.jpg)
"Primarily Consumer Debt" under 707(b)
Mark,
A debt is liability on a claim. I believe you said that your client may not
have a debt for 707(b) purposes because he is not liable to the bank for
the money owed on the property. Depending on his agreement with the
co-owner, he may be liable to the co-owner for half (or all) of the
co-owner's obligation. That may help you get around 707(b).
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
Avanesian Law Firm
801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: 818.276.2477 | Fax: 818.208.4550
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
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.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:48 AM, 'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa]
wrote:
>
>
> Ahh 102, nice.
>
> But debt and claim are not synonymous. 707b talks in terms of debt, not
> claim.
>
> I agree that the secured creditor has a claim against property of the
> debtor, but not necessarily that the debtor has that debt for purposes of
> 707b.
>
>
>
> On 2/16/2016 3:47 AM, Yahoo petermlively2000@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> Yes.
>
> 102
>
> Rules of construction
> ------------------------------
>
> In this title
>
> (1) after notice and a hearing, or a similar phrase>
> (A) means after such notice as is appropriate in the particular
> circumstances, and such opportunity for a hearing as is appropriate in the
> particular circumstances; but
>
> (B) authorizes an act without an actual hearing if such notice is given
> properly and if
>
> (i) such a hearing is not requested timely by a party in interest; or
>
> (ii) there is insufficient time for a hearing to be commenced before such
> act must be done, and the court authorizes such act;
>
> (2) claim against the debtor includes claim against property of the
> debtor;
>
> Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos.
>
> On Feb 15, 2016, at 10:59 PM, 'Mark J. Markus'
> bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Debtor client is filing a Chapter 7 case. He is part owner of real
> property which is the debtor's primary residence and on which one of the
> co-owners took out the original mortgage and remains the only one on that
> loan. In other words, the debtor is NOT on the mortgage.
>
> The debt must clearly be listed because it is a lien against property of
> the estate. But the debt is not in the debtor's name.
>
> My question is: Does the mortgage debt factor into the consumer vs.
> nonconsumer debt analysis for purposes of 707(b)?
>
> 101(8) states that a consumer debt is one incurred "by an individual"
> primarily for personal, family, or household purpose. It does not state
> that the individual must be the debtor filing the bankruptcy case (although
> it certainly makes sense that it would).
>
> It makes a difference in this case as to whether the means test applies
> (in case that wasn't obvious)...
>
> Anyone run into this before?
> --
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> *Mailing Address Only:*
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> ________________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> *Mailing Address Only:*
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> ________________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
Mark,A debt is liability on a claim. I believe you said that your client may not have a debt for 707(b) purposes because he is not liable to the bank for the money owed on the property. Depending on his agreement with the co-owner, he may be liable to the co-owner for half (or all) of the co-owner's obligation. That may help you get around 707(b).Sincerely,Michael Avanesian, Esq.Avanesian Law Firm801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130Glendale, CA 91203Tel: 818.276.2477 | Fax:818.208.4550
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Yes.
102
Rules of construction
In this title
(1) after notice and a hearing, or a similar phrase
(A) means after such notice as is appropriate in the particular circumstances, and such opportunity for a hearing as is appropriate in the particular circumstances; but
(B) authorizes an act without an actual hearing if such notice is given properly and if
(i) such a hearing is not requested timely by a party in interest; or
(ii) there is insufficient time for a hearing to be commenced before such act must be done, and the court authorizes such act;
(2) claim against the debtor includes claim against property of the debtor;
Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos.
> On Feb 15, 2016, at 10:59 PM, 'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Debtor client is filing a Chapter 7 case. He is part owner of real property which is the debtor's primary residence and on which one of the co-owners took out the original mortgage and remains the only one on that loan. In other words, the debtor is NOT on the mortgage.
>
> The debt must clearly be listed because it is a lien against property of the estate. But the debt is not in the debtor's name.
>
> My question is: Does the mortgage debt factor into the consumer vs. nonconsumer debt analysis for purposes of 707(b)?
>
> 101(8) states that a consumer debt is one incurred "by an individual" primarily for personal, family, or household purpose. It does not state that the individual must be the debtor filing the bankruptcy case (although it certainly makes sense that it would).
>
> It makes a difference in this case as to whether the means test applies (in case that wasn't obvious)...
>
> Anyone run into this before?
> --
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> Mailing Address Only:
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> ________________________________________________
> 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.
>
102(1) after notice and a hearing, or a similar phrase(A) means after such notice as is appropriate in the particular circumstances, and such opportunity for a hearing as is appropriate in the particular circumstances; but(B) authorizes an act without an actual hearing if such notice is given properly and if(i) such a hearing is not requested timely by a party in interest; or(ii) there is insufficient time for a hearing to be commenced before such act must be done, and the court authorizes such act;(2) claim against the debtor includes claim against property of the debtor;Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos.On Feb 15, 2016, at 10:59 PM, 'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Debtor client is filing a Chapter 7 case. He is part owner of real
property which is the debtor's primary residence and on which one of
the co-owners took out the original mortgage and remains the only
one on that loan. In other words, the debtor is NOT on the
mortgage.
The debt must clearly be listed because it is a lien against
property of the estate. But the debt is not in the debtor's name.
My question is: Does the mortgage debt factor into the consumer vs.
nonconsumer debt analysis for purposes of 707(b)?
101(8) states that a consumer debt is one incurred "by an
individual" primarily for personal, family, or household purpose.
It does not state that the individual must be the debtor filing the
bankruptcy case (although it certainly makes sense that it would).
It makes a difference in this case as to whether the means test
applies (in case that wasn't obvious)...
Anyone run into this before?
--
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
Mailing Address Only:
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
The post was migrated from Yahoo.