.jpg)
Judge Klein
I wonder whether the creditor has a valid bad faith argument re 521(a)(6)?
Peter M. Lively
Peter@petermlively.com
11268 Washington Blvd.
Suite 203
Culver City, CA 90230
www.petermlively.com
> On Mar 12, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Shannon Doyle wrote:
>
> No
>
>
>
> Shannon A. Doyle
>
> Attorney at Law
>
>
>
> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
>
> West Covina, CA 91791-1600
>
> Tel: (626) 646-2555
>
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
>
> www.borowitzclark.com
>
>
>
> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of this firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
>
>
>
>
>
Peter M. Lively
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:49 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Judge Klein [1 Attachment]
>
>
>
> Did debtor reaffirm the debt in Chapter 7 case?
>
>
>
> Peter M. Lively, J.D., M.B.A.
> Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
> 11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
> Telephone: (310) 391-2400 * Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:00 AM, Shannon Doyle wrote:
>
>
>
> Debtor filed a Ch7 and obtain a discharge in August 2013. One day before her discharge was entered she filed a Ch13 and is trying to cram down her vehicle. The auto lender filed a claim for the full balance of the loan. Do you know if Judge Klein will allow debtor to cram down the vehicle and pay 0% on the unsecured portion given that she is not entitled to a discharge in the Chapter 13?
>
>
>
> Shannon A. Doyle
>
> Attorney at Law
>
>
>
> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
>
> West Covina, CA 91791-1600
>
> Tel: (626) 646-2555
>
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
>
> www.borowitzclark.com
>
>
>
> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of this firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I don't think so, since she follows Victorio v. Billingslea 454 B.R. 759
(Bankr. S.D. Cal. July 8, 2011). Victorio was a "Chapter 20" case where
debtor tried to strip off a wholly unsecured second lien and the court did
not allow it. The reasoning was that allowing the strip off would result
in a de facto discharge, in violation of 1328(f).
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014, Shannon Doyle wrote:
>
>
> Debtor filed a Ch7 and obtain a discharge in August 2013. One day before
> her discharge was entered she filed a Ch13 and is trying to cram down her
> vehicle. The auto lender filed a claim for the full balance of the loan. Do
> you know if Judge Klein will allow debtor to cram down the vehicle and pay
> 0% on the unsecured portion given that she is not entitled to a discharge
> in the Chapter 13?
>
>
>
> Shannon A. Doyle
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> [image: small logo]
>
> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
>
> West Covina, CA 91791-1600
>
> Tel: (626) 646-2555
>
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
>
> www.borowitzclark.com
>
>
>
> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If
> you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
> delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
> message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and
> kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you
> or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this
> kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do
> not relate to the official business of this firm shall be understood as
> neither given nor endorsed by it.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department
> Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any
> federal tax advice contained in this communication was not intended or
> written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
> tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
> or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Clifford Bordeaux
Bordeaux Law, P.C.
3731 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90010
T: 323-762-5529
T: 626-405-2345
F: 626-628-1820
E: cliff@bordeauxlaw.com
I don't think so, since she follows Victorio v. Billingslea 454 B.R. 759 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. July 8, 2011). Victorio was a "Chapter 20" case where debtor tried to strip off a wholly unsecured second lien and the court did not allow it. The reasoning was that allowing the strip off would result in a de facto discharge, in violation of 1328(f).
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014, Shannon Doyle <sad@blclaw.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I don't believe so... As far as I know, Klein is the only judge in LA or
SFV who is on record in support of the Victorio holding. There is a 4th
Circuit opinion, Branigan v. Davis (4th Cir., 2013), which allowed the Ch
20 lien strip. I think that is the latest circuit court opinion on the
subject. In Branigan, the court gave this description of the split:
"Bankruptcy courts are split on whether a debtor may strip off liens in a
Chapter 20 case. Compare In re Fisette, 455 B.R. 177 (BAP 8th Cir. 2011)
(concluding a Chapter 20 debtor may strip off liens), and In re Dang, 467
B.R. 227 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012) (same), and In re Okosisi, 451 B.R. 90
(Bankr. D. Nev. 2011) (same), and In re Tran, 431 B.R. 230, 237 (Bankr.
N.D. Cal. 2010) (same), with In re Gerardin, 447 B.R. 342 (Bankr. S.D. Fla.
2011) (holding that Chapter 20 debtors could not permanently strip off
wholly unsecured junior liens), and In re Victorio, 454 B.R. 759 (Bankr.
S.D. Cal. 2011) (same), and In re Fenn, 428 B.R. 494 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.
2010) (same), and In re Jarvis, 390 B.R. 600 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2008)
(same)." Branigan v. Davis, at p. 10.
So we have four bankruptcy courts in favor (one in CA, outside CD), four
bankruptcy courts against (one in CA, outside of CD). Not sure about this,
but I think Branigan is the only appellate case on point.
Clifford Bordeaux
Bordeaux Law, P.C.
3731 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90010
T: 323-762-5529
T: 626-405-2345
F: 626-628-1820
E: cliff@bordeauxlaw.com
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Stella Havkin wrote:
>
>
> Does Brandt follow it also?
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Clifford Bordeaux
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 12, 2014 6:12 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Judge Klein
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't think so, since she follows Victorio v. Billingslea 454 B.R. 759
> (Bankr. S.D. Cal. July 8, 2011). Victorio was a "Chapter 20" case where
> debtor tried to strip off a wholly unsecured second lien and the court did
> not allow it. The reasoning was that allowing the strip off would result
> in a de facto discharge, in violation of 1328(f).
