Under what circumstances can debtor in a Ch 13 have a=

Yahoo Bot · Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:55 pm

Yes, absolutely. Iwas very short in myprior answer and was only responding to the"subject" rather than giving more consideration to Hale's comment. Hale is 100% correct in his analysis.
Thank you.
Peter
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, March 1, 2010 6:35:28 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Under what circumstances can debtor in a Ch 13 have a three year plan?
Peter:
This is the way I explain it, if you have more to add, lets make a cummulative list.
100 percent plan that takes 12 months is fine.
But when I/Jshowdisposable income and the plan is under 100%, at least 36 months to show best efforts (or above-median income).
When cmi is positive, must be 60 months.
anything else?
dennis
>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Under what circumstances can debtor in a Ch 13 have a three year plan?
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
>Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 3:59 PM
>
>
>
>Hale,
>Please read the Kagenveame decision and that in Garvia v. Docket as well. Bothfact patters were36 monthequired confirmation of the 36 monthPlan of theabove-median- income 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
>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, March 1, 2010 1:57:19 PM
>Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Under what circumstances can debtor in a Ch 13 have a three year plan?
>
>
>Last thing I want to do is contradict a respected B22 guru like Peter Lively, but I just don't see that. Kagenveama only holds that if B22c is 0, it neednot be60 months. Or, as the 9thCircuitpplicable commitment period." 541 F3d 868 at 876. There is nothing that mandates (or allows) 36 months. As you all know, it's a convention for plan length duratoin that's been settled upon for practical reasons, but>
>
________________________________
f Yahoo
>>Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:34 PM
>>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
>>Cc: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
>>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Under what circumstances can debtor in a Ch 13 have a three year plan?
>>
>>
>>Kagenveama provided binding law that if B22C is $0 or negative then only need 36 months!
>>
>>Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:46 AM, Charles Shamash wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The only two ways I know are 100% payout and if the B22 says you can (below median income past sic months).
>>>
>>>Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:38 AM, "Hale Andrew Antico" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Yes, absolutely. I was very short in my prior answer and was only responding to the "subject" rather than giving more consideration to Hale's comment. Hale is 100% correct in his analysis.
Thank you.Peter 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: Dennis McGoldrick <easky1@yahoo.com>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Mon, March 1, 2010 6:35:28 PMSubject: Re: [cdcbaa] Under what circumstances can debtor in a Ch 13 have a three year plan?
Peter:

This is the way I explain it, if you have more to add, lets make a cummulative list.

100 percent plan that takes 12 months is fine.

But when I/J show disposable income and the plan is under 100%, at least 36 months to show best efforts (or above-median income).

When cmi is positive, must be 60 months.

anything else?

dennis--- On Mon, 3/1/10, P L <petermlively2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
lt;petermlively2000@ yahoo.com>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Under what circumstances can debtor in a Ch 13 have a three year plan?To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. comDate: Monday, March 1, 2010, 3:59 PM

Hale,
Please read the Kagenveame decision and that in Garvia v. Docket as well. Both fact patters were 36 month Plans that the Chapter 13 Trustee's objected to. The ruling required confirmation of the 36 month Plan of the above-median- income debtors!!!!! !!! 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: Hale Andrew Antico <bk.lawyer@gmail. com>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. comSent: Mon, March 1, 2010 1:57:19 PMSubject: RE: [cdcbaa] Under what circumstances can debtor in a Ch 13 have a three year plan?
Last thing I want to do is contradict a respected B22 guru like Peter Lively, but I just don't see that. Kagenveama only holds that if B22c is 0, it need not be 60 months. Or, as the 9th Circuit says it: "when there is no "projected disposable income," there is no "applicable commitment period." 541 F3d 868 at 876. There is nothing that mandates (or allows) 36 months. As you all know, it's a convention for plan length duratoin that's been settled upon for practical reasons, but 36 months itself is not based on case law. Hale
From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com [mailto:cdcbaa@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of YahooSent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:34 PMTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. comCc: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. comSubject: Re: [cdcbaa] Under what circumstances can debtor in a Ch 13 have a three year plan?
Kagenveama provided binding law that if B22C is $0 or negative then only need 36 months!Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:46 AM, Charles Shamash <
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Yahoo Bot · Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:06 pm

Thank You, Dennis. I think you owe us a beer.
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:37:07 -0800
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Under what circumstances can debtor in a Ch 13 have a three year plan?
1322(d) :
Tthe plan may not provide for payments over a period that is longer than three 3 years, unless the court, for cause, approves a longer period, but the court may not approve a period that is longer than five 5 years. (changes in red, written numbers omitted.)
Plan can be any length up to 36 months, to accomplish purpose needed by debtor. I've written and confirmed 12 month plans. We used to have a common 6 month sale plan, but that alternative was lost to a 9th Cir, no six month sale plans without and open escrow.
1322 (d) still has this language, so 36 months not mandated, just a standard.
dennis

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Yahoo Bot · Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:59 pm

Hale,
via v. Docket as well. Bothfact patters were36 monthequired confirmation of the 36 monthPlan of theabove-median-income debtors!!!!!!!!
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, March 1, 2010 1:57:19 PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Under what circumstances can debtor in a Ch 13 have a three year plan?
Last thing I want to do is contradict a respected B22 guru like Peter Lively, but I just don't see that. Kagenveama only holds that if B22c is 0, it neednot be60 months. Or, as the 9thCircuitpplicable commitment period." 541 F3d 868 at 876. There is nothing that mandates (or allows) 36 months. As you all know, it's a convention for plan length duratoin that's been settled upon for practical reasons, but
________________________________
f Yahoo
>Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:34 PM
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
>Cc: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Under what circumstances can debtor in a Ch 13 have a three year plan?
>
>
>Kagenveama provided binding law that if B22C is $0 or negative then only need 36 months!
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:46 AM, Charles Shamash wrote:
>
>
>
>>The only two ways I know are 100% payout and if the B22 says you can (below median income past sic months).
>>
>>Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:38 AM, "Hale Andrew Antico" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>
Hale,
Please read the Kagenveame decision and that in Garvia v. Docket as well. Both fact patters were 36 month Plans that the Chapter 13 Trustee's objected to. The ruling required confirmation of the 36 month Plan of the above-median-income debtors!!!!!!!! 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: Hale Andrew Antico <bk.lawyer@gmail.com>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Mon, March 1, 2010 1:57:19 PMSubject: RE: [cdcbaa] Under what circumstances can debtor in a Ch 13 have a three year plan?
Last thing I want to do is contradict a respected B22 guru like Peter Lively, but I just don't see that. Kagenveama only holds that if B22c is 0, it need not be 60 months. Or, as the 9th Circuit says it: "when there is no "projected disposable income," there is no "applicable commitment period." 541 F3d 868 at 876. There is nothing that mandates (or allows) 36 months. As you all know, it's a convention for plan length duratoin that's been settled upon for practical reasons, but 36 months itself is not based on case law. Hale
From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com [mailto:cdcbaa@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of YahooSent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:34 PMTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. comCc: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. comSubject: Re: [cdcbaa] Under what circumstances can debtor in a Ch 13 have a three year plan?
Kagenveama provided binding law that if B22C is $0 or negative then only need 36 months!Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:46 AM, Charles Shamash <CS@locs.com> wrote:

The only two ways I know are 100% payout and if the B22 says you can (below median income past sic months). Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:38 AM, "Hale Andrew Antico" <bk.lawyer@gmail. com> wrote:

The post was migrated from Yahoo.