.jpg)
A Letter from Judge Naugle
charset="windows-1251"
Raj, In this particular case, the income was approximately $2,000/month,
with expenses exceeding that by a few hundred dollars.
Jim (Selth), I think a CDCBAA letter educating Judge Naugle would be
helpful. If anyone wants to help with the draft, let me know. I'll send
him/her a copy of what I received.
David, thanks for your input and backup.
_____
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
This sounds like a great article for the newsletter. Can someone do
it - 600 - 800 words. I don't understand the basis for a creditor
suing the debtor's atty. I need the article on Monday.
>
> Whether we exclude or don't exclude the reaff from the scope of
our rep does
> not address the issue of the appropriateness of signing or not
signing one.
> Even if you include the review in your scope, it does not make it
> appropriate or necessary to sign it.
>
>
>
> Patrick T. Green
>
> 1010 E. Union Street
>
> Suite 206
>
> Pasadena, CA 91106
>
> Tel: 626-449-8433
>
> Fax: 626-449-0565
>
> pat@...
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="US-ASCII"
Whether we exclude or don't exclude the reaff from the scope of our rep does
not address the issue of the appropriateness of signing or not signing one.
Even if you include the review in your scope, it does not make it
appropriate or necessary to sign it.
Patrick T. Green
1010 E. Union Street
Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I think that's an excellent idea, and I would further suggest considering copying that letter to at least Judge Zurzolo.
______________________
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
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 (or in any attachment).
----- Original Message -----
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:15 PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: A Letter from Judge Naugle
I agree with Marvin, but I think the bigger problem is educating the judges (including Judge Naugle, obviously) about the concerns of the Debtor bar, including the issues raised by Hale and David in their postings today. Perhaps a letter from the CDCBAA to Judge Naugle in response to his letter to Hale, or CDCBAA assisting Hale with a response?
James R. Selth
Weintraub & Selth, APC
12424 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1120
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 207-1494
Facsimile: (310) 442-0660
E-Mail: jim@wsrlaw.net
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF
THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY
US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS
MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
--- Original Message---
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 1/08/2008 1:24PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: A Letter from Judge Naugle
>> Hale
>>
>> Perhaps we will have to start checking box f on Dec. of Limited Scope
>> and insert language to the effect: "The above disclosed fee does not
>> include the negotiations, preparation or representation of any
>> reaffirmation agreements."
>>
>> Marvin Mann
>> 2706 Artesia Blvd
>> Redondo Beach, CA 90278
>> 310 376 9864
>>
>>
>>
I think that's an excellent idea, and I would
further suggest considering copying that letter to at least Judge
Zurzolo.
______________________Mark J. MarkusLaw
Office of Mark J. Markus11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403Studio City, CA91604-2652(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)web: http://www.bklaw.com/This Firm is aQualified 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 addresseeonly. 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 (or in any attachment).
----- Original Message -----
From:
James R. Selth
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:15
PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: A Letter from
Judge Naugle
I agree with Marvin, but I think the bigger problem is educating the judges (including Judge Naugle, obviously) about the concerns of the Debtor
bar, including the issues raised by Hale and David in their postings
today. Perhaps a letter from the CDCBAA to Judge Naugle in response to
his letter to Hale, or CDCBAA assisting Hale with a response?
James R. Selth
Weintraub & Selth, APC
12424 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1120
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 207-1494
Facsimile: (310) 442-0660
E-Mail: jim@wsrlaw.net
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT
OF
THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY
LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE,
DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE
NOTIFY
US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS
MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR
COOPERATION.
--- Original Message---
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 1/08/2008 1:24PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: A Letter from Judge Naugle
>> Hale
>>
>> Perhaps we will have to start checking box f on Dec. of Limited
Scope
>> and insert language to the effect: "The above disclosed fee does
not
>> include the negotiations, preparation or representation of any
>> reaffirmation agreements."
>>
>> Marvin Mann
>> 2706 Artesia Blvd
>> Redondo Beach, CA 90278
>> 310 376 9864
>>
>>
>>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I agree with Marvin, but I think the bigger problem is educating the judges (including Judge Naugle, obviously) about the concerns of the Debtor bar, including the issues raised by Hale and David in their postings today. Perhaps a letter from the CDCBAA to Judge Naugle in response to his letter to Hale, or CDCBAA assisting Hale with a response?
James R. Selth
Weintraub & Selth, APC
12424 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1120
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 207-1494
Facsimile: (310) 442-0660
E-Mail: jim@wsrlaw.net
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF
THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY
LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY
US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS
MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 1/08/2008 1:24PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: A Letter from Judge Naugle
>> Hale
>>
>> Perhaps we will have to start checking box f on Dec. of Limited Scope
>> and insert language to the effect: "The above disclosed fee does not
>> include the negotiations, preparation or representation of any
>> reaffirmation agreements."
