.jpg)
Ford Motor Credit: Wants to Repossess after Order
If the car loan isn't in the debtor's best interests, the lawyer shouldn't
sign it. I've found that it's a far better idea to redeem out of a pension
loan or, worst-case scenario, 727 Redemption Funding than remain with the
pre-bankruptcy lender.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I never sign the reaffirmations and did not sign this one. Debtor attended
the reaffirmation hearing and did not request a dismissal, but rather told
the judge that the agreement was not in their best interest as the reason
they wanted the court to deny the agreement.
Thanks, Christine
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Link W. Schrader wrote:
> **
>
>
> **
> Christine,
>
> From what you describe it does not sound like the order was in error. The
> court granted the relief the debtors' requested.
>
> If you have reviewed the RA, sign the attorney's certification and check
> the box on the front page that there is no presumption of undue harI dship,
> then no hearing is required. Refiling a correct RA would be the easiest way
> to go. No order is required on such a RA. However, you might need to
> request the court vacate its prior order.
>
>
> Link W. Schrader, Attorney
> lschrader@schrader-law.com
> Mail: PO Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
> Office: 106 W 4th St, #308, Santa Ana, CA 92701
>
> Orange County: (714) 542-5922
> Los Angeles: (310) 413-6924 *
> San Diego: (619) 952-8342
> Facsimile: (310) 878-4158
> * Texts received at LA number only
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *To*: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Cc*: Maggie Bordeaux
> *Sent*: Fri Sep 07 13:46:13 2012
>
> *Subject*: Re: [cdcbaa] Ford Motor Credit: Wants to Repossess after Order
> Denying Reaffirmation Due to "Debtor Voluntarily Dismissed Motion?"
>
>
>
> I just spoke to Maggie Bordeaux at length on this issue. My client
> insists that they asked the court to Deny the reaffirmation because it was
> NOT in their Best Interest and that they Never asked the Judge to dismiss
> the motion.
>
>
> So, I have a call into Judge Russell's clerk to request a corrected
> Order. I also have a call into Ford Credit's counsel Ben Gage to see if we
> can call off the repo dogs.
>
> Thanks again for the quick feedback.
>
> Christine
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Link W. Schrader lschrader@schrader-law.com> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> There is a case (I cant recall) where a federal court said that no
>> federal law prohibited a creditor from repossessing a vehicle if the debtor
>> did not reaffirm in bankruptcy... even if the debtor was current on all the
>> payments. So far as I know the issue has not been decided under California
>> law.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *Link Schrader, Attorney*
>>
>> Law Office of Link W. Schrader****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
>> Behalf Of *Christine Wilton
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 07, 2012 11:09 AM
>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Ford Motor Credit: Wants to Repossess after
>> Order Denying Reaffirmation Due to "Debtor Voluntarily Dismissed Motion?"
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Thanks for the quick feedback. Yes, I understand from others that Ford
>> Motor Credit does in fact have an Ipso Facto clause that bankruptcy equals
>> a default.
>>
>> I'll check with my client on the conversation they had with the judge and
>> put a call in to chambers. I'm not sure procedurally how a Debtor can
>> Dismiss a Motion filed by the Creditor and why that box is even on the
>> Order.
>>
>> ****
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Ask your client if he did, in fact, dismiss the motion. If he didn't,
>> call chambers and tell them the order is incorrect and ask them to reissue
>> it with the correct language and explain the urgency of it. If the Judge
>> does not want to do it that way, you may need to file a motion to clarify
>> order under the FRCP 59 equivalent (i.e., 9023). There are other things to
>> look out for. For example, does the purchase agreement actually have a
>> clause that bankrutpcy is an event of default. If not, then Ford cannot
>> repossess - though I believe Ford's contract does usually have such
>> otherwise ipso facto clause. Also, I believe there are estoppel issues
>> involving acceptance of payments, etc. Ultimately, the order may need to
>> be fixed.****
>>
>> --****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
>> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
>> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
>> Los Angeles, CA 90010
>> Tel: (213) 389-4362
>> Fax: (877) 789-5776
>> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
>> website: www.gobklaw.com
>>
>> ****
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christine A. Wilton, Esq.
