.jpg)
Objecting to reinstatement figure in Ch. 13
X-eGroups-Edited-By: easky1
Qualified Written Request - Allowed under RESPA. Requires the servicer to provide information regarding the loan.
Erik Clark
Borowitz, Lozano & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="windows-1251"
beware of 548 which may still apply
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.
Gerry McNally
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:17 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Divorce Judgments after BAPCPA
To all who have expertise in the intersection of Family Law and Bankruptcy.
H & W are getting a divorce...in process for 3 years. They are negotiating
the split of the balance of their property, part cash and part pension plan.
W has a business on the brink of failure and has informed H that she's about
to file a Chapter 7 petition...the wolves are baying.
When I review In Re Keller (9th Cir BAP, 1994, one of many 9th Circuit cases
on this issue), it appears that once a California judge has a) issued a
judgment of dissolution which identifies the properties to be divided; b)
actually divides those properties; and c) the properties have actually been
divided.....then the properties which now belong to H are not part of W's
bankruptcy estate under 541(a), unless the property is secured by a debt
which is W's responsibility.
Are there any post BAPCPA cases or other decisions which would change the
result in Keller?
Gerald McNally
MCNALLY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
206 N. Jackson St. #100
Glendale, CA 91206
818-507-5100
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
Sent: 02/21/2008 1:51 PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Objecting to reinstatement figure in Ch. 13
I would argue equitable estoppel and unclean hands.
Good luck, M. Chekian
Chekian Law Office
11400 W. Olympic Blvd. #200
Los Angeles, CA 90064
(310) 390-5529
Fax (310) 451-0739
e-mail: mike@cheklaw. com
_____
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="US-ASCII"
I would send the letter to the atty first - you will likely have to send
a QWR also, but send the POC preparer the letter first
Erik Clark
Borowitz, Lozano & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
eclark@BLClaw.com
www.BLClaw.com
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If
you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver
this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message
and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately
if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages
of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this
message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be
understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury
Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly
indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication was
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose
of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter
addressed herein.
________________________________
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Try Judicial Estoppel:
"Judicial estoppel is an equitable
doctrine that precludes a party from gaining an advantage
by asserting one position, and then later seeking an
advantage by taking a clearly inconsistent position." Hamilton
v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir.
2001).
>
> I would send a letter to whoever prepared the POC and ask them to
detail
> all expenses included in the POC. Then compare that to the payoff
> statement. This gives them a chance to fix the error. Then once
you
> egt your response (unless it is "oops we made a mistake) definitely
> object to the POC. I would be happy to take a look at what you
have
> once you have the response from your letter.
>
>
>
> Erik Clark
> Borowitz, Lozano & Clark, LLP
> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
> West Covina, CA 91791
> Office: (626) 332-8600
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
> eclark@...
>
> www.BLClaw.com
>
>
>
> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this
message. If
> you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or
responsible for
> delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or
deliver
> this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this
message
> and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise
immediately
> if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for
messages
> of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this
> message that do not relate to the official business of my firm
shall be
> understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury
> Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise
expressly
> indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication
was
> not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose
> of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue
Code or
> applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting,
> marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter
> addressed herein.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
Behalf
> Of Mark JM
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:21 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Objecting to reinstatement figure in Ch. 13
>
>
>
> For all you Ch. 13 mortgage experts out there:
>
>
>
> If a debtor received, pre-petition, a reinstatement statement, good
> through the petition filing date, and used that figure in the plan
> calculations, and then that same creditor files a proof of claim
showing
> a much higher arrearage amount (adding in escrow advances, and
other
> fees), can I use the pre-petition document as a basis to object to
the
> claim, or is the proof of claim going to supercede that?
>
>
>
> ______________________
> 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).
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thanks. Should I send a RESPA letter to the lender too, or just a letter to the attorney who prepared the POC?
______________________
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: Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:52 PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Objecting to reinstatement figure in Ch. 13
I would send a letter to whoever prepared the POC and ask them to detail all expenses included in the POC. Then compare that to the payoff statement. This gives them a chance to fix the error. Then once you egt your response (unless it is "oops we made a mistake) definitely object to the POC. I would be happy to take a look at what you have once you have the response from your letter.
Erik Clark
Borowitz, Lozano & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
eclark@BLClaw.com
www.BLClaw.com
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
Mark JM
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:21 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Objecting to reinstatement figure in Ch. 13
For all you Ch. 13 mortgage experts out there:
If a debtor received, pre-petition, a reinstatement statement, good through the petition filing date, and used that figure in the plan calculations, and then that same creditor files a proof of claim showing a much higher arrearage amount (adding in escrow advances, and other fees), can I use the pre-petition document as a basis to object to the claim, or is the proof of claim going to supercede that?
______________________
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).
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="US-ASCII"
I would send a letter to whoever prepared the POC and ask them to detail
all expenses included in the POC. Then compare that to the payoff
statement. This gives them a chance to fix the error. Then once you
egt your response (unless it is "oops we made a mistake) definitely
object to the POC. I would be happy to take a look at what you have
once you have the response from your letter.
Erik Clark
Borowitz, Lozano & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
eclark@BLClaw.com
www.BLClaw.com
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If
you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver
this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message
and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately
if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages
of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this
message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be
understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury
Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly
indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication was
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose
of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter
addressed herein.
________________________________
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I would argue equitable estoppel and unclean hands.
Good luck, M. Chekian
Chekian Law Office
11400 W. Olympic Blvd. #200
Los Angeles, CA 90064
(310) 390-5529
Fax (310) 451-0739
e-mail: mike@cheklaw.com
_____
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Haven't seen this posted yet, so re-sending.
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:21 AM
Subject: Objecting to reinstatement figure in Ch. 13
For all you Ch. 13 mortgage experts out there:
If a debtor received, pre-petition, a reinstatement statement, good through the petition filing date, and used that figure in the plan calculations, and then that same creditor files a proof of claim showing a much higher arrearage amount (adding in escrow advances, and other fees), can I use the pre-petition document as a basis to object to the claim, or is the proof of claim going to supercede that?
______________________
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).
Haven't seen this posted yet, so
re-sending.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark JM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:21 AM
Subject: Objecting to reinstatement figure in Ch. 13
For all you Ch. 13 mortgage experts out
there:
If a debtor received, pre-petition, a reinstatement
statement, good through the petition filing date, and used that figure in the
plan calculations, and then that same creditor files a proof of claim showing a
much higher arrearage amount (adding in escrow advances, and other fees), can I
use the pre-petition document as a basis to object to the claim, or is the proof
of claim going to supercede that?
______________________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).
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
For all you Ch. 13 mortgage experts out there:
If a debtor received, pre-petition, a reinstatement statement, good through the petition filing date, and used that figure in the plan calculations, and then that same creditor files a proof of claim showing a much higher arrearage amount (adding in escrow advances, and other fees), can I use the pre-petition document as a basis to object to the claim, or is the proof of claim going to supercede that?
______________________
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).
For all you Ch. 13 mortgage experts out
there:
If a debtor received, pre-petition, a reinstatement
statement, good through the petition filing date, and used that figure in the
plan calculations, and then that same creditor files a proof of claim showing a
much higher arrearage amount (adding in escrow advances, and other fees), can I
use the pre-petition document as a basis to object to the claim, or is the proof
of claim going to supercede that?
______________________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).
The post was migrated from Yahoo.