothing in the code that prevents this, and the
overcoming the "good faith" issueis not easy, if the judge is not so inclined.
________________________________
Catherine Christiansen
>Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 1:37 PM
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: After Lanning, the same problems remain using PDI in
>1325(b)(1).
>
>
>At the CEB this last weekend in Riverside, the Judges stated that if there is a
>lien strip involved in a case where the Chapter 13 Debtor qualifies on the means
>test for a 36 month plan, they court will side with the Trustee that it should
>be a 60 month plan, otherwise, in their opinion, it is basically a Chapter 7
>with a lien strip.
>
>
>Law Office of Catherine Christiansen
>1077 E Pacific Coast Hwy #210
>Seal Beach, CA, 90740
>Tel: (562) 361-8721
>Fax: (562) 490-8572
>attorneychristiansen@gmail.com
>This e-mail is private and confidential and is intended solely for the
>recipient(s) named or otherwise identified herein. If you are not named or
>otherwise identified as an intended recipient, please delete this e-mail message
>and any copies thereof and immediately notify Christiansen Law Offices by e-mail
>or by telephone (562)608-8368. Representation Note: If you have not signed a
>contract of representation, Christiansen Law Offices does not represent you, and
>this email does not contain anylegal advicefor you. NOTICE: We are a
>federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy>Laws.We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems,including
>filing petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code
>
>"Don't be afraid, for I am with you. Do not be dismayed, for I amyour God. I
>will strengthen you. I will help you. I will uphold you with myvictorious right
>hand." Isaiah 41:10 NLT
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tue, October 12, 2010 12:09:10 PM
>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: After Lanning, the same problems remain using PDI in
>1325(b)(1).
>
>
>Nancy:
>
>I have almost the identical issue in Riverside. Debtor is a w-2 employee.
>Non-debtor spouse receives only social security. The ACP is 36 months, but, if
>you use scheduleI with the social security income, its a 60 month plan
>according to the trustee in Riverside.Plan was confirmed back in July. There
>is now a little bit of arrears and I want to modifythe planto accomodate that
>and have the plan reduce to 48 months and pay the same percentage the plan would
>have paid in 36 months at the higher amount at which it was confirmed.>anticipate an objection and want to discuss ahead of time because I may want to
>participate in that appeal. Please contact me off list.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Steve Burton
>
>
>
>
________________________________
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Mon, October 11, 2010 3:45:10 PM
>Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: After Lanning, the same problems remain using PDI in
>1325(b)(1).
>
>
>Just as a note of interest:
>The jury is still out as to whether Lanning overrules Kagenveama on the
>Applicable Commitment Period (ACP). I am not sure how Liz Rojas is handling this
>issue but Rod Danielsons office and Kathy Dockerys office are fighting the ACP
>as decided in Kagenveama. And I know that is now what your thread was addressing
>directly but just as a heads up to the group our office has taken this issue
>on with the help of Tara Twomey of NACBA (6:10-bk-29956) in Riverside . The
>trustee is arguing that Lanning and Tennyson have effectively overruled the
>holding in Kagenveama as it relates to the applicable commitment period, and we
>are arguing that Lanning did not discuss applicable commitment period.
>Therefore, Kagenveama as it relates to ACP has not been overruled.
>
>
>Thank you,
>Nancy B. Clark
>100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
>West Covina, CA 91791
>Office: (626) 332-8600
>Fax: (626) 332-8644
>
>Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are
>not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the
>message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In
>such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
>email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to
>Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other
>information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my
>firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
>
>IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department>Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any>federal tax advice contained in this communication was
>not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
>avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable
>state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending
>to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
>
>
________________________________
>From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of P L
>Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 12:48 PM
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: After Lanning, the same problems remain using PDI in
>1325(b)(1).
>
>
>Mark,
> Theproblem is thatB22C calculates a payment to general unsecured creditors
>not a Plan payment. The Ch13 T has it wrong. Lanning only instructs to adjust
>the B22C PDI with foreseeable changes in Income and Expenses, this may impact
>the PDI number being more or less than $0 and therefore impact the plan length
>pursuant to Kagenveama. As a practical matter only (not a confirmation
>requirement), the plan payment will be I-J, after a plan length is determine by
>B22C.
>Peter
>
>Peter M. Lively, JD/MBA
>Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
>11268 Washington Blvd, Suite 203 , Culver City , CA 90230-4647
>Telephone: (310)391-2400 * (800)307-3328 * Fax: (310)391-2462
>A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
>Personal Financial Law Center II - Costa Mesa , CA
>
>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:Mark Jessee
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 3:46:36 PM
>Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: After Lanning, the same problems remain using PDI in>1325(b)(1).