>> Law Office of Christine A. Wilton
>>
>> *Office:*
>> 5150 Candlewood Street, Suite 17F
>> Lakewood, CA 90712
>>
>> *Mailing:*
>> 4067 Hardwick Street, Suite 335
>> Lakewood, CA 90712
>>
>> Office: 877-631-2220
>> Cell: 562-824-7563
>> Fax: 1-636-212-7078
>> Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
>> Web: www.attorneychristine.com
>> Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
>> ***************************
>> Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including
>> attachments, is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and
>> may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
>> review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone
>> other than the intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any
>> ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may
>> apply to this communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please
>> contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
>> message.
>>
>> Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice
>> contained in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to
>> and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax
>> penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has
>> been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ****
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Christine A. Wilton, Esq.
> Law Office of Christine A. Wilton
>
> *Office:*
> 5150 Candlewood Street, Suite 17F
> Lakewood, CA 90712
>
> *Mailing:*
> 4067 Hardwick Street, Suite 335
> Lakewood, CA 90712
>
> Office: 877-631-2220
> Cell: 562-824-7563
> Fax: 1-636-212-7078
> Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
> Web: www.attorneychristine.com
> Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
> ***************************
> Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments,
> is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the
> intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT
> PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this
> communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained
> in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot
> be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may
> be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant
> to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
>
>
>
Christine A. Wilton, Esq.
Law Office of Christine A. Wilton
*Office:*
5150 Candlewood Street, Suite 17F
Lakewood, CA 90712
*Mailing:*
4067 Hardwick Street, Suite 335
Lakewood, CA 90712
Office: 877-631-2220
Cell: 562-824-7563
Fax: 1-636-212-7078
Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
Web: www.attorneychristine.com
Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
***************************
Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments,
is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the
intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this
communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained
in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot
be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may
be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant
to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
I never sign the reaffirmations and did not sign this one. Debtor attended the reaffirmation hearing and did not request a dismissal, but rather told the judge that the agreement was not in their best interest as the reason they wanted the court to deny the agreement.
Thanks, ChristineOn Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Link W. Schrader <lschrader@schrader-law.com> wrote:
Christine,From what you describe it does not sound like the order was in error. The court granted the relief the debtors' requested.If you have reviewed the RA, sign the attorney's certification and check the box on the front page that there is no presumption of undue harI dship, then no hearing is required. Refiling a correct RA would be the easiest way to go. No order is required on such a RA. However, you might need to request the court vacate its prior order.
Link W. Schrader, Attorney
lschrader@schrader-law.com
Mail: PO Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
Office: 106 W 4th St, #308, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Orange County: (714) 542-5922
Los Angeles: (310) 413-6924 *
San Diego: (619) 952-8342
Facsimile: (310) 878-4158
* Texts received at LA number only
From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: Maggie Bordeaux <mbordeaux@publiccounsel.org>
Sent: Fri Sep 07 13:46:13 2012Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Ford Motor Credit: Wants to Repossess after Order Denying Reaffirmation Due to "Debtor Voluntarily Dismissed Motion?"
I just spoke to Maggie Bordeaux at length on this issue. My client insists that they asked the court to Deny the reaffirmation because it was NOT in their Best Interest and that they Never asked the Judge to dismiss the motion.
So, I have a call into Judge Russell's clerk to request a corrected Order. I also have a call into Ford Credit's counsel Ben Gage to see if we can call off the repo dogs. Thanks again for the quick feedback.
ChristineOn Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Link W. Schrader <lschrader@schrader-law.com> wrote:
There is a case (I cant recall) where a federal court said that no federal law prohibited a creditor from repossessing a vehicle if the debtor did not reaffirm in bankruptcy... even if the debtor was current on all the payments. So far as I know the issue has not been decided under California law.
Link Schrader, AttorneyLaw Office of Link W. Schrader
From:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thanks Peter. Maggie and I are in communication on this. I'll keep the
group posted on the outcome.
