Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Link,
The debtor can argue that the "value of the property" already distributed under the plan meets the PDI x 60 confirmation requirement despite that the debtor was able to distribute that amount sooner because 1129(a)(15) doesn't require a comment period of actual disposable income, instead it requires a total amount of value based upon a projection or estimate.
I typically include an right to repay early provision in the plan.
Best regards,
Peter
Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos.
> On May 22, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Link Schrader lschrader@schrader-law.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> I have a Santa Ana Chapter 11 individual client who has completed all payments required under the confirmed chapter 11 plan. They have done so in 4 years, rather than 5, because the final year was arrears payments that were handled through a loan modification.
>
> I've reviewed the plan which states that pursuant to 1127(e) the debtor, the U.S. Trustee, or the holder of an unsecured claim can request the court to modify the plan "at any time after confirmation but before the completion of payments under the plan..."
>
> Since all the payments have been made I am thinking the debtor is safe to reopen the plan and request a discharge. However, I'm reluctant to do so because this is an above-median debtor who has completed the plan in less than 60 months and I don't want to notice creditors or the U.S. Trustee who might seek to have the debtor pay a higher dividend for months 48-60.
>
> Am I safe to reopen the plan to request a discharge or would it be better to just have the debtor wait until 60 months have passed, then reopen for the discharge?
>
> Thank you,
> Link W. Schrader, Attorney
> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
> P.O. Box 412914, Kansas City, Missouri 64141
> Missouri/Kansas: (816) 841-2642 (No Texts); California: (310) 413-6924 (Phone or Texts )
> Fax: (310) 878-4158; www.schrader-law.com
>
> Admitted to practice law in all courts in California and Missouri, and in the federal courts in Kansas.
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
Admitted to practice law in all courts in California and Missouri, and in the federal courts in Kansas.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I have a Santa Ana Chapter 11 individual client who has completed all
payments required under the confirmed chapter 11 plan. They have done so
in 4 years, rather than 5, because the final year was arrears payments that
were handled through a loan modification.
I've reviewed the plan which states that pursuant to 1127(e) the debtor,
the U.S. Trustee, or the holder of an unsecured claim can request the court
to modify the plan "at any time after confirmation but before the
completion of payments under the plan..."
Since all the payments have been made I am thinking the debtor is safe to
reopen the plan and request a discharge. However, I'm reluctant to do so
because this is an above-median debtor who has completed the plan in less
than 60 months and I don't want to notice creditors or the U.S. Trustee who
might seek to have the debtor pay a higher dividend for months 48-60.
Am I safe to reopen the plan to request a discharge or would it be better
to just have the debtor wait until 60 months have passed, then reopen for
the discharge?
Thank you,
Link W. Schrader, Attorney
Law Office of Link W. Schrader
P.O. Box 412914, Kansas City, Missouri 64141
Missouri/Kansas: (816) 841-2642 (No Texts); California: (310) 413-6924
(Phone or Texts )
Fax: (310) 878-4158; www.schrader-law.com
Admitted to practice law in all courts in California and Missouri, and in
the federal courts in Kansas.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

yes, 503(b)(1).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
On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 4:19 PM, "Jason Wallach jwallach@gladstonemichel.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
In the deep dark past, there was case law in the Third Circuit that a pre-petition indemnification agreement that was triggered post petition, was either an administrative claim or a post petition obligation that had to be paid. Sorry, the case name is buried in the deep dark. That seems to be the same situation. Otherwise, I agree with the analysis: this is a pre petition obligation even if the principal incurred the obligation post petition. Creditor will squeal like a stuck pig, which he probably is.Jason
Jason Wallachjwallach@gladstonemichel.com
On Jan 13, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
It's a pre petition contingent liability that "ripens" post petition. I would be surprised if there was case law that made it an administrative claim.
For me, there is no practical difference between this and a pre petition promise to pay $10,000 if the raven's win the super bowl in 2016. Might or might not happen (like the guarantee) but if it happens post petition, it'd still be a pre petition obligation.
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian, Esq.Avanesian Law firm101 N. Brand Blvd,PH 1920
Glendale, CA 91203Office: 818.276.2477Fax: 818.208.4550
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Giovanni Orantesgo@gobklaw.com[cdcbaa]wrote:
Good one!
The first question to ask is, do you want it to be?
