.jpg)
Claim objection well past confirmation
I have seen the Chapter 13 Trustees file their comments to these motions to
disallow claims. The trustee will usually state that they do not oppose
such motions, but also do not want to be tasked with recovery of money
already distributed.
So, not only would you want your motion to be granted, but if you want
funds returned to the Estate, then you would go for turnover.
I've done this recently by a stipulation in Santa Ana whereby the Creditor
voluntarily agreed, and trustee also signed off on stipulation to turn over
the funds they received AFTER I had their claim thrown out.
I hope this helps.
Christine
Christine A. Kingston, Esq.
Law Office of Christine A. Kingston
5011 Argosy Avenue, Suite 3
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Office: 714-533-9210
Fax: 714-489-8150
Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Reply-To: Jay Fleischman
X-Original-Return-Path: Jay Fleischman
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: groups-system
A Chapter 13 case has come to me well after confirmation and I'm trying to
figure out a game plan.
Neither debtor nor debtor's counsel realized that there was a reason to
object to a Proof of Claim filed by an unsecured creditor in a Chapter 13
case that will pay out less than 100%.
It is useful to note that the unsecured creditor's claim will not be
discharged at the conclusion of the Plan.
Plan is confirmed, and unsecured creditor begins to receive payments under
the Plan.
It is later discovered that the entity that filed the claim is most
definitely NOT the entity to which the funds are owed.
There was no way that debtor's counsel could have known in the ordinary
course of practice that an objection to this particular Claim was warranted.
Questions based on that scenario:
1. What is the position of the Los Angeles judges with respect to an
objection to the Proof of Claim at this juncture?
2. In the event that the Claim objection is sustained, will the court order
the funds returned to the debtor or to the Chapter 13 Trustee? I suspect
the latter given that it is a Plan that does not pay 100%.
3. Does the answer to #2 change if this is a 36 month Plan with a negative
DMI on Form 22?
4. What is the position of the Los Angeles judges with respect to the award
of legal fees to the movant in such a situation?
Thanks in advance for any guidance.
Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
Pasadena CA 91105-2656
T: 626-888-3342
Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me by
email, you understand that it's not confidential.
A Chapter 13 case has come to me well after confirmation and I'm trying to figure out a game plan.Neither debtor nor debtor's counsel realized that there was a reason to object to a Proof of Claim filed by an unsecured creditor in a Chapter 13 case that will pay out less than 100%.It is useful to note that the unsecured creditor's claim will not be discharged at the conclusion of the Plan.Plan is confirmed, and unsecured creditor begins to receive payments under the Plan.It is later discovered that the entity that filed the claim is most definitely NOT the entity to which the funds are owed.There was no way that debtor's counsel could have known in the ordinary course of practice that an objection to this particular Claim was warranted.Questions based on that scenario:1. What is the position of the Los Angeles judges with respect to an objection to the Proof of Claim at this juncture?2. In the event that the Claim objection is sustained, will the court order the funds returned to the debtor or to the Chapter 13 Trustee? I suspect the latter given that it is a Plan that does not pay 100%.3. Does the answer to #2 change if this is a 36 month Plan with a negative DMI on Form 22?4. What is the position of the Los Angeles judges with respect to the award of legal fees to the movant in such a situation?Thanks in advance for any guidance.-------------Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
X-Original-Return-Path: Jay Fleischman
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: groups-system
A Chapter 13 case has come to me well after confirmation and I'm trying to
figure out a game plan.
Neither debtor nor debtor's counsel realized that there was a reason to
object to a Proof of Claim filed by an unsecured creditor in a Chapter 13
case that will pay out less than 100%.
It is useful to note that the unsecured creditor's claim will not be
discharged at the conclusion of the Plan.
Plan is confirmed, and unsecured creditor begins to receive payments under
the Plan.
It is later discovered that the entity that filed the claim is most
definitely NOT the entity to which the funds are owed.
There was no way that debtor's counsel could have known in the ordinary
course of practice that an objection to this particular Claim was warranted.
Questions based on that scenario:
1. What is the position of the Los Angeles judges with respect to an
objection to the Proof of Claim at this juncture?
2. In the event that the Claim objection is sustained, will the court order
the funds returned to the debtor or to the Chapter 13 Trustee? I suspect
the latter given that it is a Plan that does not pay 100%.
3. Does the answer to #2 change if this is a 36 month Plan with a negative
DMI on Form 22?
4. What is the position of the Los Angeles judges with respect to the award
of legal fees to the movant in such a situation?
Thanks in advance for any guidance.
Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
Pasadena CA 91105-2656
T: 626-888-3342
Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me by
email, you understand that it's not confidential.
A Chapter 13 case has come to me well after confirmation and I'm trying to figure out a game plan.Neither debtor nor debtor's counsel realized that there was a reason to object to a Proof of Claim filed by an unsecured creditor in a Chapter 13 case that will pay out less than 100%.It is useful to note that the unsecured creditor's claim will not be discharged at the conclusion of the Plan.Plan is confirmed, and unsecured creditor begins to receive payments under the Plan.It is later discovered that the entity that filed the claim is most definitely NOT the entity to which the funds are owed.There was no way that debtor's counsel could have known in the ordinary course of practice that an objection to this particular Claim was warranted.Questions based on that scenario:1. What is the position of the Los Angeles judges with respect to an objection to the Proof of Claim at this juncture?2. In the event that the Claim objection is sustained, will the court order the funds returned to the debtor or to the Chapter 13 Trustee? I suspect the latter given that it is a Plan that does not pay 100%.3. Does the answer to #2 change if this is a 36 month Plan with a negative DMI on Form 22?4. What is the position of the Los Angeles judges with respect to the award of legal fees to the movant in such a situation?Thanks in advance for any guidance.-------------Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
The post was migrated from Yahoo.