.jpg)
Second bankruptcy, same old debt
I didn't even know there was a 523(b). I should have known since I was
aware of (c) and (d). Great stuff.
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *AVANESIAN LAW FIRM
101 N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920
Glendale, California 91203
Tel: 818.276.2477 Fax: 818.208.4550
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
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.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:44 PM, jhayes@hayesbklaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> By the way, there are two exceptions that I know of to my Golden Rule No.
> 5 - debts incurred in the criminal context - see Kelly v. Robinson, USSC
> (the ultimate example of judicial legislation). And, some debt relating to
> the military - I think it is repayment of some kind of bonus if you leave
> the military. I have lost the cite.
>
> If anyone else knows of debts not discharged pursuant to some federal law
> other than 523, I would love to know that. Thanks.
>
>
>
I didn't even know there was a 523(b). I should have known since I was aware of (c) and (d). Great stuff.Sincerely,Michael Avanesian, Esq.AVANESIAN
LAW FIRM101
N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920Glendale,
California 91203Tel:
818.276.2477 Fax: 818.208.4550Confidentiality:This electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:44 PM, jhayes@hayesbklaw.com [cdcbaa]
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thank you - that's what I was looking for, even though it's not the answer I wanted. It always helps to actually read the code.
- John D. Faucher
818/889-8080
On Friday, March 6, 2015 1:29 PM, "jhayes@hayesbklaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
You really have to start with my Golden Rule number 5 - ALL DEBTS ARE DISCHARGED IN CHAPTER 7 UNLESS 523 says the debt is not-discharged - no matter who it is owed to and no matter why.
523(b) deals with debts which survive previous bankruptcy cases.
"523(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, a debt that was excepted from discharge under subsection (a)(1), (a)(3), or (a)(8) of this section, under section 17a(1), 17a(3), or 17a(5) of the Bankruptcy Act, under section 439A (!1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, or under section 733(g) (!1) of the Public Health Service Act in a prior case concerning the debtor under this title, or under the Bankruptcy Act, is dischargeable in a case under this title unless, by the terms of subsection (a) of this section, such debt is not dischargeable in the case under this title."
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I always assumed that if something is non dischargeable in a prior
bankruptcy, it serves as issue preclusion in future bk cases. 1328 does not
discharge 523(a)(3) debt so I figure it's not dischargeable.
Remember though, I have no experience in the Ch 13 world and almost none in
7. I may be completely off. My saving grace is I am very lucky!
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *AVANESIAN LAW FIRM
101 N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920
Glendale, California 91203
Tel: 818.276.2477 Fax: 818.208.4550
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
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.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:36 AM, John Faucher j.d.faucher@sbcglobal.net
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Would 523a3A actually apply in the chapter 13?
> We're not arguing that the $100,000 debt was discharged in the chapter 7;
> because it's a 523a15 equalization payment, it couldn't have been
> discharged in that case. I think 523a3A would be another reason that the
> $100,000 payment wasn't discharged in the chapter 7.
> - John D. Faucher
> 818/889-8080
>
>
> On Friday, March 6, 2015 10:21 AM, "Michael Avanesian
> michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
>
> Did the ex have notice or actual knowledge of the case in time to file a
> proof of claim? i.e. I believe 523(a)(3)(A) is controlling.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> *Michael Avanesian, Esq. *AVANESIAN LAW FIRM
> 101 N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920
> Glendale, California 91203
> Tel: 818.276.2477 Fax: 818.208.4550
>
> *Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
> legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
> use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
> copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
> to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
> or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
> 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.
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:17 AM, John Faucher j.d.faucher@sbcglobal.net
> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Another relevant fact I forgot to mention: in the chapter 7, PC paid the
> trustee a sum equivalent to 100 cents on the dollar for the listed debts,
> in order to avoid a sale of the house. Thus there was a distribution that
> the ex did not participate in. This is what makes the wariest about
> discharging the $100,000 in a later chapter 13.
> - John D. Faucher
> 818/889-8080
>
>
> On Friday, March 6, 2015 10:11 AM, "John Faucher
> j.d.faucher@sbcglobal.net [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello Brain Trust:
> PC filed a chapter 7 in 2009. At the time, she owed an equalization
> payment to her ex in the amount of $100,000, due upon the sale of a house
> in which she had an interest (though a trust). Her chapter 7 counsel
> realized neither that the house interest needed to be included on her
> schedules, nor that the husband needed to be listed as a creditor.
> After discharge, the trust sold the house. She now owes the $100,000. As I
> read the code, this sum is dischargeable in a chapter 13, but not in a
> chapter 7.
> Does the fact that she did not include this debt in her prior chapter 7
> present any obstacle to discharge? I do not see it, but I'm wary.
> - John D. Faucher
> 818/889-8080
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I always assumed that if something is non dischargeable in a prior bankruptcy, it serves as issue preclusion in future bk cases. 1328 does not discharge 523(a)(3) debt so I figure it's not dischargeable.3 world and almost none in 7. I may be completely off. My saving grace is I am very lucky!Sincerely,
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Would 523a3A actually apply in the chapter 13?
We're not arguing that the $100,000 debt was discharged in the chapter 7; because it's a 523a15 equalization payment, it couldn't have been discharged in that case. I think 523a3A would be another reason that the $100,000 payment wasn't discharged in the chapter 7.