>
> On Tuesday, March 11, 2014, Shannon Doyle wrote:
>
>
>
> Debtor filed a Ch7 and obtain a discharge in August 2013. One day before
> her discharge was entered she filed a Ch13 and is trying to cram down her
> vehicle. The auto lender filed a claim for the full balance of the loan. Do
> you know if Judge Klein will allow debtor to cram down the vehicle and pay
> 0% on the unsecured portion given that she is not entitled to a discharge
> in the Chapter 13?
>
>
>
> Shannon A. Doyle
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> [image: small logo]
>
> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
>
> West Covina, CA 91791-1600
>
> Tel: (626) 646-2555
>
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
>
> www.borowitzclark.com
>
>
>
> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If
> you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
> delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
> message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and
> kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you
> or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this
> kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do
> not relate to the official business of this firm shall be understood as
> neither given nor endorsed by it.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department
> Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any
> federal tax advice contained in this communication was not intended or
> written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
> tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
> or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Clifford Bordeaux
> Bordeaux Law, P.C.
> 3731 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
>
> T: 323-762-5529
>
> T: 626-405-2345
>
> F: 626-628-1820
>
> E: cliff@bordeauxlaw.com
>
>
>
>
>
I don't believe so... As far as I know, Klein is the only judge in LA or SFV who is on record in support of the Victorio holding. There is a 4th Circuit opinion, Branigan v. Davis (4th Cir., 2013), which allowed the Ch 20 lien strip. I think that is the latest circuit court opinion on the subject. In Branigan, the court gave this description of the split:
"Bankruptcy courts are split on whether a debtor may strip off liens in a Chapter 20 case. Compare In re Fisette, 455 B.R. 177 (BAP 8th Cir. 2011) (concluding a Chapter 20 debtor may strip off liens), and In re Dang, 467 B.R. 227 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012) (same), and In re Okosisi, 451 B.R. 90 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2011) (same), and In re Tran, 431 B.R. 230, 237 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (same), with In re Gerardin, 447 B.R. 342 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2011) (holding that Chapter 20 debtors could not permanently strip off wholly unsecured junior liens), and In re Victorio, 454 B.R. 759 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2011) (same), and In re Fenn, 428 B.R. 494 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2010) (same), and In re Jarvis, 390 B.R. 600 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2008) (same)." Branigan v. Davis, at p. 10.
So we have four bankruptcy courts in favor (one in CA, outside CD), four bankruptcy courts against (one in CA, outside of CD). Not sure about this, but I think Branigan is the only appellate case on point.
Clifford BordeauxBordeaux Law, P.C.3731 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600Los Angeles, CA 90010T: 323-762-5529
T: 626-405-2345F: 626-628-1820
E: cliff@bordeauxlaw.com
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Stella Havkin <havkinlaw@earthlink.net> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I don't think so, since she follows Victorio v. Billingslea 454 B.R. 759
(Bankr. S.D. Cal. July 8, 2011). Victorio was a "Chapter 20" case where
debtor tried to strip off a wholly unsecured second lien and the court did
not allow it. The reasoning was that allowing the strip off would result
in a de facto discharge, in violation of 1328(f).
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014, Shannon Doyle wrote:
>
>
> Debtor filed a Ch7 and obtain a discharge in August 2013. One day before
> her discharge was entered she filed a Ch13 and is trying to cram down her
> vehicle. The auto lender filed a claim for the full balance of the loan. Do
> you know if Judge Klein will allow debtor to cram down the vehicle and pay
> 0% on the unsecured portion given that she is not entitled to a discharge
> in the Chapter 13?
>
>
>
> Shannon A. Doyle
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> [image: small logo]
>
> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
>
> West Covina, CA 91791-1600
>
> Tel: (626) 646-2555
>
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
>
> www.borowitzclark.com
>
>
>
> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If
> you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
> delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
> message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and
> kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you
> or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this
> kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do
> not relate to the official business of this firm shall be understood as
> neither given nor endorsed by it.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department
> Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any
> federal tax advice contained in this communication was not intended or
> written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
> tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
> or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Clifford Bordeaux
Bordeaux Law, P.C.
3731 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90010
T: 323-762-5529
T: 626-405-2345
F: 626-628-1820
E: cliff@bordeauxlaw.com
I don't think so, since she follows Victorio v. Billingslea 454 B.R. 759 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. July 8, 2011). Victorio was a "Chapter 20" case where debtor tried to strip off a wholly unsecured second lien and the court did not allow it. The reasoning was that allowing the strip off would result in a de facto discharge, in violation of 1328(f).
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014, Shannon Doyle <sad@blclaw.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Did debtor reaffirm the debt in Chapter 7 case?
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:00 AM, Shannon Doyle wrote:
Debtor filed a Ch7 and obtain a discharge in August 2013. One day before her discharge was entered she filed a Ch13 and is trying to cram down her vehicle. The auto lender filed a claim for the full balance of the loan. Do you know if Judge Klein will allow debtor to cram down the vehicle and pay 0% on the unsecured portion given that she is not entitled to a discharge in the Chapter 13?
Shannon A. Doyle
Attorney at Law
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791-1600
Tel: (626) 646-2555
Fax: (626) 332-8644
www.borowitzclark.com
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. relate to the official business of this firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Debtor filed a Ch7 and obtain a discharge in August 2013. One day before
her discharge was entered she filed a Ch13 and is trying to cram down her
vehicle. The auto lender filed a claim for the full balance of the loan. Do
you know if Judge Klein will allow debtor to cram down the vehicle and pay
0% on the unsecured portion given that she is not entitled to a discharge
in the Chapter 13?
Shannon A. Doyle
Attorney at Law
[image: small logo]
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791-1600
Tel: (626) 646-2555
Fax: (626) 332-8644
www.borowitzclark.com
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If
you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and
kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you
or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this
kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do
not relate to the official business of this firm shall be understood as
neither given nor endorsed by it.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department
Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any
federal tax advice contained in this communication was not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.