.jpg)
Single Asset Real Estate C11 - what about three assets?
I'm fairly certain the following is correct but I didn't look at case law.
If you can find any reason not to designate as SARE, don't designate it as
such because it pigeon holes you into filing a plan ASAP. Debtors usually
need the breathing room.
The only tactic could be if you want to use cash collateral to pay interest
only payments to the creditor, SARE designation lets you do that w/o
permission from anyone and no 90 day plan issue. Of course very risky.
Multiple, discontinuous properties can be considered SARE but I can't cite
cases.
Michael
>
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
Attorney and Counselor at Law
818-817-1725
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I did a word search of the code, the bankruptcy rules and the local rules. The words "single asset" appear in only two places - Sec 101 - the definition; and Sec 362 - the relief from stay in a single asset case.
e:
>
> 101(51B) The term "single asset real estate" means real property
> constituting a single property or project, other than residential real
> property with fewer than 4 residential units, which generates substantially
> all of the gross income of a debtor who is not a family farmer and on which
> no substantial business is being conducted by a debtor other than the
> business of operating the real property and activities incidental.
>
>
> that IS sort of helpful. but mainly i was trying to figure out if you HAVE
> to use "single asset real estate" or if it is something you WANT to use.
> the other answers to my question suggest that i should use the very
> precise definition above to stay away from the "single asset real estate"
> designation.
>
> so it seems that i can and should designate my client's noncontiguous
> income-producing "fewer than 4 residential units" properties into something
> other than "single asset real estate."
>
> can anyone tell me when it would be to a client's advantage to use the
> designation?
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 11:49 AM, californiadebtreliefagency Esbinlaw@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Have you taken a look at the definition under the Code and case law
> > defining what constitutes a Single Asset Case?
> >
> >
> > --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, "PHiLiP E. KOeBeL, Esq."
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > what is the purpose/benefit of the Single Asset Real Estate designation
> > in
> > > Chapter 11s?
> > >
> > > if there are three income producing properties (not contiguous, but in
> > the
> > > same mountain town), does that fit under a single asset designation? does
> > > that make sense?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
101(51B) The term "single asset real estate" means real property
constituting a single property or project, other than residential real
property with fewer than 4 residential units, which generates substantially
all of the gross income of a debtor who is not a family farmer and on which
no substantial business is being conducted by a debtor other than the
business of operating the real property and activities incidental.
that IS sort of helpful. but mainly i was trying to figure out if you HAVE
to use "single asset real estate" or if it is something you WANT to use.
the other answers to my question suggest that i should use the very
precise definition above to stay away from the "single asset real estate"
designation.
so it seems that i can and should designate my client's noncontiguous
income-producing "fewer than 4 residential units" properties into something
other than "single asset real estate."
can anyone tell me when it would be to a client's advantage to use the
designation?
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 11:49 AM, californiadebtreliefagency wrote:
> **
>
>
> Have you taken a look at the definition under the Code and case law
> defining what constitutes a Single Asset Case?
>
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, "PHiLiP E. KOeBeL, Esq."
> wrote:
> >
> > what is the purpose/benefit of the Single Asset Real Estate designation
> in
> > Chapter 11s?
> >
> > if there are three income producing properties (not contiguous, but in
> the
> > same mountain town), does that fit under a single asset designation? does
> > that make sense?
> >
>
>
>
101(51B) The term "single asset real estate" means real property constituting a single property or project, other than residential real property with fewer than 4 residential units, which generates substantially all of the gross income of a debtor who is not a family farmer and on which no substantial business is being conducted by a debtor other than the business of operating the real property and activities incidental.
that IS sort of helpful. but mainly i was trying to figure out if you HAVE to use "single asset real estate" or if it is something you WANT to use. the other answers to my question suggest that i should use the very precise definition above to stay away from the "single asset real estate" designation.
so it seems that i can and should designate my client's noncontiguous income-producing "fewer than 4 residential units" properties into something other than "single asset real estate."
can anyone tell me when it would be to a client's advantage to use the designation?On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 11:49 AM, californiadebtreliefagency <Esbinlaw@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Have you taken a look at the definition under the Code and case law defining what constitutes a Single Asset Case?
@yahoogroups.com, "PHiLiP E. KOeBeL, Esq." <lawofpek@...> wrote:
>
> what is the purpose/benefit of the Single Asset Real Estate designation in
> Chapter 11s?
>
> if there are three income producing properties (not contiguous, but in the
> same mountain town), does that fit under a single asset designation? does
> that make sense?
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Have you taken a look at the definition under the Code and case law defining what constitutes a Single Asset Case?
e:
>
> what is the purpose/benefit of the Single Asset Real Estate designation in
> Chapter 11s?
>
> if there are three income producing properties (not contiguous, but in the
> same mountain town), does that fit under a single asset designation? does
> that make sense?
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
what is the purpose/benefit of the Single Asset Real Estate designation in
Chapter 11s?
if there are three income producing properties (not contiguous, but in the
same mountain town), does that fit under a single asset designation? does
that make sense?
what is the purpose/benefit of the Single Asset Real Estate designation in Chapter 11s?if there are three income producing properties (not contiguous, but in the same mountain town), does that fit under a single asset designation? does that make sense?
The post was migrated from Yahoo.