.jpg)
Paying off Ch. 13 plan after 60 months....case?
I believe the argument is that the code says "the plan may not provide for
payments over a period that is longer than 5 years."
When you modify the plan, the modified plan may not provide for payments
over a period that is longer than 5 years. Fine, but what if that
modification is 3 years into a confirmed case? There does not appear to be
language that ties the 5 years to the order for relief. Some would even say
1329(c) makes this explicit as it says the period can be extended beyond
what the original plan contemplated, for cause, except that extension may
not be for longer than 5 years.
I did not check the actual cases and their reasoning so there may be
different analysis out there.
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
Avanesian Law Firm
801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: 818.276.2477 | Fax: 818.208.4550
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
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 herein.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Dear Mark,
>
>
>
> I am unaware of such a case, and in light of 11 U.S.C. 1322(d)(1)(C)
> and (2)(C), and 1329(c) I find it hard to imagine what the reasoning would
> be.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *Nicholas Gebelt*
>
>
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
>
> Commissioner, California State Bars Bankruptcy Law Advisory Committee
>
>
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description:
> cid:image003.jpg@01CC076B.B14D73C0]
>
>
>
> Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
>
> 15150 Hornell Street
>
> Whittier, CA 90604
>
> Phone: 562.777.9159
>
> FAX: 562.946.1365
>
> Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
>
> Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
>
> Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
>
>
>
> *Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:* We are a debt relief
> agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
>
>
>
> *Confidentiality Note*: This e-mail is intended only for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
> privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure.
> Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information
> herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
> responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
> immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the
> original message and all copies.
>
>
>
> *Representation Note*: If you have not signed a contract of
> representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you,
> and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
>
>
>
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: *In order to comply with the requirements
> imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended 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 herein.
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 04, 2016 1:30 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Paying off Ch. 13 plan after 60 months....case?
>
>
>
>
>
> I recall there being a fairly recent case that said that a court could
> allow a Chapter 13 case to be paid off beyond the 60 months in certain
> circumstances.
>
> Does anyone have that case name/cite? I'm doing research for another firm
> and they have an urgent issue (facing dismissal, but debtor will be able to
> borrow to pay the remaining plan payments, but it's after the 60 months).
>
> --
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> *Mailing Address Only:*
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
> 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.
>
>
>
I believe the argument is that the code says "the plan may not provide for payments over a period that is longer than 5 years."When you modify the plan, the modified plan may not provide for payments over a period that is longer than 5 years. Fine, but what if that modification is 3 years into a confirmed case? There does not appear to be language that ties the 5 years to the order for relief. Some would even say 1329(c) makes this explicit as it says the period can be extended beyond what the original plan contemplated, for cause, except that extension may not be for longer than 5 years.I did not check the actual cases and their reasoning so there may be different analysis out there.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
There is case law out there that says the 60-month term runs from confirmation date, not the case filing date. At least one of our LA trustees follows that case and will typically also help by setting her motion to dismiss out far enough to provide some needed additional time for the debtor to payoff the plan.
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
Torrance, California 90503
Telephone: (310) 792-5864
Facsimile: (310) 347-4353
Email: MitnickLaw@aol.com, MitnickLaw@gmail.com
Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email, and delete the email message you received and all of the attached files.
***NOTICE OF EX PARTE HEARINGS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY EMAIL***
m>
To: cdcbaa
Cc: ngebelt
Sent: Fri, Mar 4, 2016 1:37 pm
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Paying off Ch. 13 plan after 60 months....case?
Dear Mark,
I am unaware of such a case, and in light of11 U.S.C. 1322(d)(1)(C) and (2)(C), and 1329(c) I find it hard to imagine what the reasoning would be.
All the best,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Attorney at Law
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
Commissioner, California State Bars Bankruptcy Law Advisory Committee
Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
15150 Hornell Street
Whittier, CA 90604
Phone: 562.777.9159
FAX: 562.946.1365
Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com;ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
Confidentiality Note: This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mailinfo@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the original message and all copies.
Representation Note: If you have not signed a contract of representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you, and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
In re Schlegel, 526 BR 333 - Bankr. Appellate Panel, 9th Circuit 2015
That's not what they said. They only said they wouldn't make a decision
leaving the door to that issue an open question.
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
Avanesian Law Firm
801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: 818.276.2477 | Fax: 818.208.4550
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
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 herein.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:30 PM, 'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> I recall there being a fairly recent case that said that a court could
> allow a Chapter 13 case to be paid off beyond the 60 months in certain
> circumstances.
>
> Does anyone have that case name/cite? I'm doing research for another firm
> and they have an urgent issue (facing dismissal, but debtor will be able to
> borrow to pay the remaining plan payments, but it's after the 60 months).
> --
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> *Mailing Address Only:*
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
> 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.
>
>
>
In re Schlegel, 526 BR 333 - Bankr. Appellate Panel, 9th Circuit 2015That's not what they said. They only said they wouldn't make a decision leaving the door to that issue an open question.Sincerely,Michael Avanesian, Esq.Avanesian Law Firm801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130Glendale, CA 91203Tel: 818.276.2477 | Fax:818.208.4550Confidentiality:This electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:ised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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 herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.