- John D. Faucher
818/889-8080
On Friday, March 6, 2015 10:21 AM, "Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
Did the ex have notice or actual knowledge of the case in time to file a proof of claim? i.e. I believe 523(a)(3)(A) is controlling.
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian, Esq.
AVANESIAN
LAW FIRM
101
N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920
Glendale,
California 91203
Tel:
818.276.2477 Fax: 818.208.4550
Confidentiality: This electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:17 AM, John Faucher j.d.faucher@sbcglobal.net [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>Another relevant fact I forgot to mention: in the chapter 7, PC paid the trustee a sum equivalent to 100 cents on the dollar for the listed debts, in order to avoid a sale of the house. Thus there was a distribution that the ex did not participate in. This is what makes the wariest about discharging the $100,000 in a later chapter 13.
>- John D. Faucher
>818/889-8080
>
>
>
>On Friday, March 6, 2015 10:11 AM, "John Faucher j.d.faucher@sbcglobal.net [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Hello Brain Trust:
>PC filed a chapter 7 in 2009. At the time, she owed an equalization payment to her ex in the amount of $100,000, due upon the sale of a house in which she had an interest (though a trust). Her chapter 7 counsel realized neither that the house interest needed to be included on her schedules, nor that the husband needed to be listed as a creditor.
>After discharge, the trust sold the house. She now owes the $100,000. As I read the code, this sum is dischargeable in a chapter 13, but not in a chapter 7.
>Does the fact that she did not include this debt in her prior chapter 7 present any obstacle to discharge? I do not see it, but I'm wary.
>- John D. Faucher
>818/889-8080
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Did the ex have notice or actual knowledge of the case in time to file a
proof of claim? i.e. I believe 523(a)(3)(A) is controlling.
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *AVANESIAN LAW FIRM
101 N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920
Glendale, California 91203
Tel: 818.276.2477 Fax: 818.208.4550
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
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.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:17 AM, John Faucher j.d.faucher@sbcglobal.net
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Another relevant fact I forgot to mention: in the chapter 7, PC paid the
> trustee a sum equivalent to 100 cents on the dollar for the listed debts,
> in order to avoid a sale of the house. Thus there was a distribution that
> the ex did not participate in. This is what makes the wariest about
> discharging the $100,000 in a later chapter 13.
> - John D. Faucher
> 818/889-8080
>
>
> On Friday, March 6, 2015 10:11 AM, "John Faucher
> j.d.faucher@sbcglobal.net [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello Brain Trust:
> PC filed a chapter 7 in 2009. At the time, she owed an equalization
> payment to her ex in the amount of $100,000, due upon the sale of a house
> in which she had an interest (though a trust). Her chapter 7 counsel
> realized neither that the house interest needed to be included on her
> schedules, nor that the husband needed to be listed as a creditor.
> After discharge, the trust sold the house. She now owes the $100,000. As I
> read the code, this sum is dischargeable in a chapter 13, but not in a
> chapter 7.
> Does the fact that she did not include this debt in her prior chapter 7
> present any obstacle to discharge? I do not see it, but I'm wary.
> - John D. Faucher
> 818/889-8080
>
>
>
>
Did the ex have notice or actual knowledge of the case in time to file a proof of claim? i.e. I believe 523(a)(3)(A) is controlling."gmail_signature">Sincerely,Michael Avanesian, Esq.AVANESIAN
LAW FIRM101
N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920Glendale,
California 91203Tel:
818.276.2477 Fax: 818.208.4550Confidentiality:This electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:17 AM, John Faucher j.d.faucher@sbcglobal.net [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Another relevant fact I forgot to mention: in the chapter 7, PC paid the trustee a sum equivalent to 100 cents on the dollar for the listed debts, in order to avoid a sale of the house. Thus there was a distribution that the ex did not participate in. This is what makes the wariest about discharging the $100,000 in a later chapter 13.
- John D. Faucher
818/889-8080
On Friday, March 6, 2015 10:11 AM, "John Faucher j.d.faucher@sbcglobal.net [cdcbaa]" wrote:
Hello Brain Trust:
PC filed a chapter 7 in 2009. At the time, she owed an equalization payment to her ex in the amount of $100,000, due upon the sale of a house in which she had an interest (though a trust). Her chapter 7 counsel realized neither that the house interest needed to be included on her schedules, nor that the husband needed to be listed as a creditor.
After discharge, the trust sold the house. She now owes the $100,000. As I read the code, this sum is dischargeable in a chapter 13, but not in a chapter 7.
Does the fact that she did not include this debt in her prior chapter 7 present any obstacle to discharge? I do not see it, but I'm wary.
- John D. Faucher
818/889-8080
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Hello Brain Trust:
PC filed a chapter 7 in 2009. At the time, she owed an equalization payment to her ex in the amount of $100,000, due upon the sale of a house in which she had an interest (though a trust). Her chapter 7 counsel realized neither that the house interest needed to be included on her schedules, nor that the husband needed to be listed as a creditor.
After discharge, the trust sold the house. She now owes the $100,000. As I read the code, this sum is dischargeable in a chapter 13, but not in a chapter 7.
Does the fact that she did not include this debt in her prior chapter 7 present any obstacle to discharge? I do not see it, but I'm wary.
- John D. Faucher
818/889-8080
The post was migrated from Yahoo.