.jpg)
Weinstein & Riley Demand Letter
Hi Sofya: This has been my approach, and I don't know if this is the best
way to handle, but this is how I have been handling. I would look at what
was bought outside the presumption period. Evaluate if the item purchased
was a need or want. Things like fixing a car while broken down in Las Vegas
(no problem as this is one i had), or did they buy a big screen TV (which is
one I had). THEN look at was there a change in economic circumstances (OMG
I bought a Big Screen TV, and then three weeks later my company fired me
unexpectedly) Or, I had a pending job offer and felt I could pay for the
new computer I bought which I was going to use in my job. The idea being
did the debtors have bankruptcy on their mind when they bought the item
outside of the presumption period? If you have facts like the ones I talked
about, the lenders usually go away nicely.
BUT if not like my guy who bought a $1,200.00 guitar four months before
filing BK, no change in financial circumstances, knew he was headed towards
bankruptcy, came up with fair market price (Seemed he way overpaid for the
guitar) and agreed to settle.
Haven't had lender fight me yet.
That's my experience Sofya:
R.Grace
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:23 AM, sofiya wrote:
>
>
> Hello everyone:
>
> I received two letters from Weinstein and Riley on two of my pending ch 7
> cases, both of which mention transactions that occured outside of the
> presumption period. Does anyone know what is the best way to deal with this?
> Should I provide a written explanation of the facts leading to client's bk
> filing? settle?... Any advise will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Sofya D.
>
>
>
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (323) 304-5496
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice
for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If
you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute,
store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete
this e-mail from your system.
Hi Sofya: This has been my approach, and I don't know if this is the best way to handle, but this is how I have been handling. I would look at what was bought outside the presumption period. Evaluate if the item purchased was a need or want. Things like fixing a car while broken down in Las Vegas (no problem as this is one i had), or did they buy a big screen TV (which is one I had). THEN look at was there a change in economic circumstances (OMG I bought a Big Screen TV, and then three weeks later my company fired me unexpectedly) Or, I had a pending job offer and felt I could pay for the new computer I bought which I was going to use in my job.bought the item outside of the presumption period? If you have facts like the ones I talked about, the lenders usually go away nicely.
BUT if not like my guy who bought a $1,200.00 guitar four months before filing BK, no change in financial circumstances, knew he was headed towards bankruptcy, came up with fair market price (Seemed he way overpaid for the guitar) and agreed to settle.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Check with your client regarding what they spent that money on. If it was
for the maintenance and support of the household, OC can go pound sand.
I've had them withdrawal their complaints upon proof that my client spent a
couple thousand on car repairs.
Best to you.
Christine Wilton
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:23 AM, sofiya wrote:
>
>
> Hello everyone:
>
> I received two letters from Weinstein and Riley on two of my pending ch 7
> cases, both of which mention transactions that occured outside of the
> presumption period. Does anyone know what is the best way to deal with this?
> Should I provide a written explanation of the facts leading to client's bk
> filing? settle?... Any advise will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Sofya D.
>
>
>
Christine A. Wilton
Principal Attorney
Greifendorff Law Offices, PC
12644-12646 Hoover Street
Garden Grove, CA 92841
Office: 800-861-0786
Cell: 562-824-7563
Fax: 800-861-0786
Email: christine@greifenlaw.com
Web: www.greifenlaw.com
Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
***************************
Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments,
is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the
intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this
communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained
in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot
be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may
be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant
to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
Check with your client regarding what they spent that money on. If it was for the maintenance and support of the household, OC can go pound sand. spent a couple thousand on car repairs.
Best to you.Christine WiltonOn Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:23 AM, sofiya <s_dav2005@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello everyone:
I received two letters from Weinstein and Riley on two of my pending ch 7 cases, both of which mention transactions that occured outside of the presumption period. Does anyone know what is the best way to deal with this? Should I provide a written explanation of the facts leading to client's bk filing? settle?... Any advise will be greatly appreciated.
Sofya D.
-- Christine A. WiltonPrincipal AttorneyGreifendorff Law Offices, PC12644-12646 Hoover Street
Garden Grove, CA 92841
Office: 800-861-0786Cell: 562-824-7563Fax: 800-861-0786Email: christine@greifenlaw.comWeb: www.greifenlaw.com
Blog:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Hello everyone:
I received two letters from Weinstein and Riley on two of my pending ch 7 cases, both of which mention transactions that occured outside of the presumption period. Does anyone know what is the best way to deal with this? Should I provide a written explanation of the facts leading to client's bk filing? settle?... Any advise will be greatly appreciated.
Sofya D.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.