Purely in the abstract, the recipient of the guarantee should have been listed as a contingent creditor from the beginning or the schedules should be amended to list it as such now. Since the debt arose from the execution of the guarantee, I would argue it's a pre-petition claim and subject to whatever bar was set for proofs of claims. To be sure, I would set a further bar date in the plan for administrative claims to file both claims and a motion for allowance under Section 503 and if they can pass that hurdle, you may have to pay them as admins (I don't know enough facts to determine if the claimant can make the required showing,but I think it would be difficult in most cases). Of course, if you want it to be an admin claim (or, actually, in either scenario), you can stipulate to a lower amount and a feasible payment schedule with the claimant based on the difficulties of meeting the Section 503 requirements.
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 LitigationEstate PlanningOutside 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.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charsetndows-1252
In the deep dark past, there was case law in the Third Circuit that a pre-petition indemnification agreement that was triggered post petition, was either an administrative claim or a post petition obligation that had to be paid. Sorry, the case name is buried in the deep dark. That seems to be the same situation.
Otherwise, I agree with the analysis: this is a pre petition obligation even if the principal incurred the obligation post petition. Creditor will squeal like a stuck pig, which he probably is.
Jason
Jason Wallach
jwallach@gladstonemichel.com
On Jan 13, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> It's a pre petition contingent liability that "ripens" post petition. I would be surprised if there was case law that made it an administrative claim.
>
> For me, there is no practical difference between this and a pre petition promise to pay $10,000 if the raven's win the super bowl in 2016. Might or might not happen (like the guarantee) but if it happens post petition, it'd still be a pre petition obligation.
>
>
> 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 13, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Giovanni Orantes go@gobklaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Good one!
>
> The first question to ask is, do you want it to be?
>
> Purely in the abstract, the recipient of the guarantee should have been listed as a contingent creditor from the beginning or the schedules should be amended to list it as such now. Since the debt arose from the execution of the guarantee, I would argue it's a pre-petition claim and subject to whatever bar was set for proofs of claims. To be sure, I would set a further bar date in the plan for administrative claims to file both claims and a motion for allowance under Section 503 and if they can pass that hurdle, you may have to pay them as admins (I don't know enough facts to determine if the claimant can make the required showing,but I think it would be difficult in most cases). Of course, if you want it to be an admin claim (or, actually, in either scenario), you can stipulate to a lower amount and a feasible payment schedule with the claimant based on the difficulties of meeting the Section 503 requirements.
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
charsetndows-1252
In the deep dark past, there was case law in the Third Circuit that a pre-petition indemnification agreement that was triggered post petition, was either an administrative claim or a post petition obligation that had to be paid. Sorry, the case name is buried in the deep dark. That seems to be the same situation. Otherwise, I agree with the analysis: this is a pre petition obligation even if the principal incurred the obligation post petition. Creditor will squeal like a stuck pig, which he probably is.Jason
Jason Wallachjwallach@gladstonemichel.com
On Jan 13, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:It's a pre petition contingent liability that "ripens" post petition. I would be surprised if there was case law that made it an administrative claim. For me, there is no practical difference between this and a pre petition promise to pay $10,000 if the raven's win the super bowl in 2016. Might or might not happen (like the guarantee) but if it happens post petition, it'd still be a pre petition obligation. Fax: (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 Litigation
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

It's a pre petition contingent liability that "ripens" post petition. I
would be surprised if there was case law that made it an administrative
claim.
For me, there is no practical difference between this and a pre petition
promise to pay $10,000 if the raven's win the super bowl in 2016. Might or
might not happen (like the guarantee) but if it happens post petition, it'd
still be a pre petition obligation.
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 13, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Giovanni Orantes go@gobklaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Good one!
>
> The first question to ask is, do you want it to be?
>
> Purely in the abstract, the recipient of the guarantee should have been
> listed as a contingent creditor from the beginning or the schedules should
> be amended to list it as such now. Since the debt arose from the execution
> of the guarantee, I would argue it's a pre-petition claim and subject to
> whatever bar was set for proofs of claims. To be sure, I would set a
> further bar date in the plan for administrative claims to file both claims
> and a motion for allowance under Section 503 and if they can pass that
> hurdle, you may have to pay them as admins (I don't know enough facts to
> determine if the claimant can make the required showing,but I think it
> would be difficult in most cases). Of course, if you want it to be an
> admin claim (or, actually, in either scenario), you can stipulate to a
> lower amount and a feasible payment schedule with the claimant based on the
> difficulties of meeting the Section 503 requirements.
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
It's a pre petition contingent liability that "ripens" post petition. I would be surprised if there was case law that made it an administrative claim. For me, there is no practical difference between this and a pre petition promise to pay $10,000 if the raven's win the super bowl in 2016. Might or might not happen (like the guarantee) but if it happens post petition, it'd still be a pre petition obligation.Sincerely,Michael Avanesian, Esq.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Good one!
The first question to ask is, do you want it to be?
