.jpg)
Pattern of shorter interim between Ch 13 filing & 341(a) hearings in SV cases
Over the last 6 weeks I notice the Court Clerk's office has been setting the 341(a) hearings in the Valley Division on much shorter notice than previously. I have had them set as little as 21 days and at the most 27 days after the petition's filing. Liz Rojas' office procedure is to review all the files for the 341(a) 2 weeks prior to the scheduled date. In situations where not all documents are filed with the petition, the documents are not even due until after her cut off date for review of the file. When the 341(a) hearings are held no plan payments are due and for most of them no mortgage payments are due yet either. While Liz and her staff are very professional about explaining why they have not had the opportunity to review the case in preparation for the 341(a), Liz nevertheless continues them for 3 to 4 weeks. I noticed this happening to several debtors cases other than the two I had go that way today. I also saw at least 10 on this afternoon's calendar that, in addition to one of mine, were continued 341(a)'s from last month. The debtors need to miss another day of work in 3 or 4 weeks after waiting a couple hours just to have their case continued, because 70% of the cases are set for 11:00 a.m. by the Clerk's office. This cuts into their ability to fund a plan. Obviously, it also wastes attorney time, trustee staff time, trustee time and the time of every other debtor and attorney waiting for their case to be called.
I understand why Liz needs a cut off date for review of everything with the volume of cases she faces, but that does not resolve the problem. I discussed my concerns with her today and she seems to be as frustrated as many of us are with the way the clerk's office sets the calendar. She was not happy the 341(a)'s are being set so soon after filing and further expressed her wish that she could spread the 341(a)'s out over two days instead of just crammed into one.
Is this just a Valley issue or is it happening in other divisions? I have not seen this issue arise with Liz Rojas' Northern Division 341(a) calendars.
Obviously, one way to avoid this problem is to avoid emergency/piecemeal filings. However, that is easier said than done with month end form B22C calculation issues, imminent foreclosures, wage garnishments, pending state court litigation, incomplete client provided records, not to mention the efficiency of filing them with other Chapter 13 cases so the 341(a) meetings are calendared for the same time.
If the Clerk's office is going to continue this calendaring pattern, can we as a group work with the Clerk's office to try to minimize the negative impact?
Mark Jessee
The post was migrated from Yahoo.