Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Its not downtown, but Judge Jury will tell me Monday at a confirmation hearing in Riverside what her position is for sure. She has tipped her hand to me that she will confirm on those exact facts. She did require me to file a brief showing that the Chapter 13 was in "good faith". Not really sure what she was looking for here but the whole story in this case was sympathetic, so I think I'll be fine. I'll let you know if I don't get confirmed Monday.
PS. You can get a clue of how the judges treat the issue in their Lien Strip Orders. If they REQUIRE that the lien not be stripped until completion of the payments AND entry of discharge, then you will have a tough go of it in the 13 where you can't get a discharge because of the earlier Chapter 7.
Jeff Smith
>
> Hello, I found this thread and am looking for updates on what judges down
> town allow a chapter 20 lien strip (chapter 13 after chapter 7 discharge.)
> In my case the debtors could use the chapter 13 to cure the arrears on the
> first but they would also like to strip the second. They just received a
> chapter 7 discharge a year ago.
>
> Any updates on which judges in LA down town allow this and which ones
> don't? Thank you.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Does Judge Zurzolo follow the Winitsky decision? (i.e. does he allow lien
> > stripping in a Chapter 13--both on a principal residence and rental proper
> > after a discharge has been granted in a Chapter 7)
> >
> > *************************
> > Mark J. Markus
> > Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> > 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> > Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> > (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> > web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> > This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means
> > at
> > http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/
> > )
> > ________________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

As an addition, have any of the Valley judges changed their positions on this?
Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 640
Woodland Hills, California 91364-2226
Telephone: (818) 226-1205
Facsimile : (818) 226-1213
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND
CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY
BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN
AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY
NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW,DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY.
THANK YOU.
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, September 14, 2012 12:25:52 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Judge Zurzolo and Winitsky--Chapter 20
Hello, I found this thread and am looking for updates on what judges down town
allow a chapter 20 lien strip (chapter 13 after chapter 7 discharge.) In my
case the debtors could use the chapter 13 to cure the arrears on the first but
they would also like to strip the second. They just received a chapter 7
discharge a year ago.
Any updates on which judges in LA down town allow this and which ones don't?
Thank you.
Holly Roark
holly@roarklawoffices.com
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
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
>Does Judge Zurzolo follow the Winitsky decision? (i.e. does he allow lien
>stripping in a Chapter 13--both on a principal residence and rental proper
>after a discharge has been granted in a Chapter 7)
>
>
>*************************
>Mark J. Markus
>Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
>web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means
>at

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Hello, I found this thread and am looking for updates on what judges down
town allow a chapter 20 lien strip (chapter 13 after chapter 7 discharge.)
In my case the debtors could use the chapter 13 to cure the arrears on the
first but they would also like to strip the second. They just received a
chapter 7 discharge a year ago.
Any updates on which judges in LA down town allow this and which ones
don't? Thank you.
Holly Roark
holly@roarklawoffices.com
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
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
> **
>
>
> Does Judge Zurzolo follow the Winitsky decision? (i.e. does he allow lien
> stripping in a Chapter 13--both on a principal residence and rental proper
> after a discharge has been granted in a Chapter 7)
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means
> at
> http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/
> )
> ________________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
Hello, I found this thread and am looking for updates on what judges down town allow a chapter 20 lien strip (chapter 13 after chapter 7 discharge.)the first but they would also like to strip the second. They just received a chapter 7 discharge a year ago.
Any updates on which judges in LA down town allow this and which ones don't? Thank you.Holly Roark
holly@roarklawoffices.com
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
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Mark J. Markus <bklawr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Does Judge Zurzolo follow the Winitsky decision? (i.e. does he
allow lien stripping in a Chapter 13--both on a principal residence
and rental proper after a discharge has been granted in a Chapter 7)


*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what
this means at
http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/)

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Can anyone impart some wisdom on how Judge Klein rules on a Winitsky chapter 20 fact situation? The only debt left over from the chapter 7 is some income tax debt.
Thank you in advance.
Steve Burton

