.jpg)
Effect of Lanning and Kagenveama on our practice
Practically speaking:
It's my understanding the districts around the country interpret B22 in two
ways and split into two camps, which here in the 9th is symbolized by
Kagenveama.
*
Central District of CA: Kagenveama used to debtors' benefit (3 yrs
v. 5 yrs, I - J determines plan payment)
*
Eastern District of CA: Kagenveama used to debtors' detriment (B22
determines plan payment)
I *think* that the Central position is the minority position based on very
casual reading of the NACBA message boards. A more formal polling of
districts and circuits may be needed to nail that down. According to one
source (h/t: PL), the 8th and 10th (Lanning) have come down one way, and the
9th (um, us) and maybe the 1st the other. (of course, even in the 9th we're
not uniform).
A reading of the Kagenveama text doesn't have much basis for the CDCA
interpretation of I - J. "Good faith" can be interpreted by judges against
debtors. Some judges rely on the plain English and legislative intent of
the B22 form and schedules and wonder why, post-filing, debtors should get
an amended schedules and/or plan that fits their budget.
I believe Lanning could have consequences that hit home here.
Hale
_____
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I've been able to save several debtors two years of plan payments through use ofKagenveama, whereForm B22C results in a PDIof$0 or a negative number.
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
1706-B Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, CA 92627-3073
Telephone: (949)650-3328
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, February 22, 2010 9:10:47 AM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Effect of Lanning and Kagenveama on our practice
I have written an article for the ABA Preview Magazine on the Lanning case. They want me to comment on what I think the practical effect will be either way. I believe Kagenveama has had little practical effect on chapter 13 cases and Lanning will also have little practical effect. This is because of the good faith requirements and the ability of the trustee to seek a modification. I am interested in your views as well before I finalize the article. Thx. JH
I've been able to save several debtors two years of plan payments through use of Kagenveama, where Form B22C results in a PDI of $0 or a negative number. 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.com
Personal Financial Law Center II1706-B Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, CA 92627-3073Telephone: (949)650-3328
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: jonhayes6666 <Jhayes@polarisnet.net>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Mon, February 22, 2010 9:10:47 AMSubject: [cdcbaa] Effect of Lanning and Kagenveama on our practice
I have written an article for the ABA Preview Magazine on the Lanning case. They want me to comment on what I think the practical effect will be either way. I believe Kagenveama has had little practical effect on chapter 13 cases and Lanning will also have little practical effect. This is because of the good faith requirements and the ability of the trustee to seek a modification. I am interested in your views as well before I finalize the article. Thx. JH
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I have written an article for the ABA Preview Magazine on the Lanning case. They want me to comment on what I think the practical effect will be either way. I believe Kagenveama has had little practical effect on chapter 13 cases and Lanning will also have little practical effect. This is because of the good faith requirements and the ability of the trustee to seek a modification. I am interested in your views as well before I finalize the article. Thx. JH
The post was migrated from Yahoo.