Christine
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Peter M. Lively wrote:
> **
>
> [Attachment(s) from Peter M. Lively included
> below]
>
> Maggie at Public Counsel was looking for this fact pattern. I believe
> that the creditor is prohibited from repossession, despite denial of the
> reaffirmation agreement, provided that the debtor took all of the required
> steps to reaffirm. I'm attaching my analysis of the issue prepared for
> an MCLE we presented earlier this year; there are a couple typos where I
> wrote foreclosure when I should have written repossesion (thanks to Jim
> King for catching those).
>
> 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
>
> *From:* Link W. Schrader
> *To:* "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
> *Sent:* Friday, September 7, 2012 11:19 AM
> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] Ford Motor Credit: Wants to Repossess after Order
> Denying Reaffirmation Due to "Debtor Voluntarily Dismissed Motion?"
>
>
> There is a case (I cant recall) where a federal court said that no
> federal law prohibited a creditor from repossessing a vehicle if the debtor
> did not reaffirm in bankruptcy... even if the debtor was current on all the
> payments. So far as I know the issue has not been decided under California
> law.
>
> *Link Schrader, Attorney*
> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Christine Wilton
> *Sent:* Friday, September 07, 2012 11:09 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Ford Motor Credit: Wants to Repossess after Order
> Denying Reaffirmation Due to "Debtor Voluntarily Dismissed Motion?"
>
>
> Thanks for the quick feedback. Yes, I understand from others that Ford
> Motor Credit does in fact have an Ipso Facto clause that bankruptcy equals
> a default.
>
> I'll check with my client on the conversation they had with the judge and
> put a call in to chambers. I'm not sure procedurally how a Debtor can
> Dismiss a Motion filed by the Creditor and why that box is even on the
> Order.
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
>
> Ask your client if he did, in fact, dismiss the motion. If he didn't,
> call chambers and tell them the order is incorrect and ask them to reissue
> it with the correct language and explain the urgency of it. If the Judge
> does not want to do it that way, you may need to file a motion to clarify
> order under the FRCP 59 equivalent (i.e., 9023). There are other things to
> look out for. For example, does the purchase agreement actually have a
> clause that bankrutpcy is an event of default. If not, then Ford cannot
> repossess - though I believe Ford's contract does usually have such
> otherwise ipso facto clause. Also, I believe there are estoppel issues
> involving acceptance of payments, etc. Ultimately, the order may need to
> be fixed.
> --
>
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: http://www.gobklaw.com/
>
>
>
>
> --
> Christine A. Wilton, Esq.
> Law Office of Christine A. Wilton
>
> *Office:*
> 5150 Candlewood Street, Suite 17F
> Lakewood, CA 90712
>
> *Mailing:*
> 4067 Hardwick Street, Suite 335
> Lakewood, CA 90712
>
> Office: 877-631-2220
> Cell: 562-824-7563
> Fax: 1-636-212-7078
> Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
> Web: http://www.attorneychristine.com/
> Blog: http://www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com/
>
> ***************************
> Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments,
> is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the
> intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT
> PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this
> communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained
> in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot
> be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may
> be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant
> to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
>
>
>
>
>
Christine A. Wilton, Esq.
Law Office of Christine A. Wilton
*Office:*
5150 Candlewood Street, Suite 17F
Lakewood, CA 90712
*Mailing:*
4067 Hardwick Street, Suite 335
Lakewood, CA 90712
Office: 877-631-2220
Cell: 562-824-7563
Fax: 1-636-212-7078
Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
Web: www.attorneychristine.com
Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
***************************
Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments,
is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the
intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this
communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained
in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot
be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may
be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant
to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
Thanks Peter. Maggie and I are in communication on this. I'll keep the group posted on the outcome.ChristineOn Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Peter M. Lively <petermlively2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
[Attachment(s) from Peter M. Lively included below]
Maggie at Public Counsel was looking for this fact pattern. I believe that the creditor is prohibited from repossession, despite denial of the reaffirmation agreement, provided that the debtor took all of the required steps to reaffirm. I'm attaching my analysis of the issue prepared for an MCLE we presented earlier this year; there are a couple typos where I wrote foreclosure when I should have written repossesion (thanks to Jim King for catching those).