>
>
>
>
>I did not fully grasp this string the first time I read it. Now after hours of
>research I understand the issue of section 1325(1)(B)'s incongruent interplay
>with sections 1325(b)(2) and 1325(b)(3). However, I still struggle with
>accepting the (SV) Chapter 13 trustee argument that lines 48, 49, and 50 should
>always be left blank on form B22C for an above median debtor in determining the
>disposable monthly income. I had another above median case with the same trustee
>this past week where form B22C was negative even without the expenses on lines
>48 through 50. After initially balking at the expenses on lines 48-50 the>trustee dropped her argument that the plan had to be 60 months instead of 36
>when I argued that dmi was still negative regardless of those lines and that
>based upon Kagenveama the plan did not need to be 60 months. Plan was confirmed
>at schedule I minus J for 36 months.
>
>
>In my review of case law I am not finding anything that specifically addresses
>this issue. In Re Martinez 418 B.R. 347 (9th Cir BAP) 2009 holds that entirely
>undersecured trust deeds that are lien stripped cannot be claimed, because they
>are a phantom expenses not actually an expense necessary for the support of the
>debtor or his dependants. This was based upon the Ninth Circuit's Ransom, 577
>F.3d 1026 decision holding that in order to claim a vehicle ownership expense on
>B22C, there had to actually be one. The U.S. Supreme Court in Lanning, does not
>really address this issue, nor in my view does it completely overturn
>Kagenveama. Kagenveama's mechanical approach is still where we start, but in
>unusual circumstances can adjust projected disposable income for one time>circumstances like Lanning's lump sum severance payment. The BAP in Martinez
>points out that Kagenveama did not really delve into what were legitimate>expenses necessary for support although in reviewing Kagenveama's form B22C,
>clearly lines 48-50 were necessary to for the resultant dmi calculation to be
>negative.
>
>
>I understand that necessary expenses for secured arrears listed on line 48, back
>due priority taxes on line 49 and trustee fees on line 50 are all paid through
>the plan and the debtor cannot count them twice in determining the amount of the
>plan payment. To me it seems it would not be good faith for a debtor to propose
>such a plan. However, I do not see how 1328(b)(3) requires them to be backed out
>on form B22C to determine pdi such that it is a 60 month plan instead of 36
>months. Section 1325(b)(3) holds that determining dmi for an above median debtor
>is based upon Section 707(b)(2)(A) & (B) plus section 1325(b)(2)(A)(ii). Section
>707(b)(2)A(ii)(III) allows for administrative expenses. Section
>707(b)(2)A(iii)(II) clearly incorporates necessary secured creditor payments for
>home and car arrears. Section 707(b)(2)A(iv) clearly includes payments on>priority claims. Under the plain language of the statute these expenses are part
>of determining dmi. There is nothing in the statute that says if these expenses
>exist they must be backed out for determining dmi under Section 1325(b)(3).
>Unlike claiming car ownership expenses or mortgage payments on lien stripped
>second trust deeds that do not exist, these are actual expenses that exist and
>must be paid by the debtors. Just because these are paid through the plan>instead of directly by the debtor it should not change the analysis under>Section 1325(b)(3). If it is a negative number, Kagenveama's analysis that it
>does not need to be a 60 month plan should apply. Following the plain language
>of 1325(b)(3) does not seem to lead to an absurd result.
>
>
>Can anyone direct me to case law authority which address these arguments?>
>Mark Jessee
>
>--- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, "James T. King" wrote:
>>
>> AMI Above Median Income
>>
>> PDI Projected Disposable Income
>>
>> BMI Below Median Income
>>
>> PDI Projected Disposable Income
>>
>> Thanks for asking. I am sure a lot did not know or figure it out.
>>
>>
>>
f
>>robert90701@...
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:48 PM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] After Lanning, the same problems remain using PDI in
>>1325(b)(1).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please, what is AMI PDI and BMI PDI?
>>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 7/13/2010 8:58:18 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>>petermlively2000@... writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> Lanning adjustment of AMI PDI doesn't solve the problem that AMI PDI is a
>>measure of only general unsecured creditor value and BMI PDI is a measure of
>>Plan Base. The only way to make 1325(b)(1)(B) function is a non-aburd way is to
>>treat PDI as a Plan Base measure for both AMI & BMI. Otherwise, unsecured>>creditors must be fully paid before any other plan use for BMI debtors.
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter M. Lively, JD/MBA
>> Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
>> 11268 Washington Blvd, Suite 203 , Culver City , CA 90230-4647
>> Telephone: (310)391-2400 * (800)307-3328 * Fax: (310)391-2462
>> A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
>> Personal Financial Law Center II - Costa Mesa, CA
>>
>>
>>
>> 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: Tue, July 13, 2010 8:12:05 AM
>> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] After Lanning, the same problems remain using PDI in
>>1325(b)(1).