Purely in the abstract, the recipient of the guarantee should have been
listed as a contingent creditor from the beginning or the schedules should
be amended to list it as such now. Since the debt arose from the execution
of the guarantee, I would argue it's a pre-petition claim and subject to
whatever bar was set for proofs of claims. To be sure, I would set a
further bar date in the plan for administrative claims to file both claims
and a motion for allowance under Section 503 and if they can pass that
hurdle, you may have to pay them as admins (I don't know enough facts to
determine if the claimant can make the required showing,but I think it
would be difficult in most cases). Of course, if you want it to be an
admin claim (or, actually, in either scenario), you can stipulate to a
lower amount and a feasible payment schedule with the claimant based on the
difficulties of meeting the Section 503 requirements.
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.
Good one! The first question to ask is, do you want it to be?Purely in the abstract, the recipient of the guarantee should have been listed as a contingent creditor from the beginning or the schedules should be amended to list it as such now. Since the debt arose from the execution of the guarantee, I would argue it's a pre-petition claim and subject to whatever bar was set for proofs of claims. To be sure, I would set a further bar date in the plan for administrative claims to file both claims and a motion for allowance under Section 503 and if they can pass that hurdle, you may have to pay them as admins (I don't know enough facts to determine if the claimant can make the required showing,but I think it would be difficult in most cases). Of course, if you want it to be an admin claim (or, actually, in either scenario), you can stipulate to a lower amount and a feasible payment schedule with the claimant based on the difficulties of meeting the Section 503 requirements.-- 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.

I have a case, confirmed a year ago, and Judge BB has insisted we have a motion to sell one of the debtor's properties on file by x date, or she will convert the case to 7.
I would be very skeptical of anyone who sells estate property without a court order.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Oct 23, 2014, at 6:57 PM, 'Leventhal Law Group, P.C.' law@3yl.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> I have a general question to all the
> Chapter 11 experts.
>
> Can a Debtor who is in a current chapter 11 sell high value real estate without the courts permission?
>
> Also, does it matter if the plan is confirmed?
>
> Thank you in advance!
>
> Jonathan
>
> Jonathan Leventhal, Esq..
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
> 818-347-5800
>
> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email.
>
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
>
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.
>
> Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not represent you until a written fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the Leventhal Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been paid.
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Mark is right if the plan returned the property of the estate to the debtor. Check the plan.
Also, the real answer is what will a title company insure? Not many will insure a sale right after confirmation.
Think about it. If you say property x is worth 2.0 million in the liquidation value, and you want to sell it for 4.0 million, what are the chances you will get title insurance? The question is much more complicated than your hypo suggests.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Oct 23, 2014, at 7:16 PM, 'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> After the Plan is confirmed the debtor can do anything they want as long as it doesn't violate the terms of the Plan.
>
> Prior to that, they would most likely need court permission to sell unless somehow selling high value real estate was in the "ordinary course of affairs" of that particular debtor. I think that would be a rare set of facts.
>
> *************************
> 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.
> On 10/23/2014 6:57 PM, 'Leventhal Law Group, P.C.' law@3yl.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>> I have a general question to all the
>> Chapter 11 experts.
>>
>> Can a Debtor who is in a current chapter 11 sell high value real estate without the courts permission?
>>
>> Also, does it matter if the plan is confirmed?
>>
>> Thank you in advance!
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> Jonathan Leventhal, Esq..
>> Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
>> 818-347-5800
>>
>> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email.
>>
>> This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
>>
>> Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.
>>
>> Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not represent you until a written fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the Leventhal Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been paid.
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Thank you. That is what I thought, but I wanted to be sure!
Jonathan Leventhal, Esq..
Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
818-347-5800
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email.
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.
Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not represent you until a written fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the Leventhal Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been paid.
Date:10/23/2014 7:16 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Chapter 11 question
After the Plan is confirmed the debtor can do anything they want as long as it doesn't violate the terms of the Plan.
Prior to that, they would most likely need court permission to sell unless somehow selling high value real estate was in the "ordinary course of affairs" of that particular debtor. I think that would be a rare set of facts.
*************************
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.
On 10/23/2014 6:57 PM, 'Leventhal Law Group, P.C.' law@3yl.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
I have a general question to all the
Chapter 11 experts.
Can a Debtor who is in a current chapter 11 sell high value real estate without the courts permission?
Also, does it matter if the plan is confirmed?
Thank you in advance!
Jonathan
Jonathan Leventhal, Esq..
Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
818-347-5800
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email.
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.
Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not represent you until a written fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the Leventhal Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been paid.
Thank you. That is what I thought, but I wanted to be sure!
