.jpg)
Another 109(e) Question
I know VZ is following In re Smith 419 B.R. 826 (2009) Bankruptcy Court Central
District where 1st mortgage is fully secured for 109(e) purposes.
If they follow this case then the mortgage is fully secured.for109 (e)
Is the district still split on this issue?
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, October 28, 2010 2:07:04 PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Another 109(e) Question
Another 109(e) Question:
1st Mortgage: Partially Secured/Partially Unsecured.
For 109(e) purposes, is the 1st mortgage considered to be wholly secured?
>
> yes, unless you have a bona fide dispute or it's contingent.
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:06 PM, brandspellman wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Here's another 109(e) question. Judge Ahart.
> >
> > Real Property
> >
> > 1st: Partially secured/partially unsecured
> > 2nd: Wholly unsecured
> > 3rd: Wholly unsecured
> >
> > If we do NOT attempt to strip the 2nd, will Judge Ahart still consider the
> > 2nd unsecured debt for 109(e) purposes?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Donny Brand
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Phone: (888) 619-8222 x101
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@...
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
> AND SANTA BARBARA.
>
> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
> information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
> e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with 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.
>
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, Giovanni Orantes <go@...> wrote:
>
> yes, unless you have a bona fide dispute or it's contingent.
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:06 PM, brandspellman <brandspellman@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Here's another 109(e) question. Judge Ahart.
> >
> > Real Property
> >
> > 1st: Partially secured/partially unsecured
> > 2nd: Wholly unsecured
> > 3rd: Wholly unsecured
> >
> > If we do NOT attempt to strip the 2nd, will Judge Ahart still consider the
> > 2nd unsecured debt for 109(e) purposes?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Donny Brand
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Phone: (888) 619-8222 x101
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@...
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
> AND SANTA BARBARA.
>
> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
> information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
> e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with 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.
Another 109(e) Question:
1st Mortgage: Partially Secured/Partially Unsecured.
For 109(e) purposes, is the 1st mortgage considered to be wholly secured?
>
> yes, unless you have a bona fide dispute or it's contingent.
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:06 PM, brandspellman wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Here's another 109(e) question. Judge Ahart.
> >
> > Real Property
> >
> > 1st: Partially secured/partially unsecured
> > 2nd: Wholly unsecured
> > 3rd: Wholly unsecured
> >
> > If we do NOT attempt to strip the 2nd, will Judge Ahart still consider the
> > 2nd unsecured debt for 109(e) purposes?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Donny Brand
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Phone: (888) 619-8222 x101
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@...
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
> AND SANTA BARBARA.
>
> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
> information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
> e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with 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.
yes, unless you have a bona fide dispute or it's contingent.
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:06 PM, brandspellman wrote:
>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Here's another 109(e) question. Judge Ahart.
>
> Real Property
>
> 1st: Partially secured/partially unsecured
> 2nd: Wholly unsecured
> 3rd: Wholly unsecured
>
> If we do NOT attempt to strip the 2nd, will Judge Ahart still consider the
> 2nd unsecured debt for 109(e) purposes?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Donny Brand
>
>
>
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Phone: (888) 619-8222 x101
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA.
Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with 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.
yes, unless you have a bona fide dispute or it's contingent. On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:06 PM, brandspellman <brandspellman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Here's another 109(e) question. Judge Ahart.
Real Property
1st: Partially secured/partially unsecured
2nd: Wholly unsecured
3rd: Wholly unsecured
If we do NOT attempt to strip the 2nd, will Judge Ahart still consider the 2nd unsecured debt for 109(e) purposes?
Thanks,
Donny Brand
-- Giovanni Orantes, Esq. Orantes Law Firm, P.C.3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980Los Angeles, CA 90010Tel: (213) 389-4362Phone: (888) 619-8222 x101Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.comwebsite: www.gobklaw.comWE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA.
Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with 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.
Hello everyone,
Here's another 109(e) question. Judge Ahart.
Real Property
1st: Partially secured/partially unsecured
2nd: Wholly unsecured
3rd: Wholly unsecured
If we do NOT attempt to strip the 2nd, will Judge Ahart still consider the 2nd unsecured debt for 109(e) purposes?
Thanks,
Donny Brand
The post was migrated from Yahoo.