.jpg)
Chapter 13 Plan-Res Judicata effect
I think it's worth a shot
On Feb 11, 2017 9:56 AM, "'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
> I agree, if there were a writing, this would be much easier, but sadly
> (and not surprisingly) there is not.
>
> What about acquiescence? After orally telling debtor she didn't have to
> pay, they took no action for over a year, and then took no action for 17
> months after the Ch. 13 was filed. Looks like that may be the only
> argument to make.
>
> On 2/11/2017 6:47 AM, Havkin Stella havkinlaw@earthlink.net [cdcbaa]
> wrote:
>
>
> Any writing to support the representation.? I would argue that under
> Espinoza, the debtor made an offer, that the debtor put in writing in the
> proposed plan, SBA received and did not object. The plan is a new contract
> with the creditor which modified the original contact.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Feb 10, 2017 8:15 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13 Plan-Res Judicata effect
>
>
>
> Just had this dropped on my desk...
>
> Debtor in Chapter 13, 17 months into a confirmed Plan.
>
> The plan is a zero percent plan, curing arrearages to the first mortgage.
>
> There are also several junior liens, including one in favor of the SBA.
>
> According to debtor, the SBA told her that because of her financial
> hardship no payments were due and they would just be paid upon future sale
> of the property. As such, debtor had not made payments for over a year
> prepetition.
>
> The Plan provides for no payment to the SBA and states in the MISC.
> section that no payments will be made and that none are required.
>
> SBA received all the requisite notice of the BK filing and Plan. It did
> not file a claim and did not object to the plan.
>
> Now, 17 months into the case, counsel for SBA is demanding payment.
>
> Does the plan provision prevent them from doing that, or would they
> prevail on a MRS due to no payments being made and not providing for any
> arrearage payment?
>
>
> *******************************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> *Mailing Address Only:*
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office
> of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for
> the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
> disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
> prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
> the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
> communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used,
> and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>
>
> --
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> *Mailing Address Only:*
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office
> of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for
> the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
> disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
> prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
> the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
> communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used,
> and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>
>
I think it's worth a shot
On Feb 11, 2017 9
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I agree, if there were a writing, this would be much easier, but
sadly (and not surprisingly) there is not.
What about acquiescence? After orally telling debtor she didn't have
to pay, they took no action for over a year, and then took no action
for 17 months after the Ch. 13 was filed. Looks like that may be
the only argument to make.
On 2/11/2017 6:47 AM, Havkin Stella havkinlaw@earthlink.net [cdcbaa]
wrote:
>
>
>
> Any writing to support the representation.? I would argue that
> under Espinoza, the debtor made an offer, that the debtor put in
> writing in the proposed plan, SBA received and did not object.
> The plan is a new contract with the creditor which modified the
> original contact.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Feb 10, 2017 8:15 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13 Plan-Res Judicata effect
>
> Just had this dropped on my desk...
>
> Debtor in Chapter 13, 17 months into a confirmed Plan.
>
> The plan is a zero percent plan, curing arrearages to the
> first mortgage.
>
> There are also several junior liens, including one in favor of
> the SBA.
>
> According to debtor, the SBA told her that because of her
> financial hardship no payments were due and they would just be
> paid upon future sale of the property. As such, debtor had
> not made payments for over a year prepetition.
>
> The Plan provides for no payment to the SBA and states in the
> MISC. section that no payments will be made and that none are
> required.
>
> SBA received all the requisite notice of the BK filing and
> Plan. It did not file a claim and did not object to the plan.
>
> Now, 17 months into the case, counsel for SBA is demanding
> payment.
>
> Does the plan provision prevent them from doing that, or would
> they prevail on a MRS due to no payments being made and not
> providing for any arrearage payment?
>
>
> *******************************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> _*Mailing Address Only:*_
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180
> (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of
> California Board of Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the
> law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The
> information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If
> you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy,
> distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with
> requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S.
> tax advice contained in this communication (or in any
> attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot
> be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
> recommending to another party any transaction or matter
> addressed in this communication.
>
>
>
>
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
_*Mailing Address Only:*_
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}Any writing to support the representation.? I would argue that under Espinoza, the debtor made an offer, that the debtor put in writing in the proposed plan, SBA received and did not object. The plan is a new contract with the creditor which modified the original contact. -----Original Message-----
com>
Sent: Feb 10, 2017 8:15 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13 Plan-Res Judicata effect
Just had this dropped on my desk...
Debtor in Chapter 13, 17 months into a confirmed Plan.
The plan is a zero percent plan, curing arrearages to the first
mortgage.
There are also several junior liens, including one in favor of the
SBA.
According to debtor, the SBA told her that because of her financial
hardship no payments were due and they would just be paid upon
future sale of the property. As such, debtor had not made payments
for over a year prepetition.
The Plan provides for no payment to the SBA and states in the MISC.
section that no payments will be made and that none are required.
SBA received all the requisite notice of the BK filing and Plan. It
did not file a claim and did not object to the plan.
Now, 17 months into the case, counsel for SBA is demanding payment.
Does the plan provision prevent them from doing that, or would they
prevail on a MRS due to no payments being made and not providing for
any arrearage payment?
*******************************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
Mailing Address Only:
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Just had this dropped on my desk...
Debtor in Chapter 13, 17 months into a confirmed Plan.
The plan is a zero percent plan, curing arrearages to the first
mortgage.
There are also several junior liens, including one in favor of the SBA.
According to debtor, the SBA told her that because of her financial
hardship no payments were due and they would just be paid upon
future sale of the property. As such, debtor had not made payments
for over a year prepetition.
The Plan provides for no payment to the SBA and states in the MISC.
section that no payments will be made and that none are required.
SBA received all the requisite notice of the BK filing and Plan. It
did not file a claim and did not object to the plan.
Now, 17 months into the case, counsel for SBA is demanding payment.
Does the plan provision prevent them from doing that, or would they
prevail on a MRS due to no payments being made and not providing for
any arrearage payment?
*******************************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
_*Mailing Address Only:*_
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.