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
From: Link W. Schrader <lschrader@schrader-law.com> To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com" <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2012 11:19 AM Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Ford Motor Credit: Wants to Repossess after Order Denying Reaffirmation Due to "Debtor Voluntarily Dismissed Motion?"
There is a case (I caneditor from repossessing a vehicle if the debtor did not reaffirm in bankruptcy... even if the debtor was current on all the payments. So far as I know the issue has not been decided under California law.
Link Schrader, AttorneyLaw Office of Link W. Schrader
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I just spoke to Maggie Bordeaux at length on this issue. My client insists
that they asked the court to Deny the reaffirmation because it was NOT in
their Best Interest and that they Never asked the Judge to dismiss the
motion.
So, I have a call into Judge Russell's clerk to request a corrected Order.
I also have a call into Ford Credit's counsel Ben Gage to see if we can
call off the repo dogs.
Thanks again for the quick feedback.
Christine
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Link W. Schrader wrote:
> **
>
>
> There is a case (I cant recall) where a federal court said that no
> federal law prohibited a creditor from repossessing a vehicle if the debtor
> did not reaffirm in bankruptcy... even if the debtor was current on all the
> payments. So far as I know the issue has not been decided under California
> law.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Link Schrader, Attorney*
>
> Law Office of Link W. Schrader****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Christine Wilton
> *Sent:* Friday, September 07, 2012 11:09 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Ford Motor Credit: Wants to Repossess after Order
> Denying Reaffirmation Due to "Debtor Voluntarily Dismissed Motion?"****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> Thanks for the quick feedback. Yes, I understand from others that Ford
> Motor Credit does in fact have an Ipso Facto clause that bankruptcy equals
> a default.
>
> I'll check with my client on the conversation they had with the judge and
> put a call in to chambers. I'm not sure procedurally how a Debtor can
> Dismiss a Motion filed by the Creditor and why that box is even on the
> Order.
>
> ****
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:*
> ***
>
> ****
>
> Ask your client if he did, in fact, dismiss the motion. If he didn't,
> call chambers and tell them the order is incorrect and ask them to reissue
> it with the correct language and explain the urgency of it. If the Judge
> does not want to do it that way, you may need to file a motion to clarify
> order under the FRCP 59 equivalent (i.e., 9023). There are other things to
> look out for. For example, does the purchase agreement actually have a
> clause that bankrutpcy is an event of default. If not, then Ford cannot
> repossess - though I believe Ford's contract does usually have such
> otherwise ipso facto clause. Also, I believe there are estoppel issues
> involving acceptance of payments, etc. Ultimately, the order may need to
> be fixed.****
>
> --****
>
> ****
>
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> ****
>
>
>
>
> --
> Christine A. Wilton, Esq.
> Law Office of Christine A. Wilton
>
> *Office:*
> 5150 Candlewood Street, Suite 17F
> Lakewood, CA 90712
>
> *Mailing:*
> 4067 Hardwick Street, Suite 335
> Lakewood, CA 90712
>
> Office: 877-631-2220
> Cell: 562-824-7563
> Fax: 1-636-212-7078
> Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
> Web: www.attorneychristine.com
> Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
> ***************************
> Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments,
> is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the
> intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT
> PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this
> communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained
> in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot
> be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may
> be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant
> to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.) ****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
>
>
Christine A. Wilton, Esq.
Law Office of Christine A. Wilton
*Office:*
5150 Candlewood Street, Suite 17F
Lakewood, CA 90712
*Mailing:*
4067 Hardwick Street, Suite 335
Lakewood, CA 90712
Office: 877-631-2220
Cell: 562-824-7563
Fax: 1-636-212-7078
Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
Web: www.attorneychristine.com
Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
***************************
Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments,
is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the
intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this
communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained
in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot
be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may
be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant
to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
I just spoke to Maggie Bordeaux at length on this issue. My client insists that they asked the court to Deny the reaffirmation because it was NOT in their Best Interest and that they Never asked the Judge to dismiss the motion.
