.jpg)
Reaffirmation & Repossessions
Thanks Pat
Patrick Green wrote:
Nate:
Show them a map of the local hiking trails. 521(a)(6) refers to personal property and the hanging paragraph after it, which dumps the ipso facto clause prohibition, refers back to (a)(6). So unless it is a mobile home, the ride through lives. 362(h) also applies to personalty only.
Pat
Patrick T. Green, Esq.
Fitzgerald & Green
Attorneys at Law
1010 E. Union Street
Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:21 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Reaffirmation & Repossessions
What about reaffs for houses. M understanding is that the reaffs. were generated to protect the cars. I have a 2nd TD demanding a reaf. Any thoughts?
Nate
"Hale Andrew Antico, Esq." wrote:
As Judge Naugle and I had the chance to discuss the laws and practices surrounding reaffirmation agreements in his court earlier this week, ride-through is dead. Short answer? Yes.
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:27 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Reaffirmation & Repossessions
Has anyone had this situation yet or can I get some input on opions and law...
If a Debtor does not sign a reaffirmation agreement but remains current with the payments on the secured property, can the creditor repossess the collateral?
Thanks
David
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Thanks PatPatrick Green <pat@fitzgreenlaw.com> wrote: Nate: Show them a map of the local hiking trails. 521(a)(6) refers to personal property and the hanging paragraph after it, which dumps the ipso facto clause prohibition, refers back to (a)(6). So unless it is a mobile
home, the ride through lives. 362(h) also applies to personalty only. Pat Patrick T. Green, Esq. Fitzgerald & Green Attorneys at Law 1010 E. Union Street Suite 206 Pasadena, CA 91106 Tel: 626-449-8433 Fax: 626-449-0565 pat@fitzgreenlaw.com From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nathan Berneman Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:21 AM To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Reaffirmation & Repossessions What about reaffs for houses. M understanding is that the reaffs. were generated to protect the cars. I have a 2nd TD demanding a reaf. Any thoughts? Nate "Hale Andrew Antico, Esq." <bk.lawyer@gmail.com> wrote: As Judge Naugle and I had the chance to discuss the laws and practices surrounding reaffirmation agreements in his court earlier this week, ride-through is dead. Short answer? Yes. From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Follin Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:27 PM To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com Subject: [cdcbaa] Reaffirmation & Repossessions Has anyone had this situation yet or can I get some input on opions and law... If a Debtor does not sign a reaffirmation agreement but remains current with the payments on the secured property, can the creditor repossess the collateral? Thanks David Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Nate:
Show them a map of the local hiking trails. 521(a)(6) refers to personal
property and the hanging paragraph after it, which dumps the ipso facto
clause prohibition, refers back to (a)(6). So unless it is a mobile home,
the ride through lives. 362(h) also applies to personalty only.
Pat
Patrick T. Green, Esq.
Fitzgerald & Green
Attorneys at Law
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.
Toyota allows ride through if the payments are current
Wells Fargo has allowed the ride through
Hank
PS: I always call and ask the bankruptcy department and annotate the file
with the date and who I spoke with. So far no problems
Henry M. Toles, J.D., M.B.A.
Henry M. Toles, A Law Corporation
11746 Goshen Avenue, No. 1
Los Angeles, California 90049-6113
Telephone: (310) 479-1400
Facsimile: (310) 575-0343
E-Mail: hmt@toles.org
Member National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA)
We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States
Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt
problems, including, where appropriate, assisting them with the filing
of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code.
This does not constitute an electronic signature.
This message contains confiidential information which may also be
privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive
for the intended recipient) you may not copy, use or distribute the
information contained in this message.
-----Original Message-----
Patrick Green
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 11:10
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Reaffirmation & Repossessions
David and Hale:
There was a 9th Circ BAP case issued last month, In re Dumont, which says
the ride through is no longer an option. However, the analysis should not
stop there.
Practical: If you choose the ride through, will the creditor repossess?
If it is Ford, the answer is yes. Others it depends. We need to keep each
other informed as to what is actually happening in the real world. E.g., I
called the CU that was the lender for my client's car. They did not have a
reaff agreement. They finally got one from their atty, but couldn't figure
out how to fill it out correctly. Eventually, my client decided not to
sign. To date, she still has the car and they still get their payments.
Most creditors want their stream of income. Ford wants blood.
Legal: If you read Dumont, you will notice that Ford filed a claim in the
action. Under 521(a)(6), a debtor "may not retain possession of personal
property as to which the creditor has an allowed claim for the purchase
price." As we know, Ford is carrying out some sort of holy war on debtors
on this issue. To be successful they must file a claim or the ride through
is still good. So the ride through is only dead if the a claim is filed
(and the loan is purchase money).
Pat
Patrick T. Green, Esq.
Fitzgerald & Green
Attorneys at Law
1010 E. Union Street
Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
Hale Andrew Antico, Esq.
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 5:35 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Reaffirmation & Repossessions
As Judge Naugle and I had the chance to discuss the laws and practices
surrounding reaffirmation agreements in his court earlier this week,
ride-through is dead. Short answer? Yes.
David Follin
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:27 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Reaffirmation & Repossessions
Has anyone had this situation yet or can I get some input on opions and
law...
If a Debtor does not sign a reaffirmation agreement but remains current
with the payments on the secured property, can the creditor repossess the
collateral?
Thanks
David
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="US-ASCII"
David and Hale:
There was a 9th Circ BAP case issued last month, In re Dumont, which says
the ride through is no longer an option. However, the analysis should not
stop there.
Practical: If you choose the ride through, will the creditor repossess? If
it is Ford, the answer is yes. Others it depends. We need to keep each
other informed as to what is actually happening in the real world. E.g., I
called the CU that was the lender for my client's car. They did not have a
reaff agreement. They finally got one from their atty, but couldn't figure
out how to fill it out correctly. Eventually, my client decided not to
sign. To date, she still has the car and they still get their payments.
Most creditors want their stream of income. Ford wants blood.
Legal: If you read Dumont, you will notice that Ford filed a claim in the
action. Under 521(a)(6), a debtor "may not retain possession of personal
property as to which the creditor has an allowed claim for the purchase
price." As we know, Ford is carrying out some sort of holy war on debtors
on this issue. To be successful they must file a claim or the ride through
is still good. So the ride through is only dead if the a claim is filed
(and the loan is purchase money).
Pat
Patrick T. Green, Esq.
Fitzgerald & Green
Attorneys at Law
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.
Has anyone had this situation yet or can I get some input on opions and law...
If a Debtor does not sign a reaffirmation agreement but remains current with the payments on the secured property, can the creditor repossess the collateral?
Thanks
David
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Has anyone had this situation yet or can I get some input on opions and law... If a Debtor does not sign a reaffirmation agreement but remains current with the payments on the secured property, can the creditor repossess the collateral? Thanks David
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.