.jpg)
CA CD LBR 4003-2 Lien Avoidance, service of motion after
I understood the question to mean, does 7004(h)(1) trigger if an
institution has filed a proof of claim and nothing else.
In my opinion, unless the attorney who filed the POC is on NEF, you should
still serve by certified mail. However, I think people have taken the
position that filing a POC is an appearance and therefore, certified mail
is unnecessary and won on those grounds. Maybe the last clause of 9010(b)
helps that argument, I don't know. I would spend the extra $2.
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Steven B. Lever wrote:
> **
>
>
> Yes. All secured lien holders, regardless of Proof of Claim or not, need
> to be noticed on 522(f) motions even if they are not affected whatsoever.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> Steven B. Lever ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Alik Segal
> *Sent:* Monday, March 04, 2013 11:11 PM
> *To:* CDCBAA Listserv; CAMFFG; NACBA BK
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] CA CD LBR 4003-2 Lien Avoidance, service of motion
> after proof of claim filed****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> Listmates,****
>
> ** **
>
> California Central District LBR 4003-2 deals with lien avoidance and
> provides: (c) Service. (1) The motion, notice, and supporting documents
> must be served on the holder of the lien to be avoided in the same
> manner as a summons and complaint under FRBP 7004.****
>
> ** **
>
> Is a secured creditor that filed a proof of claim still entitled to be
> served (in the case of a motion to value collateral or avoid a lien) in the
> same manner as a summons and complaint under FRBP 7004?****
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Alik Segal
> Alik.Segal@gmail.com
> 310-362-6157
> California Central District ****
>
> ****
>
>
>
I understood the question to mean, does 7004(h)(1) triggerif an institution has filed a proof of claim and nothing else. In my opinion, unless the attorney who filed the POC is on NEF, you should still serve by certified mail. However, I think people have taken the position that filing a POC is an appearance and therefore, certified mail is unnecessary and won on those grounds. Maybe the last clause of 9010(b) helps that argument, I don't know. I would spend the extra $2.
Sincerely, Michael AvanesianOn Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Steven B. Lever <
The post was migrated from Yahoo.