So, I have a call into Judge Russell's clerk to request a corrected Order. I also have a call into Ford Credit's counsel Ben Gage to see if we can call off the repo dogs. Thanks again for the quick feedback.
ChristineOn Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Link W. Schrader <lschrader@schrader-law.com> wrote:
There is a case (I cant recall) where a federal court said that no federal law prohibited a creditor from repossessing a vehicle if the debtor did not reaffirm in bankruptcy... even if the debtor was current on all the payments. So far as I know the issue has not been decided under California law.
Link Schrader, AttorneyLaw Office of Link W. Schrader
From:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
There is a case (I can't recall) where a federal court said that no federal law prohibited a creditor from repossessing a vehicle if the debtor did not reaffirm in bankruptcy... even if the debtor was current on all the payments. So far as I know the issue has not been decided under California law.
Link Schrader, Attorney
Law Office of Link W. Schrader
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thanks for the quick feedback. Yes, I understand from others that Ford
Motor Credit does in fact have an Ipso Facto clause that bankruptcy equals
a default.
I'll check with my client on the conversation they had with the judge and
put a call in to chambers. I'm not sure procedurally how a Debtor can
Dismiss a Motion filed by the Creditor and why that box is even on the
Order.
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
> **
>
>
> Ask your client if he did, in fact, dismiss the motion. If he didn't,
> call chambers and tell them the order is incorrect and ask them to reissue
> it with the correct language and explain the urgency of it. If the Judge
> does not want to do it that way, you may need to file a motion to clarify
> order under the FRCP 59 equivalent (i.e., 9023). There are other things to
> look out for. For example, does the purchase agreement actually have a
> clause that bankrutpcy is an event of default. If not, then Ford cannot
> repossess - though I believe Ford's contract does usually have such
> otherwise ipso facto clause. Also, I believe there are estoppel issues
> involving acceptance of payments, etc. Ultimately, the order may need to
> be fixed.
>
> --
>
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
>
>
>
Christine A. Wilton, Esq.
Law Office of Christine A. Wilton
*Office:*
5150 Candlewood Street, Suite 17F
Lakewood, CA 90712
*Mailing:*
4067 Hardwick Street, Suite 335
Lakewood, CA 90712
Office: 877-631-2220
Cell: 562-824-7563
Fax: 1-636-212-7078
Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
Web: www.attorneychristine.com
Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
***************************
Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments,
is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the
intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this
communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained
in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot
be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may
be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant
to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
Thanks for the quick feedback. Yes, I understand from others that Ford Motor Credit does in fact have an Ipso Facto clause that bankruptcy equals a default.I'll check with my client on the conversation they had with the judge and put a call in to chambers. I'm not sure procedurally how a Debtor can Dismiss a Motion filed by the Creditor and why that box is even on the Order.
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Giovanni Orantes <go@gobklaw.com> wrote:
Ask your client if he did, in fact, dismiss the motion. If he didn't, call chambers and tell them the order is incorrect and ask them to reissue it with the correct language and explain the urgency of it. If the Judge does not want to do it that way, you may need to file a motion to clarify order under the FRCP 59 equivalent (i.e., 9023). There are other things to look out for. For example, does the purchase agreement actually have a clause that bankrutpcy is an event of default. If not, then Ford cannot repossess - though I believe Ford's contract does usually have such otherwise ipso facto clause. Also, I believe there are estoppel issues involving acceptance of payments, etc. Ultimately, the order may need to be fixed.
