.jpg)
Optional mortgage payment amounts?
By no means am I advising the Debtor to use the negative amortization
number - he has been doing that in the past simply because he's
strapped for cash. My only concern was if I plug in say the interest
only amount, would I have a problem with the UST saying "yeah but you
haven't in fact been paying that amount."
This is a 7, not a 13, by the way, so there is no confirmation,
obviously...but I think your points are quite valid - he can't be
required to take on more debt. So, unless I'm misreading this, it
sounds like I'm quite safe using at least the interest only amount
for means test purposes, and if so, we're in business!
Thanks so much!
Todd Mannis
>
> And if you advise the debtor to use the negative am number, you
would be
> running afoul of the prohibition against attorneys advising debtors
to take
> on new debt.
>
>
>
> 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@...
>
>
>
Behalf Of P
> L
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:24 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Optional mortgage payment amounts?
>
>
>
> Since a negative amortization payment amount would result in the
debtor
> incurring additional debt (a standard confirmation order
prohibition), using
> the interest only or fully amortized payment in the means test is
arguably
> the better number.
>
>
>
> t_mannis wrote:
>
> (Prospective) client has a loan on his house whereby as indicated
on
> his statement, he has four options. He can pay a) an absolute
> minimum payment which is basically neg-am; b) he can make an
interest
> only payment; c) he can make principal and interest on 30 yr term,
or
> d) principal and interest on 15 year term.
>
> For past six or seven months, he has been making the absolute
minimum
> payment (neg-am) which is $1,200 per month. You can see where this
> is going - its not working out on the means test. If he had
> a "normal" interest only payment ($2,400/month), he is home free.
>
> For means test purposes, is he limited to using that absolute
minimum
> payment, even though its negative amortization? Or is there
> a "reasonable" payment (interest only) that would suffice for means
> test purposes? If it is a question of what he has been doing in the
> past, is it worth it to have him start paying at least interest
> only? For how long?
>
> Todd Mannis
> toddlaw@...
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
Try
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
And if you advise the debtor to use the negative am number, you would be
running afoul of the prohibition against attorneys advising debtors to take
on new debt.
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.
charset="US-ASCII"
Not to mention losing the property when the balance reaches the 110% or
115% limit.
M. Erik Clark
Borowitz, Lozano & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
www.blclaw.com
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Board Certified in Consumer Bankruptcy
American Board of Certification
________________________________
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Since a negative amortization payment amount would result in the debtor incurring additional debt (a standard confirmation order prohibition), using the interest only or fully amortized payment in the means test is arguably the better number.
t_mannis wrote:
(Prospective) client has a loan on his house whereby as indicated on
his statement, he has four options. He can pay a) an absolute
minimum payment which is basically neg-am; b) he can make an interest
only payment; c) he can make principal and interest on 30 yr term, or
d) principal and interest on 15 year term.
For past six or seven months, he has been making the absolute minimum
payment (neg-am) which is $1,200 per month. You can see where this
is going - its not working out on the means test. If he had
a "normal" interest only payment ($2,400/month), he is home free.
For means test purposes, is he limited to using that absolute minimum
payment, even though its negative amortization? Or is there
a "reasonable" payment (interest only) that would suffice for means
test purposes? If it is a question of what he has been doing in the
past, is it worth it to have him start paying at least interest
only? For how long?
Todd Mannis
toddlaw@dslextreme.com
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Since a negative amortization payment amount would result in the debtor incurring additional debt (a standard confirmation order prohibition), using the interest only or fully amortized payment in the means test is arguably the better number. t_mannis <toddlaw@dslextreme.com> wrote: (Prospective) client has a loan on his house whereby as indicated on his statement, he has four options. He can pay a) an absolute minimum payment which is basically neg-am; b) he can make an interest only payment; c)
he can make principal and interest on 30 yr term, or d) principal and interest on 15 year term.For past six or seven months, he has been making the absolute minimum payment (neg-am) which is $1,200 per month. You can see where this is going - its not working out on the means test. If he had a "normal" interest only payment ($2,400/month), he is home free.For means test purposes, is he limited to using that absolute minimum payment, even though its negative amortization? Or is there a "reasonable" payment (interest only) that would suffice for means test purposes? If it is a question of what he has been doing in the past, is it worth it to have him start paying at least interest only? For how long?Todd Mannistoddlaw@dslextreme.com
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
(Prospective) client has a loan on his house whereby as indicated on
his statement, he has four options. He can pay a) an absolute
minimum payment which is basically neg-am; b) he can make an interest
only payment; c) he can make principal and interest on 30 yr term, or
d) principal and interest on 15 year term.
For past six or seven months, he has been making the absolute minimum
payment (neg-am) which is $1,200 per month. You can see where this
is going - its not working out on the means test. If he had
a "normal" interest only payment ($2,400/month), he is home free.
For means test purposes, is he limited to using that absolute minimum
payment, even though its negative amortization? Or is there
a "reasonable" payment (interest only) that would suffice for means
test purposes? If it is a question of what he has been doing in the
past, is it worth it to have him start paying at least interest
only? For how long?
Todd Mannis
toddlaw@dslextreme.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.