>>
>> Marvin Mann
>> 2706 Artesia Blvd
>> Redondo Beach, CA 90278
>> 310 376 9864
>>
>>
>>
I agree with Marvin, but I think the bigger problem is educating the judges (including Judge Naugle, obviously) about the concerns of the Debtor bar, including the issues raised by Hale and David in their postings today. Perhaps a letter from the CDCBAA to Judge Naugle in response to his letter to Hale, or CDCBAA assisting Hale with a response?
James R. Selth
Weintraub & Selth, APC
12424 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1120
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 207-1494
Facsimile: (310) 442-0660
E-Mail: jim@wsrlaw.net
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF
THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY
LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY
US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS
MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
--- Original Message---
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 1/08/2008 1:24PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: A Letter from Judge Naugle
>> Hale
>>
>> Perhaps we will have to start checking box f on Dec. of Limited Scope
>> and insert language to the effect: "The above disclosed fee does not
>> include the negotiations, preparation or representation of any
>> reaffirmation agreements."
>>
>> Marvin Mann
>> 2706 Artesia Blvd
>> Redondo Beach, CA 90278
>> 310 376 9864
>>
>>
>>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charsetndows-1251
Hale, Im curious to know whether there was there a presumption of undue hardship on that particular reaf?
Im obviously in the minority as I do typically sign off on reafs where there is no presumption of undue hardship. Im not creating an implied contract with the creditor, nor am I independently guaranteeing my clients debt. Im merely indicating to the court that my client is signing an agreement after being fully informed and this agreement doesnt impose any undue hardship. The form was prepared by the creditor and would be signed whether I sign off nor not. How do I know that the reaf will not impose any undue hardship? Well, I dont know what the future holds, but I do know that there is no presumption undue hardship if the debtor can afford the payments based on Schedules I and J.
If a creditor wants to come after me for signing a reaf where there was no presumption of undue hardship, they better well be ready to prove up the case against me (including that they relied on my statements and that my reliance was unreasonable). We know that every creditor out there will and has signed reafs whether we sign off on them or not. I believe that Im doing my clients a service by helping facilitate the reaf that would be approved anyway. BTW, I too always exclude reafs on my Disclosure of Compensation (meaning that my flat fee does not include handling preparing, reviewing or signing reafs).
Im not backing the letter that Judge Naugle wrote, but I think I know where he and other judges are coming from. Based on comments from Judge Zurzolo at the brown bag lunch, hes frustrated that attorneys are not signing off on reafs where there is NO presumption of hardship. This, in turn, is clogging up calendars for reaf hearings (where the judges require them). Perhaps the judges will create a new system to help with that. BTW, I don is a presumption of undue hardship.
Raj T. Wadhwani
Wadhwani Law Firm, APLC
15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1120
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (818) 784-0500
Fax: (818) 784-0508
raj@wadhwanilaw.com
________________________________
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Hale
Perhaps we will have to start checking box f on Dec. of Limited Scope
and insert language to the effect: "The above disclosed fee does not
include the negotiations, preparation or representation of any
reaffirmation agreements."
Marvin Mann
2706 Artesia Blvd
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
310 376 9864
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="windows-1251"
Dear Group:
I specifically exclude reaffirmation agreements from the scope of my
engagement and so indicate on the scope of engagement form filed with the
petition. I do this because the Code requires me to certify the client's
financial ability to perform under the reaffirmation agreement and exposes
me to potential liability to the creditor if the Debtor is subsequently
unable to perform. The only exception I have made since BAPCPA went into
effect is when the creditor provides me with a written, signed release of
any contingent or possible liability which may have. This has happened only
once.
Judge Naugle has his own view on the matter, but he does not have to defend
me or any of you if we are sued by some creditor and he is not indemnifying
us against any such liability.
If that makes me a disreputable practitioner, then so be it. If that means
that I resign from any case which is assigned to him, then so be it. I am
unwilling to subject myself and my family to unlimited and unknown financial
risk (which, by the way, does not appear to be insurable) as a result of
this absurd provision of BAPCPA.
David A. Tilem
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
* Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
Specialization.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="US-ASCII"
Yes, he sent a letter by US Mail.
Only the first two checkboxes on the Dec. of Limited Scope are checked (1.
prepare/file...2. 341a). Of course, our Representation Agreement
specifically excludes this rep'n, and signoff on them, particularly where
there is no budget surplus.
_____
The post was migrated from Yahoo.