.jpg)
State Compensation Fund
Mark, I don't agree. What if client can't be insured by any other carrier
except state fund? Where is his fresh start? What I don't like is their
conditioning issuing a policy to a corporation not in existence at the time
of the Chapter 7 on client's payment of a debt incurred by him and
discharged in his C-7.
And I agree with Giovanni that since State Fund is a quasi-governmental
agency, they possibly have a 525(a) violation.
Are there any cases on point?
Gerry
Gerald McNally
McNally & Associates, P.C.
517 East Wilson Ave., Ste 104
Glendale, CA 91206
818.507.5100
Fax: 818.507.5001
Notice to Recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient of
the transmission and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this email in error, and review, use, dissemination, distribution
or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Please notify us
immediately of the error by return email and please delete this message and
any and all duplicates of this message from your system. Thank you in
advance for your cooperation.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements
imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax
advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended 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 herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Note, however, that State Fund is a quasi governmental insurer of last
resort for workers' comp -- while it's super expensive, employers often
have no other choice to get workers' comp coverage except State Fund.
Query if this would be tantamount to bankruptcy discrimination...
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:23 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Where is the attempt to collect the discharged debt that constitutes
> a violation of the discharge injunction? Why do you think the corporation
> has some inherent right to be issued insurance from State Fund that makes
> denial discriminatory treatment under Section 525(a)?
>
> Obviously the corporation is a different entity from the debtor, but I
> surmise because your client is the principal that State Fund does not want
> to risk being stuck with another loss from the debtor's potential financial
> mismanagement. State Fund has every right to decline issuing an
> insurance policy now based upon the prior loss. Sounds akin to applying
> to a credit card issuer for a new card after stiffing them for a loss in
> the prior Chapter 7. The credit issuer has every right to make a risk
> management analysis and decline the request. It's no different here with
> State Fund.
>
> The corporation should simply apply to other workers compensation carriers.
>
> 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)
>
>
> In a message dated 11/9/2015 4:19:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
>
>
> Listmates,
>
> Client filed Ch7 in 2010, obtained discharge from all personal liability
> including State Fund for $65k (who did receive notice)
>
> He recently incorporated (2011) and attempted to obtain workers comp
> insurance from the State Fund.
>
> They declined on the basis that he still owed the $65k!
>
> It seems to me theyre willfully violating 524(a)(3) and 525(a).
>
> Is there some reason they can make him pay before they give him insurance,
> or should I just file my motion for OSC.
>
> Whats been your collecti ve experience with them?
>
> Gerry
>
> [image: McNally Bus Card Smaller]
>
> Gerald McNally
>
> McNally & Associates, P.C.
>
> 517 East Wilson Ave., Ste 104
>
> Glendale, CA 91206
>
> 818.507.5100
>
> Fax: 818.507.5001
>
> Notice to Recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient
> of the transmission and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
> received this email in error, and review, use, dissemination, distribution
> or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Please notify us
> immediately of the error by return email and please delete this message and
> any and all duplicates of this message from your system. Thank you in
> advance for your cooperation.
>
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements
> imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended 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 herein.*
>
>
>
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
**Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal
Specialization*
*Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
*Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
Commercial Litigation
Estate Planning
Outside General Counsel
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
Note, however, that State Fund is a quasi governmental ins
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Where is the attempt to collect the discharged debt that constitutes a
violation of the discharge injunction? Why do you think the corporation has
some inherent right to be issued insurance from State Fund that makes denial
discriminatory treatment under Section 525(a)?
Obviously the corporation is a different entity from the debtor, but I
surmise because your client is the principal that State Fund does not want to
risk being stuck with another loss from the debtor's potential financial mismanagement. State Fund has every right to decline issuing an insurance
policy now based upon the prior loss. Sounds akin to applying to a
credit card issuer for a new card after stiffing them for a loss in the prior
Chapter 7. The credit issuer has every right to make a risk management
analysis and decline the request. It's no different here with State Fund.
The corporation should simply apply to other workers compensation carriers.
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)
In a message dated 11/9/2015 4:19:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
Listmates,
Client filed Ch7 in 2010, obtained discharge from all personal liability
including State Fund for $65k (who did receive notice)
He recently incorporated (2011) and attempted to obtain workers comp
insurance from the State Fund.
They declined on the basis that he still owed the $65k!
It seems to me theyre willfully violating 524(a)(3) and 525(a). Is there some reason they can make him pay before they give him insurance,or should I just file my motion for OSC.
Whats been your collecti ve experience with them?
Gerry
Gerald McNally
McNally & Associates, P.C.
517 East Wilson Ave., Ste 104
Glendale, CA 91206
818.507.5100
Fax: 818.507.5001
Notice to Recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipientof the transmission and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this email in error, and review, use, dissemination, distributionor copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Please notify us
immediately of the error by return email and please delete this message and any and
all duplicates of this message from your system. Thank you in advance foryour cooperation.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements
imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax
advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is notintended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
penalties under the Internal Revenue code or (ii) promoting, marketing orrecommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Where is the attempt to collect the discharged debt that constitutes
a violation of the discharge injunction? Why do you think the
corporation has some inherent right to be issued insurance from State Fund
that makes denial discriminatory treatment under Section 525(a)?
Obviously the corporation is a different entity from the debtor, but Isurmise because your client is the principal that State Fund does not want to
risk being stuck with another loss from the debtor's potential financial
mismanagement. State Fund has every right to decline issuing
an insurance policy now based upon the prior loss. Sounds akin
to applying to a credit card issuer for a new card after stiffing them
for a loss in the prior Chapter 7. The credit issuer has every right
to make a risk management analysis and decline the request. It's no
different here with State Fund.
The corporation should simply apply to other workers compensationcarriers.
Mark T.
JesseeLaw Offices of Mark T. Jessee"A Debt Relief Agency"50 W.Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200Thousand Oaks, CA 91360(805) 497-5868 (805)
497-5864 (Facsimile)
In a message dated 11/9/2015 4:19:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
Listmates,
Client filed Ch7 in 2010, obtained discharge from all
personal liability including State Fund for $65k (who did receive
notice)
He recently incorporated (2011) and attempted to obtain
workers comp insurance from the State Fund.
They declined on the basis that he still owed the
$65k!
It seems to me theyre willfully violating 524(a)(3) and
525(a).
Is there some reason they can make him pay before they give
him insurance, or should I just file my motion for OSC.
Whats been your collecti ve experience with them?
Gerry
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Listmates,
Client filed Ch7 in 2010, obtained discharge from all personal liability
including State Fund for $65k (who did receive notice)
He recently incorporated (2011) and attempted to obtain workers comp
insurance from the State Fund.
They declined on the basis that he still owed the $65k!
It seems to me they're willfully violating 524(a)(3) and 525(a).
Is there some reason they can make him pay before they give him insurance,
or should I just file my motion for OSC.
What's been your collective experience with them?
Gerry
Gerald McNally
McNally & Associates, P.C.
517 East Wilson Ave., Ste 104
Glendale, CA 91206
818.507.5100
Fax: 818.507.5001
Notice to Recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient of
the transmission and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this email in error, and review, use, dissemination, distribution
or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Please notify us
immediately of the error by return email and please delete this message and
any and all duplicates of this message from your system. Thank you in
advance for your cooperation.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements
imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax
advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended 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 herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.