.jpg)
362(c)(4)--Does stay still apply to property?
Since this is a Chapter 13, if there is a codebtor, then 1301 may provide
some basis for relief.
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
Avanesian Law firm
101 N. Brand Blvd, PH 1920
Glendale, CA 91203
Office: 818.276.2477
Fax: 818.208.4550
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Dear Mark,
>
>
>
> What is it that prevents a creditor from foreclosing on estate property?
> There is certainly nothing inherent in its status as estate property that
> prevents the creditor from foreclosing. Otherwise, 541 would have a stay
> provision. Instead, it is 362(a)(3). If that were not the case, and
> property of the estate were protected without the imposition of the stay,
> then 362(a)(3) would be a statutory provision superfluity. And as you
> well know, there is no shortage of case law stating that we must presume
> that there is no superfluous statutory language in the Code. In sum, if
> there is no automatic stay because of 362(c)(4)(A)(i) as in the case of
> the importunate debtor who called you there is no stay on foreclosure.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *Nicholas Gebelt*
>
>
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist
>
>
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description:
> cid:image003.jpg@01CC076B.B14D73C0]
>
>
>
> Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
>
> 15150 Hornell Street
>
> Whittier, CA 90604
>
> Phone: 562.777.9159
>
> FAX: 562.946.1365
>
> Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
>
> Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
>
> Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
>
>
>
> *Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:* We are a debt relief
> agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
>
>
>
> *Confidentiality Note*: This e-mail is intended only for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
> privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure.
> Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information
> herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
> responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
> immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the
> original message and all copies.
>
>
>
> *Representation Note*: If you have not signed a contract of
> representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you,
> and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
>
>
>
> *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.
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 6:27 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] 362(c)(4)--Does stay still apply to property?
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't run into this very often, but I got called by a Ch. 13 debtor who
> is pro se in his 3rd consecutive Ch. 13 filed within the past year. Upon
> filing his 3rd case, his mortgage lender completed a foreclosure on
> debtor's home without obtaining any bankruptcy court order (allegedly).
>
> My reading of 362(c)(4) seems to allow this.
>
> But a blog article the debtor is throwing at me says that property of the
> estate is still protected despite the absence of the automatic stay under
> 362(a).
>
> Does anyone agree with that?
>
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> *Mailing Address Only:*
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office
> of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for
> the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
> disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
> prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
> the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
> communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written 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 in this communication.
>
>
>
>
>
Since this is a Chapter 13, if there is a codebtor, then 1301 may provide some basis for relief.Sincerely,Michael Avanesian, Esq.Avanesian Law firm101 N. Brand Blvd,PH 1920Glendale, CA 91203Office: 818.276.2477Fax: 818.208.4550
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Dear Mark,
What is it that prevents a creditor from foreclosing on estate property? There is certainly nothing inherent in its status as estate property that prevents
the creditor from foreclosing. Otherwise, 541 would have a stay provision. Instead, it is 362(a)(3). If that were not the case, and property of the estate were protected without the imposition of the stay, then 362(a)(3) would be a statutory provision
superfluity. And as you well know, there is no shortage of case law stating that we must presume that there is no superfluous statutory language in the Code. In sum, if there is no automatic stay because of debtor who called you there is no stay on foreclosure.
All the best,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt
an>
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Attorney at Law
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist
an>
Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
15150 Hornell Street
Whittier, CA 90604
Phone: 562.777.9159
FAX:et"_blank">562.946.1365
Email:
ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com;
ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
Web:www.goodbye2debt.com
Blog:www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
an>
Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:
We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
Confidentiality Note: entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient,
or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail
info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the original message and all copies.
Representation Note: the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you, and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
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.
From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 6:27 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] 362(c)(4)--Does stay still apply to property?
I don't run into this very often, but I got called by a Ch. 13 debtor who is pro se in his 3rd consecutive Ch. 13 filed within the past year. Upon filing his 3rd case, his mortgage lender completed a foreclosure
on debtor's home without obtaining any bankruptcy court order (allegedly).
My reading of 362(c)(4) seems to allow this.
But a blog article the debtor is throwing at me says that property of the estate is still protected despite the absence of the automatic stay under 362(a).
Does anyone agree with that?
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
Mailing Address Only:
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use
of the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written 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 in this communication.
X-Attachment-Id: 12b1bdcf3175078c_0.1
X-Attachment-Id: 12b1bdcf3175078c_0.1
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I agree with your reading, but would be interested in looking at the blog.
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
*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.
I agree with your reading, but would be interested in looking at the blog.-- Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*Orantes Law Firm, P.C.3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920Los Angeles, CA 90010Tel: (213) 389-4362Fax: (877) 789-5776e-mail: go@gobklaw.comwebsite: www.gobklaw.com*Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification*Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of CertificationCommercial LitigationEstate PlanningOutside General CounselWE 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.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.