.jpg)
Chapter 13 Eligibility limits
I have not decided whether I agree or not but according to Patrick, "Fam
Code 910 does not create personal liability for the debtors spouse. It
makes the community estate liable for the debts of either spouse incurred
before or during the marriage of the spouses."
If there is no personal liability, in theory, the wife's debt should not
count towards the limit.
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 Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:29 PM, 'Steven B. Lever' sblever@leverlaw.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Picking up a different angle on this thread of 11 U.S.C. 109 Chapter 13
> eligibility: How does community property figure into eligibility?
>
>
>
> If some of the debt is contractually in the name of a nonfiling spouse,
> can that debt be excluded from the limits?
>
>
>
> Otherwise, community property states are at a real disadvantage on this
> federal statute!
>
>
>
> Steven Lever
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 17, 2016 1:17 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13 Eligibility limits
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, thats literal dictionary definition type thing is a bit of a kink in
> the plan.
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 17, 2016 12:20 PM
> *To:* CDCBAA List Serve
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13 Eligibility limits
>
>
>
>
>
> I am not 100% certain regarding 9th Circuit case law but my understanding
> of a contingency is an event in the future which triggers the contingency.
>
>
>
> Essentially, I look for an "If ... then ..." statement or its equivalent.
> In my opinion, the statement has to be something that might not happen.
>
>
>
>
> 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 Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:29 AM, 'Steven B. Lever' sblever@leverlaw.com
> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
>
> I have a PC who has $360,000 worth of Parent Plus Student loans which when
> added to the other debts brings him above the unsecured debt limits of 11
> U.S.C. 109
>
>
>
> Now $90,000 of that doesnt start repayment for 3 years.
>
>
>
> Does that fact perhaps put it into the contingent category such that I
> can shoe horn him into a 13? It would be an OC case and a 5 year plan.
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance for your opinion.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> Law Offices of Steven B. Lever
>
>
>
> Steven B. Lever
>
> ( Tel. (562) 436-5456 ext. 1
>
> ( Fax (562) 485-6886
>
> * sblever@leverlaw.com
>
> www.leverlaw.com
>
> ******************************************************
>
> This Internet e-mail contains confidential information
>
> which is intended only for the addressee and which may
>
> be privileged under applicable law. Do not read, copy
>
> or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. If you
>
> have received this message in error, please notify the
>
> sender immediately and delete it. Thank you.
>
> ******************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I have not decided whether I agree or not but according to Patrick, "Fam Code 910 does not create personal liability for the debtors spouse. It makes the community estate liable for the debts of either spouse incurred before or during the marriage of the spouses."If there is no personal liability, in theory, the wife's debt should not count towards the limit.Avanesian Law Firm801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130This
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: 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 Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:29 AM, 'Steven B. Lever'
sblever@leverlaw.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I have a PC who has $360,000 worth of Parent Plus Student loans which when added to the other debts brings him above the unsecured debt limits of 11 U.S.C. 109
Now $90,000 of that doesnt start repayment for 3 years.
Does that fact perhaps put it into the contingent category such that I can shoe horn him into a 13? It would be an OC case and a 5 year plan.
Thank you in advance for your opinion.
Steve
Law Offices of Steven B. Lever
Steven B. Lever
( Tel.
(562) 436-5456 ext. 1
( Fax
(562) 485-6886
* sblever@leverlaw.com
om/" target"_blank">www.leverlaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I would consider (if eligible) a chapter 7 with an undue hardship discharge
for those nasty student loans.
I just saw a recent 9th Cir. case in which the extreme amount of debt owed
as compared to income justified Undue Hardship. This is without medical
problems.
I hope this helps.
Christine
Christine A. Kingston, Esq.
Law Office of Christine A. Kingston
5011 Argosy Avenue, Suite 3
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Office: 714-533-9210
Fax: 714-489-8150
Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I am not 100% certain regarding 9th Circuit case law but my understanding
of a contingency is an event in the future which triggers the contingency.
Essentially, I look for an "If ... then ..." statement or its equivalent.
In my opinion, the statement has to be something that might not happen.
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 Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:29 AM, 'Steven B. Lever' sblever@leverlaw.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> I have a PC who has $360,000 worth of Parent Plus Student loans which when
> added to the other debts brings him above the unsecured debt limits of 11
> U.S.C. 109
>
>
>
> Now $90,000 of that doesnt start repayment for 3 years.
>
>
>
> Does that fact perhaps put it into the contingent category such that I
> can shoe horn him into a 13? It would be an OC case and a 5 year plan.
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance for your opinion.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> Law Offices of Steven B. Lever
>
>
>
> Steven B. Lever
>
> ( Tel. (562) 436-5456 ext. 1
>
> ( Fax (562) 485-6886
>
> * sblever@leverlaw.com
>
> www.leverlaw.com
>
> ******************************************************
>
> This Internet e-mail contains confidential information
>
> which is intended only for the addressee and which may
>
> be privileged under applicable law. Do not read, copy
>
> or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. If you
>
> have received this message in error, please notify the
>
> sender immediately and delete it. Thank you.
>
> ******************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
I am not 100% certain regarding 9th Circuit case law but my understanding of a contingency is an event in the future which triggers the contingency.Essentially, I look for an "If ... then ..." statement or its equivalent. In my opinion, the statement has to be something that might not happen.Sincerely,Michael Avanesian, Esq.Avanesian Law Firm801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130Glendale, CA 91203Tel: 818.276.2477 | Fax:818.208.4550
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I have a PC who has $360,000 worth of Parent Plus Student loans which when added to the other debts brings him above the unsecured debt limits of 11 U.S.C. 109
Now $90,000 of that doesn't start repayment for 3 years.
Does that fact perhaps put it into the "contingent" category such that I can shoe horn him into a 13? It would be an OC case and a 5 year plan.
Thank you in advance for your opinion.
Steve
Law Offices of Steven B. Lever
Steven B. Lever
* Tel. (562) 436-5456 ext. 1
* Fax (562) 485-6886
* sblever@leverlaw.com
www.leverlaw.com
******************************************************
This Internet e-mail contains confidential information
which is intended only for the addressee and which may
be privileged under applicable law. Do not read, copy
or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. If you
have received this message in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete it. Thank you.
******************************************************
I have a PC who has $360,000 worth of Parent Plus Student loans which when added to the other debts brings him above the unsecured debt limits of 11 U.S.C. 109
Now $90,000 of that doesn’t start repayment for 3 years.
Does that fact perhaps put it into the “contingent” category such that I can shoe horn him into a 13? It would be an OC case and a 5 year plan.
Thank you in advance for your opinion.
Steve
Law Offices of Steven B. Lever
Steven B. Lever
(
Tel. (562) 436-5456 ext. 1
(
Fax (562) 485-6886
*
sblever@leverlaw.com
www.leverlaw.com
******************************************************
This Internet e-mail contains confidential information
which is intended only for the addressee and which may
be privileged under applicable law. Do not read, copy
or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. If you
have received this message in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete it. Thank you.
******************************************************
The post was migrated from Yahoo.