.jpg)
Proof of Claim and Adversary Proceedings, chicken before the egg
The adv is to allow one to collect outside of bk. The claim is to participate in the case.
Obj to claim as late will not resolve ap.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Dec 18, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Link Schrader wrote:
>
> I would consider if the AP was filed before the claims bar date. If so, debtor was at least on notice of the claim. Also, the law "abhors a forfeiture" so I suggest considering the merits of the AP before diving too hard into attacking the late filed claim.
>
> You might list the late filed claim as one of the defendants affirmative defenses and then proceed to object to the claim. If the claim is disallowed, then that would seem to resolve the AP.
>
> Link Schrader, Attorney
>
> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
>
> P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
>
> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
>
> Fax: (310) 878-4158; www.schrader-law.com
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Stephen Mark wrote:
>>
>> Lawyer timely filed Adversary Proceeding in Ch. 7 case, but did not timely file a proof of claim. Lawyer can now file a motion for a tardy proof of claim but must show excusable neglect and no unfairness to the debtor, Does anyone have experience as to whether the AP will be dismissed or impacted if the court denies the motions?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Stephen M. Stern, Esq.
>> (805) 543-5297
>
>
> Link Schrader, Attorney
> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
> Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
> Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana,
> CA 92701
> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
> San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
> www.schrader-law.com
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
On Dec 18, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Link Schrader <lschrader@schrader-law.com> wrote:
I would consider if the AP was filed before the claims bar date. If so, debtor was at least on notice of the claim. Also, the law "abhors a forfeiture" so I suggest considering the merits of the AP before diving too hard into attacking the late filed claim.
You might list the late filed claim as one of the defendants affirmative defenses and then proceed to object to the claim. If the claim is disallowed, then that would seem to resolve the AP.
Link Schrader, Attorney
Law Office of Link W. Schrader
P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
Fax: (310) 878-4158; www.schrader-law.com
_______________________________________
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Timelines of filing a proof of claim has nothing to do with whether the
debt is excepted from discharge in an adversary proceeding. The timelines of
the proof of claim merely allows the creditor to participate in the
distribution through the Chapter 13 plan. If this is a disputed debt, that is
one thing, but if the debtor knows the debt will be excepted from discharge
then it is to the debtor's benefit to have that creditor included in the
plan. Either do not object to the late filed claim or file one on behalf of
the creditor if still within the 30 day window.
Mark T. Jessee
Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
"A Debt Relief Agency"
50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENTOF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY
LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE
NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THISMESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
In a message dated 12/18/2013 3:12:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
lschrader@schrader-law.com writes:
I would consider if the AP was filed before the claims bar date. If so,
debtor was at least on notice of the claim. Also, the law "abhors a
forfeiture" so I suggest considering the merits of the AP before diving too hard
into attacking the late filed claim.
You might list the late filed claim as one of the defendants affirmative defenses and then proceed to object to the claim. If the claim is
disallowed, then that would seem to resolve the AP.
Link Schrader, Attorney
Law Office of Link W. Schrader
P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
Fax: (310) 878-4158; _www.schrader-law.com_ (http://www.schrader-law.com/)
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Lawyer timely filed Adversary Proceeding in Ch. 7 case, but did not timely file a proof of claim. Lawyer can now file a motion for a tardy proof of claim but must show excusable neglect and no unfairness to the debtor, Does anyone have experience as to whether the AP will be dismissed or impacted if the court denies the motions?
Thank you.
Stephen M. Stern, Esq.
(805) 543-5297
The post was migrated from Yahoo.