.jpg)
Drivers Licence and auto stay
This is a dangerous game I am playing but I learn a lot so why not!
I can support my argument in many ways, any of which, alone, should be
sufficient.
(1) Section 525 says, "a governmental unit may not ... deny, revoke,
suspend, or refuse to renew a license, permit, ... [to] a person that is or
has been a debtor under this title ... or *during the case* but before the
debtor is granted or denied a discharge,..."
(2) 1322(b)(11) include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent
with this title.
(3) The July 9, 2015 BAP case: "Courts adopting the third approach allow
chapter 20 lien stripping *because nothing in the Bankruptcy Code prevents
it.* In re Jennings, 454 B.R. at 257."
I think that is my favorite line, in any case!
I may be able to find one or two more arguments.
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
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 herein.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:58 PM, cdcbaa cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Mike: Your case is a Supreme Court case where the debtor received a
> discharge and the state refused to reinstate. The question here was about
> a chapter 13 in process. 13 debtors don't get a discharge until their
> case is over. Under your case, there is no conflict until the discharge is
> entered. That won't support a plan provision to reinstate the license
> during the case.
>
> d
>
> Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503
> 310-328-1001-voice
> [image: cid:part1.03050307.05030101@bklaw.com]
>
> On Jul 28, 2015, at 10:15 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com
> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
>
> I was thinking about Section 525. What do you think about Perez v.
> Campbell, 402 US 637 - Supreme Court 1971:
>
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... as_sdt2006
>
> Supremacy Clause!
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> *Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
> Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
> 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
> Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
>
> *Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
> legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
> use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
> copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
> to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
>
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
> or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
> 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 herein.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:32 AM, cdcbaa cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com [cdcbaa]
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Mike:
>>
>> There is nothing in chapter 13 that gives the bk court any jurisdiction
>> to order a state to reinstate a drivers license, so I would not put
>> anything like that into a plan.
>>
>> Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503
>> 310-328-1001-voice
>> [image: cid:part1.03050307.05030101@bklaw.com]
>>
>> On Jul 20, 2015, at 7:16 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com
>> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> This is also something I did not understand at the last CDCBAA meeting.
>> Ignoring 525 and 106 for a second, why can't you put a provision in the
>> Plan that forces the DMV to reinstate the license?
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> *Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
>> Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
>> 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
>> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
>> Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
>>
>> *Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
>> legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
>> use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
>> copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
>> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
>> to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
>>
>> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
>> imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
>> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
>> or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
>> 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 herein.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Bert Kawahara bertkawahara@yahoo.com
>> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 362 does not apply to the continued enforcement actions by governmental
>>> agencies (or the criminal courts). I have no legal authority, but you
>>> may be able to resolve the issue directly with a judge if it has turned
>>> into a criminal matter. I had the opportunity to discuss a similar issue a
>>> few years back with a judge in LA Traffic. The Debtor's traffic matter was
>>> a misdemeanor and he was behind on his court ordered payments. He filed a
>>> 13 in Florida for the fine payments due. The Clerk's office did not know
>>> how (or care) to file a proof of claim (even though it is on the notice of
>>> the BK) so the clerk decided not to file a claim. Although the judge felt
>>> the Stay did not apply to the case because it was a criminal matter,
>>> the judge did not violate the Defendant/Debtor any further. I do not know
>>> how this case eventually concluded. I wonder if the fact that the
>>> Defendant was in Florida had anything to do with the judge not wanting to
>>> do anything further?