--Giovanni Orantes, Esq. Orantes Law Firm, P.C.3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980Los Angeles, CA 90010Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776e-mail: go@gobklaw.comwebsite: www.gobklaw.com
-- Christine A. Wilton, Esq.Law Office of Christine A. WiltonOffice:5150 Candlewood Street, Suite 17FLakewood, CA 90712Mailing:
4067 Hardwick Street, Suite 335Lakewood, CA 90712Office: 877-631-2220Cell: 562-824-7563Fax: 1-636-212-7078Email:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Ask your client if he did, in fact, dismiss the motion. If he didn't, call
chambers and tell them the order is incorrect and ask them to reissue it
with the correct language and explain the urgency of it. If the Judge does
not want to do it that way, you may need to file a motion to clarify order
under the FRCP 59 equivalent (i.e., 9023). There are other things to look
out for. For example, does the purchase agreement actually have a clause
that bankrutpcy is an event of default. If not, then Ford cannot repossess
- though I believe Ford's contract does usually have such otherwise ipso
facto clause. Also, I believe there are estoppel issues involving
acceptance of payments, etc. Ultimately, the order may need to be fixed.
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
Ask your client if he did, in fact, dismiss the motion. If he didn't, call chambers and tell them the order is incorrect and ask them to reissue it with the correct language and explain the urgency of it. If the Judge does not want to do it that way, you may need to file a motion to clarify order under the FRCP 59 equivalent (i.e., 9023). There are other things to look out for. For example, does the purchase agreement actually have a clause that bankrutpcy is an event of default. If not, then Ford cannot repossess - though I believe Ford's contract does usually have such otherwise ipso facto clause. Also, I believe there are estoppel issues involving acceptance of payments, etc. Ultimately, the order may need to be fixed.
--Giovanni Orantes, Esq. Orantes Law Firm, P.C.3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980Los Angeles, CA 90010Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776e-mail: go@gobklaw.comwebsite: www.gobklaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
You might want to check CA state law on this one. Not sure they have the
right repossess assuming debtor is current.
On Sep 7, 2012 10:18 AM, "Christine Wilton"
wrote:
> **
>
> [Attachment(s) from Christine Wilton
> included below]
>
> Ford Motor Credit just called Debtors requesting to repossess their
> vehicle where:
>
> 1. Statement of Intent was to: Keep and Reaffirm
> 2. Debtor Executed a Reaffirmation Agreement
> 3. Ford Motor Credit Filed the Motion to Approve
> 4. Debtor appeared at the hearing; and Court Order Denying Motion says
> Debtor dismissed motion????
>
> Now Ford wants to repo my client's vehicle. I already put a call in to
> Maggie at Public Counsel on this one, but does anyone have any experience
> to help me STOP them from repossessing my client's car?
>
> Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
>
> --
> Christine A. Wilton, Esq.
> Law Office of Christine A. Wilton
>
> *Office:*
> 5150 Candlewood Street, Suite 17F
> Lakewood, CA 90712
>
> *Mailing:*
> 4067 Hardwick Street, Suite 335
> Lakewood, CA 90712
>
> Office: 877-631-2220
> Cell: 562-824-7563
> Fax: 1-636-212-7078
> Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
> Web: www.attorneychristine.com
> Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
> ***************************
> Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments,
> is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the
> intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT
> PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this
> communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained
> in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot
> be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may
> be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant
> to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
>
>
>
You might want to check CA state law on this one. Not sure they have the right repossess assuming debtor is current.
On Sep 7, 2012 10:18 AM, "Christine Wilton" <attorneychristine@gmail.com> wrote:
[Attachment(s) from Christine Wilton included below]
Ford Motor Credit just called Debtors requesting to repossess their vehicle where:1. Statement of Intent was to: Keep and Reaffirm2. Debtor Executed a Reaffirmation Agreement3. Ford Motor Credit Filed the Motion to Approve
4. Debtor appeared at the hearing; and Court Order Denying Motion says Debtor dismissed motion????Now Ford wants to repo my client's vehicle. I already put a call in to Maggie at Public Counsel on this one, but does anyone have any experience to help me STOP them from repossessing my client's car?
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.-- Christine A. Wilton, Esq.Law Office of Christine A. WiltonOffice:5150 Candlewood Street, Suite 17FLakewood, CA 90712
Mailing:4067 Hardwick Street, Suite 335Lakewood, CA 90712Office: 877-631-2220Cell:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.