.jpg)
Is mere recording a "Transfer" for preference pur=
A: That is a matter of proof. If the debtor conspires with the Uncle, the debtor will lose the battle.
B: These are very common cases. The courts do not believe debtors are not involved, asthey are almost always involved. What Judge will believe a dot that shows up right before a bankruptcy, or right after debtor became insolvent, or made the debtor insolvent,is not fraudulent, i.e. the uncle did not get insider information?
You can all agree to disagree with me, but pay your malpractice insurance.
dennis
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 1:51 PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: Is mere recording a "Transfer" for preference purposes?
Dennis, et al:
544 requires that the debtor voluntarily or involuntarily gation, the uncle is. The statute requires the debtor to be the actor. Any action by the uncle cannot be attributed to the debtor.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
Attorney at Law
1010 E. Union St. Suite 206
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
Email: pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dennis McGoldrick
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 12:32 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Is mere recording a "Transfer" for preference purposes?
I respectfully disagree with my brother Jason, who is probably not on crack.
From the question:
"PC would benefit from a Chapter 7 bankruptcy now, but has learned that
uncle never recorded his $350,000 Deed of Trust. Without the deed, the
commercialproperty has equity. With it, it has no equity. PC does not want uncle
harmed.If uncle records the Deed of Trust now (pre-filing) (sic)is that a "transfer"
forpreference purposes?"
Since PC is in the middle trying to save Uncle X, he is trying to harm others, i.e.committing a fraud. He is actively trying to get Uncle to record to protect uncle and hurt other creditors.
These actions are direct attemts to hinder, delayand defraud creditors. Also, I stated the wrong statute of limits. Since the trustee has 544 powers, this guy has to wait 4 years to file after he encourages Uncle to file the dot.
dennis
From:Jason Wallach
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2012 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Is mere recording a "Transfer" for preference purposes?
PS: If the uncle doesn't record, then the unrecorded deed of trust is subject to avoidance via the trustee's strongarm powers, equal to any hypothetical judgment creditor's rights. If he does record, it is avoidable as a preference for a year, since it is to an insider. After that, it is unavoidable (unless somehow it is proven that the uncle's intent was to hinder, delay or defraud PC's creditors rather than to secure his own loan and perfect his own security interest). At this point, since PC made, executed and delivered the deed of trust years ago, it is not a matter of his intent.
Jason Wallach
On Jan 8, 2012, at 1:25 PM, vicki temkin wrote:
I haven't ever used it myself, but in law school there was some study about recording nunc pro tunc. Is it available for this
and avoid the fraudulent transfer.
Vicki L. Temkin
Law Office of Vicki L. Temkin
15021 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 753
Sherman Oaks, Ca 91403
Ph:(818) 501-4658 /Fx:(818) 501-0903
www.vtemkinlaw.com
>From:Dennis
>To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
>Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 6:45 PM
>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Is mere recording a "Transfer" for preference purposes?
>
>I love the crack, Irish style, but record years later and it's a fraudulent conveyance. Try again. Do you seriously think that the consideration issue is the only issue? Any act to hinder, delay or defraud qualifies. 548a1A.
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Jan 7, 2012, at 6:28 PM, "jbsesq1965" wrote:
>
>>Holly, you are right. I never read 547(e)(2)(B) before today, and that's EXCATLY what what that says. Thank you very much.
>>
>>Dennis, you are on crack! The fact pattern was intended to take fraudulent conveyance out of the equation. The uncle ACTUALLY LENT THE MONEY...no fraudulent conveyance...but I love you man! Thanks to all for the really prompt responses on a Saturday.
>>
>>Jeff Smith
>>
>>--- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, Kirk Brennan wrote:
>>>
>>> Have the uncle record. Then wait to file.
>>> On Jan 7, 2012 1:42 PM, "Holly Roark" wrote:
>>>
>>> > **
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I don't have the case law handy, but I researched this before and I
>>> > believe if he records, you should wait a year to file. See
>>> > 547(e)(2)(B).
>>> >
>>> > On 1/7/12, jbsesq1965 wrote:
>>> > > Listmates:
>>> > >
>>> > > PC owns commercial property and in 2007 borrowed $350,000 from his uncle
>>> > to
>>> > > pay his ex-spouse the final payment owed on a Property Equalization
>>> > Judgment
>>> > > to conclude that divorce. The transaction is well documented. The PC gave
>>> > > his uncle a 2007 notarized Deed of Trust on the commercial property,
>>> > > executed a promissory note to uncle and used all of the proceeds to pay
>>> > the
>>> > > ex-wife. PC made a few years of payments to uncle per the contract, then
>>> > > got behind.
>>> > >
>>> > > PC would benefit from a Chapter 7 bankruptcy now, but has learned that
>>> > uncle
>>> > > never recorded his $350,000 Deed of Trust. Without the deed, the
>>> > commercial
>>> > > property has equity. With it, it has no equity. PC does not want uncle
>>> > > harmed.
>>> > >
>>> > > If uncle records the Deed of Trust now (pre-filing) is that a "transfer"
>>> > for
>>> > > preference purposes? I recall that there is law that recording is not an
>>> > > element of what constitutes a transfer of an interest in property. Would
>>> > > anyone disagree with that?
>>> > >
>>> > > Thanks,
>>> > >
>>> > > Jeffrey B. Smith**
>>> > > CURD, GALINDO & SMITH, L.L.P.
