.jpg)
Addendum=20
Link:
I shoot for about a third. I figure 1/3 confirm, 1/3 die, and 1/3 are solved without a confo.
In the last year 1 sale and dismiss (all creditors paid, so this is a solve without a confo).
2 died (one of the died's we made a deal with the major creditor, so it was a mixture, court wouldn't approve disclosure statement, so we sold one asset, made a deal with major creditor and dismissed. This result probably saved the debtor $2.0 million which would have been required to be paid in a plan. (read, plan infeasible, debtor couldn't pay as much as would be required))
4 confirmed.
2 more confo's next month, so could be 6 confirmed by end of next month, all within a year
(thanks for the compliments)
d
________________________________
To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Addendum
Congratulations, Dennis on 55 Ch 11 confirmations. Any idea the percentage of 11s you have confirmed? I read somewhere that only 8% get confirmed. I am 2/7, soon to be 4/7.
Link W. Schrader, Attorney
lschrader@schrader-law.com
Mail: PO Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
Office: 106 W 4th St, #308, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Orange County: (714) 542-5922
Los Angeles: (310) 413-6924 *
San Diego: (619) 952-8342
Facsimile: (310) 878-4158
* Texts received at LA number only
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu Apr 19 22:00:18 2012
Subject: [cdcbaa] Addendum
Don't forget, I put a check box on the individual Ch 11 plan to add the addendum. Confirmed my 55th Ch 11 today before the lovely Bluebond.
D
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 19, 2012, at 6:54 PM, "Steven B. Lever" wrote:
>Nancy;
>
>Perhaps you can address us on Saturday on the basics of the addendumalways include it, but I have a feeling you can illuminate it much more.
>
>Steve Lever
>
>From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Clark
>Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 5:04 PM
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Case/Authority for Change in Need for Ch13 Addendum [1 Attachment]
>
>
>[Attachment(s) from Nancy Clark included below]
>Attached is a tentative on an objection to confirmation due to the Addendum. Judge Houle stated that the new and revised bankruptcy rules do not render the Addendum "improper and superfluous." Please do not let creditors intimidate you into striking the Addendum. The new and revised rules do not provide you or your client with as much information as the Addendum. If your plan has been confirmed with the Addendum intact, and the creditors are not providing the statements, file a request for an OSC and ask for attorney fees.
>
>It's a beautiful thing!!!
>
>Thank you,
>Nancy B. Clark
>Attorney at Law
>
>100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
>West Covina, CA 91791-1600
>Tel: (626) 646-2555
>Fax: (626) 332-8644
>www.blclaw.com
>
>From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Clark
>Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:36 AM
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Case/Authority for Change in Need for Ch13 Addendum
>
>
>Sorry to respond so late to this inquiry.
>
>Please keep using the Addendum. I believe that the Addendum is still a good form and good law. US Bank has been filing objections to confirmation stating that the revised Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c) and 3002.1 render the Addendum improper and superfluous. This is incorrect. US Bank has yet to understand the ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (adopting the ruling made by the BAP) regarding the Addendum.
>
>As you know the Addendum requires the mortgage creditor/servicer to send monthly statements if statements were send prior to filing. It also requires the mortgage creditor/servicer to send upon written request quarterly reports. If creditor fails to send the statements or requested quarterly reports, the debtor or trustee can request from the court an OSC as to why the creditor is not complying with the confirmation order. Several creditors appealed the Addendum first to the BAP and then to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and lost. The ruling is quite lengthy but the Appellate Court stated in its ruling that TILAs Regulation Z requires the servicer to provide a final payout report, which would require the servicer to have access to information on all costs and balance, not only those specified by the Addendum, and to provide that payout report on five days>
>The revised and new rules of bankruptcy procedure require mortgage creditors to provide notice of mortgage payment change within 21 days and notice of escrow account changes within 180 days of the date first incurred, among other things. These rules to not prevent the debtors from requesting payoff statements from creditors under Regulation Z. Therefore, these rules do not affect the requirement of the Addendum.
>
>By the way, US Bank is trying to blackmail debtors into striking the Addendum stating that they are entitled to charge the debtor $50 per monthly statement and $75 for each quarterly report. These fees have not been subjected to the reasonable test. In the case of In re Vu (on appeal to the BAP), US Bank made this argument and Judge Ahart disagreed. Creditor stated that the cost were due to the fact that an attorney would have to review every statement and report. The Judge stated that he did not see why an attorney would have to review every statement and report. He found that the fee was not reasonable.
>
>I would urge everyone to read In re Monroy, 650 F. 3d 1300, and continue using the Addendum. You should also consider requesting OSCs.
>
>Thank you,
>Nancy B. Clark
>
>100 N. Barranca Ave, Suite 250
>West Covina, CA 91791
>Tele: (626) 332-8600
>Fax: (626) 332-8644
The post was migrated from Yahoo.