>>>
>>> Bert Kawahara
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* "bradweillaw@yahoo.com [cdcbaa]"
>>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>> *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 11:02 AM
>>> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Re: Drivers Licence and auto stay
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand moving violations maybe nondischargeable, however this is
>>> a Chapter 13 even nondischargeable debts are still to be paid through the
>>> plan. How can they get away with not filing a proof of claim and
>>> suspending her license?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
This is a dangerous game I am playing but I learn a lot so why not!I can support my argument in many ways, any of which, alone, should be sufficient.(1) Section 525 says, "a governmental unit may not ... deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a license, permit, ... [to] a person that is or has been a debtor under this title ... or during the case but before the debtor is granted or denied a discharge,..."(2) 1322(b)(11) include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with this title.(3) The July 9, 2015 BAP case: "Courts adopting the third approach allow chapter 20 lien stripping because nothing in the Bankruptcy Code prevents it. In re Jennings, 454 B.R. at 257."I think that is my favorite line, in any case!I may be able to find one or two more arguments.Sincerely,Michael Avanesian, Esq.Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250Sherman Oaks, CA 91403Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725Confidentiality:This electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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 herein.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:58 PM, cdcbaa cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Mike: Your case is a Supreme Court case where the debtor received a discharge and the state refused to reinstate. The question here was about a chapter 13 in process. 13 debtors don't get a discharge until their case is over. Under your case, there is no conflict until the discharge is entered. That won't support a plan provision to reinstate the license during the case.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Jul 28, 2015, at 10:15 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> I was thinking about Section 525. What do you think about Perez v. Campbell, 402 US 637 - Supreme Court 1971:
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... as_sdt2006
>
> Supremacy Clause!
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Michael Avanesian, Esq.
> Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
> 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
> Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
>
> Confidentiality: This electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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 herein.
>
>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:32 AM, cdcbaa cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>> Mike:
>>
>> There is nothing in chapter 13 that gives the bk court any jurisdiction to order a state to reinstate a drivers license, so I would not put anything like that into a plan.
>>
>> Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2015, at 7:16 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> This is also something I did not understand at the last CDCBAA meeting. Ignoring 525 and 106 for a second, why can't you put a provision in the Plan that forces the DMV to reinstate the license?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Michael Avanesian, Esq.
>>> Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
>>> 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
>>> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
>>> Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
>>>
>>> Confidentiality: This electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
>>> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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 herein.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Bert Kawahara bertkawahara@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 362 does not apply to the continued enforcement actions by governmental agencies (or the criminal courts). I have no legal authority, but you may be able to resolve the issue directly with a judge if it has turned into a criminal matter. I had the opportunity to discuss a similar issue a few years back with a judge in LA Traffic. The Debtor's traffic matter was a misdemeanor and he was behind on his court ordered payments. He filed a 13 in Florida for the fine payments due. The Clerk's office did not know how (or care) to file a proof of claim (even though it is on the notice of the BK) so the clerk decided not to file a claim. Although the judge felt the Stay did not apply to the case because it was a criminal matter, the judge did not violate the Defendant/Debtor any further. I do not know how this case eventually concluded. I wonder if the fact that the Defendant was in Florida had anything to do with the judge not wanting to do anything further?
>>>>
>>>> Bert Kawahara
>>>>
>>>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 11:02 AM
>>>> Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Drivers Licence and auto stay
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I understand moving violations maybe nondischargeable, however this is a Chapter 13 even nondischargeable debts are still to be paid through the plan. How can they get away with not filing a proof of claim and suspending her license?
>
>
type="text/html";
boundaryple-Mail-DCEDEB1F-9954-4985-9968-3A94BF24A378
On Jul 28, 2015, at 10:15 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] <
I was thinking about Section 525. What do you think about Perez v. Campbell, 402 US 637 - Supreme Court 1971:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Mike:
What is the provision in the bankruptcy code that would authorize such a provision in the plan? Don't you have to have statutory authority to add such a provision?
I cannot find one.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Jul 20, 2015, at 7:16 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> This is also something I did not understand at the last CDCBAA meeting. Ignoring 525 and 106 for a second, why can't you put a provision in the Plan that forces the DMV to reinstate the license?
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Michael Avanesian, Esq.
> Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
> 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
> Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
>
> Confidentiality: This electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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 herein.