>>> > > 301 East Ocean Blvd. #1700
>>> > > Long Beach, CA 90802
>>> > > (562) 624-1177
>>> > > (562) 624-1178 fax
>>> > > www.expertbk.com
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Sent from my mobile device
>>> >
>>> > Holly Roark
>>> > holly@...
>>> > www.roarklawoffices.com
>>> > Central District of California
>>> > Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>>> > 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
>>> > Los Angeles, CA 90067
>>> > T (310) 553-2600
>>> > F (310) 553-2601
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>
Pasadena, CA 91106
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I respectfully disagree with my brother Jason, who is probably not on crack.
From the question:
"PC would benefit from a Chapter 7 bankruptcy now, but has learned that
uncle never recorded his $350,000 Deed of Trust. Without the deed, the
commercialproperty has equity. With it, it has no equity. PC does not want uncle
harmed.If uncle records the Deed of Trust now (pre-filing) (sic)is that a "transfer"
forpreference purposes?"
Since PC is in the middle trying to save Uncle X, he is trying to harm others, i.e.committing a fraud. He is actively trying to get Uncle to record to protect uncle and hurt other creditors.
These actions are direct attemts to hinder, delayand defraud creditors. Also, I stated the wrong statute of limits. Since the trustee has 544 powers, this guy has to wait 4 years to file after he encourages Uncle to file the dot.
dennis
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2012 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Is mere recording a "Transfer" for preference purposes?
PS: If the uncle doesn't record, then the unrecorded deed of trust is subject to avoidance via the trustee's strongarm powers, equal to any hypothetical judgment creditor's rights. If he does record, it is avoidable as a preference for a year, since it is to an insider. After that, it is unavoidable (unless somehow it is proven that the uncle's intent was to hinder, delay or defraud PC's creditors rather than to secure his own loan and perfect his own security interest). At this point, since PC made, executed and delivered the deed of trust years ago, it is not a matter of his intent.
Jason Wallach
On Jan 8, 2012, at 1:25 PM, vicki temkin wrote:
>
>
>I haven't ever used it myself, but in law school there was some study about recording nunc pro tunc. Is it available for this
>and avoid the fraudulent transfer.
>
>
>Vicki L. Temkin
>Law Office of Vicki L. Temkin
>15021 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 753
>Sherman Oaks, Ca 91403
>Ph:(818) 501-4658 /Fx:(818) 501-0903
>www.vtemkinlaw.com
>
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>>To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
>>Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 6:45 PM
>>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Is mere recording a "Transfer" for preference purposes?
>>
>>
>>
>>I love the crack, Irish style, but record years later and it's a fraudulent conveyance. Try again. Do you seriously think that the consideration issue is the only issue? Any act to hinder, delay or defraud qualifies. 548a1A.
>>
>>Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>On Jan 7, 2012, at 6:28 PM, "jbsesq1965" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Holly, you are right. I never read 547(e)(2)(B) before today, and that's EXCATLY what what that says. Thank you very much.
>>>
>>>Dennis, you are on crack! The fact pattern was intended to take fraudulent conveyance out of the equation. The uncle ACTUALLY LENT THE MONEY...no fraudulent conveyance...but I love you man! Thanks to all for the really prompt responses on a Saturday.
>>>
>>>Jeff Smith
>>>
>>>--- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, Kirk Brennan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Have the uncle record. Then wait to file.
>>>> On Jan 7, 2012 1:42 PM, "Holly Roark" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > **
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I don't have the case law handy, but I researched this before and I
>>>> > believe if he records, you should wait a year to file. See
>>>> > 547(e)(2)(B).
>>>> >
>>>> > On 1/7/12, jbsesq1965 wrote:
>>>> > > Listmates:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > PC owns commercial property and in 2007 borrowed $350,000 from his uncle
>>>> > to
>>>> > > pay his ex-spouse the final payment owed on a Property Equalization
>>>> > Judgment
>>>> > > to conclude that divorce. The transaction is well documented. The PC gave
>>>> > > his uncle a 2007 notarized Deed of Trust on the commercial property,
>>>> > > executed a promissory note to uncle and used all of the proceeds to pay
>>>> > the
>>>> > > ex-wife. PC made a few years of payments to uncle per the contract, then
>>>> > > got behind.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > PC would benefit from a Chapter 7 bankruptcy now, but has learned that
>>>> > uncle
>>>> > > never recorded his $350,000 Deed of Trust. Without the deed, the
>>>> > commercial
>>>> > > property has equity. With it, it has no equity. PC does not want uncle
>>>> > > harmed.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > If uncle records the Deed of Trust now (pre-filing) is that a "transfer"
>>>> > for
>>>> > > preference purposes? I recall that there is law that recording is not an
>>>> > > element of what constitutes a transfer of an interest in property. Would
>>>> > > anyone disagree with that?
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Thanks,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Jeffrey B. Smith**
>>>> > > CURD, GALINDO & SMITH, L.L.P.
>>>> > > 301 East Ocean Blvd. #1700
>>>> > > Long Beach, CA 90802
>>>> > > (562) 624-1177
>>>> > > (562) 624-1178 fax
>>>> > > www.expertbk.com
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Sent from my mobile device
>>>> >
>>>> > Holly Roark
>>>> > holly@...
>>>> > www.roarklawoffices.com
>>>> > Central District of California
>>>> > Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>>>> > 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
>>>> > Los Angeles, CA 90067
>>>> > T (310) 553-2600
>>>> > F (310) 553-2601
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.