.jpg)
Divorce Judgments after BAPCPA
Gerry,
That would make sense because of Collateral Estoppel - Res Judicata
(Claim and Issue Preclusion), as both of those require trial on the
merits.
Best regards. Lou
>
> Dear Lou,
>
> I received a reply from Dennis McGoldrick that the Keller case
applies (according to the BAP--his case, Beverly, is on appeal to the
9th Circuit) only after a trial, not a settlement, and UFTA and 548
would apply to a settlement. Sounds like my client is screwed, unless
he takes his entire settlement out of the pension plan.
>
> The marital estate is $200k, 50k in cash held by H and 150k in a
pension plan in a corp owned jointly, although W has separated her
interest. W is proposing a settlement where she gets $10k cash and
90k pension.
>
>
> Gerry
> Gerry McNally
> 206 N. Jackson St. #100
> Glendale, CA 91206
> ----- Original Message -----
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 02/24/2008 5:51 PM
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Divorce Judgments after BAPCPA
>
>
> And, the division of property is not to be avoided as a fraudulent
> transfer, either, correct?
>
> Best regards. Lou
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, Dennis McGoldrick wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- Gerry McNally wrote:
> >
> > > To all who have expertise in the intersection of
> > > Family Law and Bankruptcy.
> > >
> > > H & W are getting a divorce....
> > >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > In re Beverly: bap decision now on appeal to the 9th
> > cir. The Keller decision, according to Judge Klien,
> > is limited to an actual court division after trial,
> > not to a settlement approved by the court, and both
> > 548 and the uniform transfer act apply to settlements.
> >
> >
> > My client, Mr. Beverly, is appealing.
> >
> > dennis
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> >
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Dear Lou,
I received a reply from Dennis McGoldrick that the Keller case applies (according to the BAP--his case, Beverly, is on appeal to the 9th Circuit) only after a trial, not a settlement, and UFTA and 548 would apply to a settlement. Sounds like my client is screwed, unless he takes his entire settlement out of the pension plan.
The marital estate is $200k, 50k in cash held by H and 150k in a pension plan in a corp owned jointly, although W has separated her interest. W is proposing a settlement where she gets $10k cash and 90k pension.
Gerry
Gerry McNally
206 N. Jackson St. #100
Glendale, CA 91206
----- Original Message -----
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 02/24/2008 5:51 PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Divorce Judgments after BAPCPA
And, the division of property is not to be avoided as a fraudulent
transfer, either, correct?
Best regards. Lou
--- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, Dennis McGoldrick wrote:
>
>
> --- Gerry McNally wrote:
>
> > To all who have expertise in the intersection of
> > Family Law and Bankruptcy.
> >
> > H & W are getting a divorce....
> >
> > 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?
> >
> >
>
> In re Beverly: bap decision now on appeal to the 9th
> cir. The Keller decision, according to Judge Klien,
> is limited to an actual court division after trial,
> not to a settlement approved by the court, and both
> 548 and the uniform transfer act apply to settlements.
>
>
> My client, Mr. Beverly, is appealing.
>
> dennis
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
And, the division of property is not to be avoided as a fraudulent
transfer, either, correct?
Best regards. Lou
>
>
> --- Gerry McNally wrote:
>
> > To all who have expertise in the intersection of
> > Family Law and Bankruptcy.
> >
> > H & W are getting a divorce....
> >
> > 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?
> >
> >
>
> In re Beverly: bap decision now on appeal to the 9th
> cir. The Keller decision, according to Judge Klien,
> is limited to an actual court division after trial,
> not to a settlement approved by the court, and both
> 548 and the uniform transfer act apply to settlements.
>
>
> My client, Mr. Beverly, is appealing.
>
> dennis
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
> To all who have expertise in the intersection of
> Family Law and Bankruptcy.
>
> H & W are getting a divorce....
>
> 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?
>
>
In re Beverly: bap decision now on appeal to the 9th
cir. The Keller decision, according to Judge Klien,
is limited to an actual court division after trial,
not to a settlement approved by the court, and both
548 and the uniform transfer act apply to settlements.
My client, Mr. Beverly, is appealing.
dennis
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
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
----- Original Message -----
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
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.