>
>
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Bert Kawahara bertkawahara@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>> 362 does not apply to the continued enforcement actions by governmental agencies (or the criminal courts). I have no legal authority, but you may be able to resolve the issue directly with a judge if it has turned into a criminal matter. I had the opportunity to discuss a similar issue a few years back with a judge in LA Traffic. The Debtor's traffic matter was a misdemeanor and he was behind on his court ordered payments. He filed a 13 in Florida for the fine payments due. The Clerk's office did not know how (or care) to file a proof of claim (even though it is on the notice of the BK) so the clerk decided not to file a claim. Although the judge felt the Stay did not apply to the case because it was a criminal matter, the judge did not violate the Defendant/Debtor any further. I do not know how this case eventually concluded. I wonder if the fact that the Defendant was in Florida had anything to do with the judge not wanting to do anything further?
>>
>> Bert Kawahara
>>
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 11:02 AM
>> Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Drivers Licence and auto stay
>>
>>
>> I understand moving violations maybe nondischargeable, however this is a Chapter 13 even nondischargeable debts are still to be paid through the plan. How can they get away with not filing a proof of claim and suspending her license?
>
>
type="text/html";
boundaryple-Mail-3B2D0383-D156-4243-BCD6-30582A01EFC5
Michael Avanesian, Esq. Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250Sherman Oaks, CA 91403Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Perez dealt with AZ's statute that prevented the debtors from regaining their drivers licenses prior to satisfying the judgement (resulting from injury from accident caused by negligent operation of their vehicle) despite that they received discharges in chapter 7.
The chapter 13 debtors likely can't raise similar supremacy issues until after receiving their discharge orders.
Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos.
> On Jul 28, 2015, at 10:15 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> I was thinking about Section 525. What do you think about Perez v. Campbell, 402 US 637 - Supreme Court 1971:
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... as_sdt2006
>
> Supremacy Clause!
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Michael Avanesian, Esq.
> Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
> 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
> Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
>
> Confidentiality: This electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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 herein.
>
>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:32 AM, cdcbaa cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>> Mike:
>>
>> There is nothing in chapter 13 that gives the bk court any jurisdiction to order a state to reinstate a drivers license, so I would not put anything like that into a plan.
>>
>> Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2015, at 7:16 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> This is also something I did not understand at the last CDCBAA meeting. Ignoring 525 and 106 for a second, why can't you put a provision in the Plan that forces the DMV to reinstate the license?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Michael Avanesian, Esq.
>>> Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
>>> 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
>>> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
>>> Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
>>>
>>> Confidentiality: This electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
>>> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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 herein.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Bert Kawahara bertkawahara@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 362 does not apply to the continued enforcement actions by governmental agencies (or the criminal courts). I have no legal authority, but you may be able to resolve the issue directly with a judge if it has turned into a criminal matter. I had the opportunity to discuss a similar issue a few years back with a judge in LA Traffic. The Debtor's traffic matter was a misdemeanor and he was behind on his court ordered payments. He filed a 13 in Florida for the fine payments due. The Clerk's office did not know how (or care) to file a proof of claim (even though it is on the notice of the BK) so the clerk decided not to file a claim. Although the judge felt the Stay did not apply to the case because it was a criminal matter, the judge did not violate the Defendant/Debtor any further. I do not know how this case eventually concluded. I wonder if the fact that the Defendant was in Florida had anything to do with the judge not wanting to do anything further?
>>>>
>>>> Bert Kawahara
>>>>
>>>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 11:02 AM
>>>> Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Drivers Licence and auto stay
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I understand moving violations maybe nondischargeable, however this is a Chapter 13 even nondischargeable debts are still to be paid through the plan. How can they get away with not filing a proof of claim and suspending her license?
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Mike:
There is nothing in chapter 13 that gives the bk court any jurisdiction to order a state to reinstate a drivers license, so I would not put anything like that into a plan.
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Jul 20, 2015, at 7:16 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> This is also something I did not understand at the last CDCBAA meeting. Ignoring 525 and 106 for a second, why can't you put a provision in the Plan that forces the DMV to reinstate the license?
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Michael Avanesian, Esq.
> Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
> 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
> Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
>
> Confidentiality: This electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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 herein.
