.jpg)
Abandonment of Assett of Ch 7 Trustee Post Closing Case
Hi Matt:
On schedule B always list a possible TILA, Rosenthal and FDCPA claim claim as an asset. You can list the asset as $600 or unknown and exempt under wildcard. That way the COA belongs to the debtor. You can show the State Court Judge that this is an asset of the Debtor and not discharged or anything else through the BK. I have had Ch 7 trustee's shake their head in wonderment but this preserves the debtors right to go forward after the discharge.
Catherine.
Law Office of Catherine Christiansen
________________________________
To: cdcbaa
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 9:42 AM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Abandonment of Assett of Ch 7 Trustee Post Closing Case
I have A client who has a few valid TILA claims.
The State Court Judge is inclined to dismiss the case based on a "Runaj" decision out of the SD stating it is "well settled law that prepetition causes of action, including TILA claims, are assets included within the meaning of the property of the estate" ...
Based on this decision and a few others WF is relying on (Tack and Coble) it appears as if the Judge is inclined to dismiss the case.
Has anyone had any familiarity with this? Did I need to reopen and vacate the discharge or reopen for a limited purposes of amending the petition? Merely amend or prepare a Motion to abandon?
Any insight would be helpful
Side note:
And as a office procedure - it may end up being proper practice to add any of these claims to a Bankruptcy petition where a lender is involved. This was merely a "potential" claim that you would need a bit more expertise than the standard/expert bankruptcy practitioner to have provided for in Sch B.
*****PLEASE NOTE - WE HAVE A NEW DOWNTOWN ADDRESS*****
Matthew D. Resnik
Attorney at Law
Los Angeles Office - Downtown
Simon and Resnik LLP
510 W. Sixth Street
Suite 1220
Los Angeles, Ca 90014
T:213-572-0800
F: 213-572-0860
Matt@resniklaw.com
www.simonresnik.com
San Fernando Valley - Sherman Oaks
Simon & Resnik, LLP
15233 Ventura Boulevard
Suite 300
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
P: 818-783-6251 #2
F: 818-827-4919
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I have A client who has a few valid TILA claims.
The State Court Judge is inclined to dismiss the case based on a "Runaj" decision out of the SD stating it is "well settled law that prepetition causes of action, including TILA claims, are assets included within the meaning of the property of the estate" ...
Based on this decision and a few others WF is relying on (Tack and Coble) it appears as if the Judge is inclined to dismiss the case.
Has anyone had any familiarity with this? Did I need to reopen and vacate the discharge or reopen for a limited purposes of amending the petition? Merely amend or prepare a Motion to abandon?
Any insight would be helpful
Side note:
And as a office procedure - it may end up being proper practice to add any of these claims to a Bankruptcy petition where a lender is involved. This was merely a "potential" claim that you would need a bit more expertise than the standard/expert bankruptcy practitioner to have provided for in Sch B.
*****PLEASE NOTE - WE HAVE A NEW DOWNTOWN ADDRESS*****
Matthew D. Resnik
Attorney at Law
Los Angeles Office - Downtown
Simon and Resnik LLP
510 W. Sixth Street
Suite 1220
Los Angeles, Ca 90014
T:213-572-0800
F: 213-572-0860
Matt@resniklaw.com
www.simonresnik.com
San Fernando Valley - Sherman Oaks
Simon & Resnik, LLP
15233 Ventura Boulevard
Suite 300
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
P: 818-783-6251 #2
F: 818-827-4919
The post was migrated from Yahoo.