Jonathan Leventhal, Esq..
Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
818-347-5800
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email.
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.
Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not represent you until a written fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the Leventhal Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been paid.
-------- Original message --------
ahoogroups.com>
Date:10/23/2014 7:16 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Chapter 11 question

After the Plan is confirmed the debtor can do anything they want as long as it doesn't violate the terms of the Plan.
Prior to that, they would most likely need court permission to sell unless somehow selling high value real estate was in the "ordinary course of affairs" of that particular debtor. I think that would be a rare set of facts.
*************************
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.
On 10/23/2014 6:57 PM, 'Leventhal Law Group, P.C.'
law@3yl.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
I have a general question to all the
Chapter 11 experts.
Can a Debtor who is in a current chapter 11 sell high value real estate without the courts permission?
Also, does it matter if the plan is confirmed?
Thank you in advance!
Jonathan
Jonathan Leventhal, Esq..
Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
818-347-5800
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email.
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.
Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not represent you until a written fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the Leventhal Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been paid.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Depending on how much time you have, I'd highly recommend sending letters
to the holder, the servicer, and the foreclosing trustee. All three should
be named in the OSC. I would send to attorney of record and follow FRBP
7004(h) as if there was none. You want to build the case up for punitive
damages.
You may also consider a QWR in addition to the above.
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Dear Catherine,
>
>
>
> A confirmed plan is binding on all creditors (*see *11 U.S.C.
> 1141(a)). Therefore, the creditor, through its servicer, is in contempt of
> the order confirming the plan. As long as you have a paper trail of
> attempting to resolve the problem outside of the Court, you may wish to
> file a motion to reopen as a prelude to filing an OSC motion against the
> creditor and its servicer. If you lack a paper trail, then first send the
> letter with some sort of deadline for compliance. If the servicer
> continues its behavior after the deadline has passed, then file the motion
> to reopen.
>
>
>
> Good luck,
>
>
>
> 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:* Saturday, August 23, 2014 1:27 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa blog
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Chapter 11 Question
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Listmates:
>
>
>
> Chapter 11 plan confirmed 2013. Case administratively closed 2014.
> Creditor Servicer for Debtors home moved Debtors file to Loss Mitigation
> Department, file NOD and call Debtor to collect Default Amount on Original
> Contract. Debtor speaks with Servicers' Representatives, they admit Debtor
> is paying pursuant to Plan, yet Servicer continues to file NOD and call
> Debtor demanding payment of a default amount that is being cured under the
> plan.
>
>
>
> My thoughts are to first send a letter to Servicers Attorney.
>
>
>
> Debtor is very nervous. Has been fighting to keep properties since 2009.
> If letter to attorney does not handle the problem then what is the best
> route to protect Debtor? Reopen case?
>
>
>
> Thanks for your thoughts in advance.
>
>
>
>
>
> Catherine Christiansen
>
>
>
>
>
Depending on how much time you have, I'd highly recommend sending letters to the holder, the servicer, and the foreclosing trustee. All three should be named in the OSC. I would send to attorney of record and follow FRBP 7004(h) as if there was none. You want to build the case up for punitive damages.
You may also consider a QWR in addition to the above.Sincerely, Michael Avanesian
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Dear Catherine,
A confirmed plan is binding on all creditors (see
11 U.S.C. 1141(a)). Therefore, the creditor, through its servicer, is in contempt of the order confirming the plan. As long as you have a paper trail of attempting to resolve the problem outside of the Court, you may wish to file a motion to reopen
as a prelude to filing an OSC motion against the creditor and its servicer. If you lack a paper trail, then first send the letter with some sort of deadline for compliance. If the servicer continues its behavior after the deadline has passed, then file the
motion to reopen.
Good luck,
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: Saturday, August 23, 2014 1:27 AM
To: cdcbaa blog
Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 11 Question
Dear Listmates:
Chapter 11 plan confirmed 2013. Case administratively closed 2014. Creditor Servicer for Debtors home moved Debtors file to Loss Mitigation Department, file
NOD and call Debtor to collect Default Amount on Original Contract. Debtor speaks with Servicers' Representatives, they admit Debtor is paying pursuant to Plan, yet Servicer continues to file NOD and call Debtor demanding payment of a default amount that
is being cured under the plan.
My thoughts are to first send a letter to Servicers Attorney.
Debtor is very nervous. Has been fighting to keep properties since 2009. route to protect
Debtor? Reopen case?
Thanks for your thoughts in advance.
Catherine Christiansen
X-Attachment-Id: def60db1915a5e52_0.1
X-Attachment-Id: def60db1915a5e52_0.1

The post was migrated from Yahoo.