>
>
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Bert Kawahara bertkawahara@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>> 362 does not apply to the continued enforcement actions by governmental agencies (or the criminal courts). I have no legal authority, but you may be able to resolve the issue directly with a judge if it has turned into a criminal matter. I had the opportunity to discuss a similar issue a few years back with a judge in LA Traffic. The Debtor's traffic matter was a misdemeanor and he was behind on his court ordered payments. He filed a 13 in Florida for the fine payments due. The Clerk's office did not know how (or care) to file a proof of claim (even though it is on the notice of the BK) so the clerk decided not to file a claim. Although the judge felt the Stay did not apply to the case because it was a criminal matter, the judge did not violate the Defendant/Debtor any further. I do not know how this case eventually concluded. I wonder if the fact that the Defendant was in Florida had anything to do with the judge not wanting to do anything further?
>>
>> Bert Kawahara
>>
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 11:02 AM
>> Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Drivers Licence and auto stay
>>
>>
>> I understand moving violations maybe nondischargeable, however this is a Chapter 13 even nondischargeable debts are still to be paid through the plan. How can they get away with not filing a proof of claim and suspending her license?
>
>
type="text/html";
boundaryple-Mail-0172AE87-1C7D-4BCB-ABB8-E8077D2359B6
Michael Avanesian, Esq. Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250Sherman Oaks, CA 91403Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
This is also something I did not understand at the last CDCBAA meeting.
Ignoring 525 and 106 for a second, why can't you put a provision in the
Plan that forces the DMV to reinstate the license?
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
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 herein.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Bert Kawahara bertkawahara@yahoo.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> 362 does not apply to the continued enforcement actions by governmental
> agencies (or the criminal courts). I have no legal authority, but you
> may be able to resolve the issue directly with a judge if it has turned
> into a criminal matter. I had the opportunity to discuss a similar issue a
> few years back with a judge in LA Traffic. The Debtor's traffic matter was
> a misdemeanor and he was behind on his court ordered payments. He filed a
> 13 in Florida for the fine payments due. The Clerk's office did not know
> how (or care) to file a proof of claim (even though it is on the notice of
> the BK) so the clerk decided not to file a claim. Although the judge felt
> the Stay did not apply to the case because it was a criminal matter,
> the judge did not violate the Defendant/Debtor any further. I do not know
> how this case eventually concluded. I wonder if the fact that the
> Defendant was in Florida had anything to do with the judge not wanting to
> do anything further?
>
> Bert Kawahara
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* "bradweillaw@yahoo.com [cdcbaa]"
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 11:02 AM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Re: Drivers Licence and auto stay
>
>
> I understand moving violations maybe nondischargeable, however this is a
> Chapter 13 even nondischargeable debts are still to be paid through the
> plan. How can they get away with not filing a proof of claim and
> suspending her license?
>
>
>
>
This is also something I did not understand at the last CDCBAA meeting. Ignoring 525 and 106 for a second, why can't you put a provision in the Plan that forces the DMV to reinstate the license?Sincerely,Michael Avanesian, Esq.Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250Sherman Oaks, CA 91403Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725Confidentiality:This electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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 herein.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Bert Kawahara bertkawahara@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
362 does not apply to the continued enforcement actions by governmental agencies (or the criminal courts). I have no legal authority,butyou maybe abletoresolve the issue directly witha judge if it has turned into a criminal matter. I had the opportunity to discuss a similar issue a few years back with a judge in LA Traffic.The Debtor's traffic matter was a misdemeanor and he was behind on his court ordered payments. He filed a 13 in Florida for thefine payments due.f claim (even though it is on the notice of the BK) so the clerk decided not to file a claim.Although the judge felt the Stay did not apply to the case because itwas a criminal matter, thejudge did not violatetheDefendant/Debtor any further. I do not know how this case eventually concluded. I wonder if the fact that the Defendant was in Florida had anything to do with the judge not wanting to do anything further?
Bert Kawahara
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 11:02 AM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Drivers Licence and auto stay
s is a Chapter 13 even nondischargeable debts are still to be paid through the plan. How can they get away with not filing a proof of claim and
The post was migrated from Yahoo.