.jpg)
objecting to proof of claim based on deadline
I was told by one of Curry's attorneys that the trustee will pay late filed
claims unless they are disallowed via the objections process.
On Jan 26, 2013 8:05 PM, "Jay Fleischman" wrote:
> **
>
>
> We do in NY, though our trustees simply don't pay them anyway. Late claim
> isn't allowed.
> On Jan 26, 2013 7:27 PM, "Kirk Brennan" wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> chapter 13:
>> Where a debt is not disputed, but the creditor files the proof of claim
>> past the deadline for filing proofs of claim, are any of you objecting
>> based on tardiness? If so, how are judges responding?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Kirk Brennan, esq.
>> California Law Office, P.C.
>> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
>> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
>> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
>> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
>> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
>> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
>> message.
>> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
>> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
>> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
>> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
>> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
>> letters containing the signature of a director.
>>
>
>
I was told by one of Curry's attorneys that the trustee will pay late filed claims unless they are disallowed via the objections process.
On Jan 26, 2013 8:05 PM, "Jay Fleischman" <bankruptcy@gmail.com> wrote:
We do in NY, though our trustees simply don't pay them anyway. Late claim isn't allowed.
On Jan 26, 2013 7:27 PM, "Kirk Brennan" <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
chapter 13:Where a debt is not disputed, but the creditor files the proof of claim past the deadline for filing proofs of claim, are any of you objecting based on tardiness? If so, how are judges responding?
Thanks,-- Kirk Brennan, esq.California Law Office, P.C.www.calibankruptcysite.comCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
What if the proof of claim is for a secured debt such as a car, doesn't that open the door for the creditor to file a MFRS to repossess or foreclose on the security?
Armen Shaghzo, Esq.
Shaghzo & Shaghzo Law Firm, APC
100 W. Broadway, Ste. 540
Glendale, CA 91210
(818) 241-8887
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 26, 2013, at 8:11 PM, "Leventhal Law Group, P.C." wrote:
> Same here!
>
>
>
> Jonathan Leventhal, Esq.
>
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
>
> 818-347-5800
>
>
>
> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
>
>
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
>
>
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.
>
>
> Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not represent you until a written fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the Leventhal Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been paid.
>
>
>
Jay Fleischman
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 8:05 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] objecting to proof of claim based on deadline
>
>
>
>
>
> We do in NY, though our trustees simply don't pay them anyway. Late claim isn't allowed.
>
> On Jan 26, 2013 7:27 PM, "Kirk Brennan" wrote:
>
>
>
> chapter 13:
> Where a debt is not disputed, but the creditor files the proof of claim past the deadline for filing proofs of claim, are any of you objecting based on tardiness? If so, how are judges responding?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Same here!
Jonathan Leventhal, Esq.
Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
818-347-5800
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.
Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not represent you until a written fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the Leventhal Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been paid.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
We do in NY, though our trustees simply don't pay them anyway. Late claim
isn't allowed.
On Jan 26, 2013 7:27 PM, "Kirk Brennan" wrote:
> **
>
>
> chapter 13:
> Where a debt is not disputed, but the creditor files the proof of claim
> past the deadline for filing proofs of claim, are any of you objecting
> based on tardiness? If so, how are judges responding?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>
We do in NY, though our trustees simply don't pay them anyway. Late claim isn't allowed.
On Jan 26, 2013 7:27 PM, "Kirk Brennan" <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
chapter 13:Where a debt is not disputed, but the creditor files the proof of claim past the deadline for filing proofs of claim, are any of you objecting based on tardiness? If so, how are judges responding?
Thanks,-- Kirk Brennan, esq.California Law Office, P.C.www.calibankruptcysite.comCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
chapter 13:
Where a debt is not disputed, but the creditor files the proof of claim
past the deadline for filing proofs of claim, are any of you objecting
based on tardiness? If so, how are judges responding?
Thanks,
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
chapter 13:Where a debt is not disputed, but the creditor files the proof of claim past the deadline for filing proofs of claim, are any of you objecting based on tardiness? If so, how are judges responding?
Thanks,-- Kirk Brennan, esq.California Law Office, P.C.www.calibankruptcysite.comCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.