>>
>>
>>
>> But didnt Lanning say that in the AMI cases you only abandon the B22 if
>>there are unusual circumstances looking forward? Not USUAL!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
f Of P
>>L
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:01 AM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
>> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] After Lanning, the same problems remain using PDI in
>>1325(b)(1).
>>
>>
>>
>> My understanding is that the Chapter 13 Trustees and judges are using PDI as a
>>measure of ability to pay or a plan payment, not a measure of what goes to the
>>unsecured creditors. Above-median- income debtors (arguably Chapter 13 only)
>>start with Form B22C Disposable Income, but abandon that number and use Schedule
>>I - J.
>>
>>
>> Peter M. Lively, JD/MBA
>> Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
>> 11268 Washington Blvd, Suite 203 , Culver City , CA 90230-4647
>> Telephone: (310)391-2400 * (800)307-3328 * Fax: (310)391-2462
>> A-Bankruptcy- Attorney. com
>> Personal Financial Law Center II - Costa Mesa, CA
>>
>>
>>
>> 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: Mon, July 12, 2010 4:57:50 PM
>> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] After Lanning, the same problems remain using PDI in
>>1325(b)(1).
>>
>>
>>
>> This stuff is really hard.
>>
>>
>>
>> So in my above-median income debtor, I still need to use the PDI on Form 22C as
>>the minimum that the unsecureds will get, and my debtor will have to pay above
>>and beyond that in order to pay down mortgage arrears. In other words, we are
>>still filling up the champagne glasses from the bottom up, or no?
>>
>>
>>
>> Holly Roark
>>
>> CDCA
>>
>> holly@roarklawoffic es.com
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:35 PM, P L > > wrote:
>>
>> PDI under 1325(b)(2) used in Chapter 11 and for below-median- income Chapter 13
>>debtor follows the preBAPCPA concept of calculating a plan payment; defining
>>Disposable Income as reducing income by household/living expenses only.
>>1325(b)(2) does not reduce CMI by administrative, secured arrears and priority
>>unsecured claims (other typical plan payment recipients). This "Disposable
>>Income" is a measure of what plan payment a debtor can afford.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> PDI under the Chapter 7 Means Test and under 1325(b)(3) with reference to
>>707(b)(2) defines Disposable Income as reducing CMI by household/living expenses
>>(albeit standardized) and also by secured arrears and priority unsecured claims.
>>This "Disposable Income" is a measure of what [general] unsecured creditors
>>should receive.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, defining Disposable Income in two entirely different ways and
>>requiring its use in one 1325(b)(1)(B) formula doesn't work.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> BAPCPA changed 1325(b)(1)(B) by inserting "to unsecured creditors" between
>>"will be applied to make payment" and "under the plan" with the obvious
>>intention that [general] unsecured creditors receive the PDI; Disposable Income
>>being calculated under 1325(b)(3) and 707(b)(2).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> BAPCPA neglected to change the definition of Disposable Income calculated under
>>1325(b)(2) to include reductions of CMI by administrative expenses, secured
>>arrears and priority unsecured claims. The absurd result of using this PDI in
>>1325(b)(1)(B) being that below-median- income debtors must pay all that they can
>>afford to [general] unsecured creditors before any PDI can be used for other
>>plan purposes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Alternatively, ignoring the addition of "to unsecured creditors" between "will
>>be applied to make payment" and "under the plan" and interpreting PDI as a
>>measure of what a debtor can afford to pay makes 1325(b)(3) superflous.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Lanning's instructions to adjust PDI by foreseeable changes in income and
>>expenses does not resolve the problem that the statute defines Disposable Income
>>in two incompatible ways for use in the same test.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kagenveama (and the dissent in Lanning) got it right when focusing on
>>1325(b)(1)(B) using 1325(b)(3) as a calculation of what [general] unsecured
>>creditors should get, if anything. Kagenveama is still applicable post Lanning,
>>if 1325(b)(1)(B) PDI goes to only [general] unsecured creditors.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The courts using PDI under 1325(b)(1)(B) with Disposable Income being
>>calculated under 1325(b)(2) as a measure of what total monthly amount debtor can
>>afford to pay also got it right. However, when applying this approach and using
>>Disposable Income calculated under 1325(b)(3), these courts must ignore that
>>BAPCPA's added the phrase "to unsecured creditors" to 1325(b)(1)(B) and must
>>also adjust Disposable Income from a calculation of what [general] unsecured
>>creditors should receive, to become a measure of ability to pay; this usually
>>means ignoring Form B22C's Disposable Income and using Schedule I - J in its
>>place.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter M. Lively, JD/MBA
>> Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
>> 11268 Washington Blvd, Suite 203 , Culver City , CA 90230-4647
>> Telephone: (310)391-2400 * (800)307-3328 * Fax: (310)391-2462
>> A-Bankruptcy- Attorney. com
>> Personal Financial Law Center II - Costa Mesa, CA
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Holly Roark
>> holly@roarklawoffic es.com
>> www.roarklawoffices .com
>> Central District of California
>> Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>>
>
>
>
This line of argument is set forth in the cases that allow entirely undersecured residential consensual lien stripping in Ch13s where no discharge is available as well. See In re Tran/In re Bennett (ND CA 2010) and In re Burnett (SD CA 2010). The argument is that debtor is "skirting" Dewsnup unless making payments to Class 5 to distinguish from Ch7. Peter M. Lively, JD/MBALaw Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I11268 Washington Blvd, Suite 203, Culver City, CA 90230-4647Telephone: (310)391-2400 * (800)307-3328 * Fax: (310)391-2462 A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.comPersonal Financial Law Center II - Costa Mesa, CA
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: Hale Andrew Antico <bk.lawyer@gmail.com>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Tue, October 12, 2010 1:46:51 PMSubject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: After Lanning, the same problems remain using PDI in 1325(b)(1).
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Nancy:
I have almost the identical issue in Riverside. Debtor is a w-2 employee.
Non-debtor spouse receives only social security. The ACP is 36 months, but, if
you use scheduleI with the social security income, its a 60 month plan
according to the trustee in Riverside.Plan was confirmed back in July. There
is now a little bit of arrears and I want to modifythe planto accomodate that
and have the plan reduce to 48 months and pay the same percentage the plan would
have paid in 36 months at the higher amount at which it was confirmed.anticipate an objection and want to discuss ahead of time because I may want to
participate in that appeal. Please contact me off list.
Thank you,
Steve Burton
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, October 11, 2010 3:45:10 PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: After Lanning, the same problems remain using PDI in
1325(b)(1).
Just as a note of interest:
The jury is still out as to whether Lanning overrules Kagenveama on the
Applicable Commitment Period (ACP). I am not sure how Liz Rojas is handling this
issue but Rod Danielsons office and Kathy Dockerys office are fighting the ACP
as decided in Kagenveama. And I know that is now what your thread was addressing
directly but just as a heads up to the group our office has taken this issue
on with the help of Tara Twomey of NACBA (6:10-bk-29956) in Riverside . Thetrustee is arguing that Lanning and Tennyson have effectively overruled theholding in Kagenveama as it relates to the applicable commitment period, and we
are arguing that Lanning did not discuss applicable commitment period.
Therefore, Kagenveama as it relates to ACP has not been overruled.
Thank you,
Nancy B. Clark
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are
not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the
message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In
such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to
Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other
information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my
firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury DepartmentRegulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, anyfederal tax advice contained in this communication was
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable
state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending
to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
________________________________
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I think we can all agree thatremovingB22C lines 47-50 (reduction of CMI for
admin, secured, andpriority) to derive B22C PDI is akin toremoving the eggs,
sugar and vanilla from the recipe and calling it cakebatter.
Lanning doesn't instruct that formula for PDI and I'm not aware of any other
authority supporting same.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Blvd, Suite 203, Culver City, CA 90230-4647
Telephone: (310)391-2400 * (800)307-3328 * Fax: (310)391-2462
A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Personal Financial Law Center II - Costa Mesa, CA
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: Mon, October 11, 2010 3:45:10 PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: After Lanning, the same problems remain using PDI in
1325(b)(1).
Just as a note of interest:
The jury is still out as to whether Lanning overrules Kagenveama on the
Applicable Commitment Period (ACP). I am not sure how Liz Rojas is handling this
issue but Rod Danielsons office and Kathy Dockerys office are fighting the ACP
as decided in Kagenveama. And I know that is now what your thread was addressing
directly but just as a heads up to the group our office has taken this issue
on with the help of Tara Twomey of NACBA (6:10-bk-29956) in Riverside . Thetrustee is arguing that Lanning and Tennyson have effectively overruled theholding in Kagenveama as it relates to the applicable commitment period, and we
are arguing that Lanning did not discuss applicable commitment period.
Therefore, Kagenveama as it relates to ACP has not been overruled.
Thank you,
Nancy B. Clark
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are
not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the
message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In
such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to
Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other
information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my
firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury DepartmentRegulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, anyfederal tax advice contained in this communication was
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable
state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending
to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
________________________________
The post was migrated from Yahoo.