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center
A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Culver City (310) 391-2400
To: "bklawr@bklaw.com"
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2012 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Judge Zurzolo and Winitsky--Chapter 20
No. Winitsky is about using 506 in a no discharge 13. My last post wasapplicable todebtor's primary residence. If a rental property then 506 valuation would not be restricted by 1322(b)(2)to circumtances involving entirely undersecured loans. However, use of 506 generally is the operative analysis.
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center
A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Culver City (310) 391-2400
________________________________
To: Yahoo
Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2012 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Judge Zurzolo and Winitsky--Chapter 20
Sorry, I think my original post got lost in all of this. This is on a rental property, not the debtor's principal residence. First is partially secured and 2nd is wholly unsecured. Does that change your answer at all?
Thanks again Peter.
On 3/4/2012 8:41 PM, Yahoo wrote:
There would be no "secured" portion, it must be entirely under secured to be rendered unsecured for plan purposes via 506(a) and subject to permanent lien avoidance at conclusion of plan payments via 506(d), but no requirement that the claim receive a specific % only that debtor fund estate for a duration that establishes "good faith" and distinguishes end run around Dewsnup's prohibition on using 506 in Ch7. If all Ch20 plan payments go to arrears on first loan/td, property taxes and priority taxes, for example, then 0% plan is presumably ok.
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Mar 3, 2012, at 4:55 PM, "Mark J. Markus Law Office" wrote:
>
>
>
>>Actually what I meant to ask initially (now that I re-read
my e-mail) was: Does the stripped of remaining SECURED
portion have to be paid 100% during the plan term? I agree
with you that the unsecured portion would need to get paid
something, even where the debt was already discharged,
although it could be less than 100% (if it wasn't less,
there would be no point in doing the lienstrip).
>>
>>On 3/3/2012 4:50 PM, P L wrote:
>>Well, the 1111(b) election results in the lien remaining against the property and securing the entire claim with the election not to participate in the unsecure claim for the undersecured amount.
>>>
>>>This is more similar to a Chapter 7 trustee holding
open an estate to collect and disburse a stream of
royalty income after the debtor is discharged.
>>>
>>>Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>>>The Personal Financial Law Center
>>>A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
>>>Culver City (310) 391-2400
>>>
>>>
>>>To: P L
>>>Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2012 4:14 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Judge Zurzolo and Winitsky--Chapter 20
>>>
>>>
>>>That's what I thought. In a Chapter 11 there would be no restriction on the plan term. I guess I never really understood what the benefit was to the debtor of stripping the lien in a Chapter 13 when it has to be paid in full in 5 years. It's sort of like a self-imposed 1111(b) election in a 13.
>>>
>>>On 3/3/2012 4:08 PM, P L wrote:
>>>The plan provides for payment.
>>>>
>>>>My belief is based upon the fact thatthe estate is not the same as the debot andthat the claim remains against the estate once avoided under 506 "for plan purposes"despite that the debtor is not personally liable as a result of the prior Chapter 7 discharge.Essentially, the debtor isarge of the unpaid balance on the note and this establishes the "good faith" to prevent an end-run around Dewsnup.
>>>>
>>>>Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>>>>The Personal Financial Law Center
>>>>A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
>>>>Culver City (310) 391-2400
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To: petermlively2000@yahoo.com
>>>>Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2012 1:59 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Judge Zurzolo and Winitsky--Chapter 20
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks Peter.
>>>>
>>>>Did you provide for payment of the
"stripped off" (unsecured) portion
100% during the plan term, or is
that only necessary when the debt
hasn't previously been discharged?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>*************************
>>>>Mark J. Markus
>>>>Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>>>>11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>>>>Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>>>>(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
>>>>web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>>>>This Firm is a Qualified Federal
Debt Relief Agency (see what this
means at

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

He didn't have a problem with it in 2:10-bk-23404-VZ, but the parties resolved the issue through a stipulation.
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center
A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Culver City (310) 391-2400
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2012 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Judge Zurzolo and Winitsky--Chapter 20
So as far as anyone knows, Zurzolo does NOT allow it?
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what
this means at http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/)
________________________________________________
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 3/2/2012 1:39 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
I have gotten two chapter 20s with Judge Donovan.
>On Mar 2, 2012 1:02 PM, "sofiya davtyan" wrote:
>
>
>>Judge Donovan was ok since I had one granted few months ago but Trustee had requested that I amend the plan to indicate that the lien avoidance be conditional upon completion of the plan since Debtor was not eligible for discharge. Hope this helps.
>>
>>Sofya
>>
>>
>>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 10:55 AM
>>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Judge Zurzolo and Winitsky--Chapter 20
>>
>>
>>
>>My understanding is he does not. In fact, I do not believe there is a Los Angeles Judge that allows for the Chapter 20 to remove a lien (maybe WB)?
>>
>>
>>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 10:26:50 AM
>>Subject: [cdcbaa] Judge Zurzolo and Winitsky--Chapter 20
>>
>>
>>Does Judge Zurzolo follow the Winitsky decision? (i.e. does he allow lien stripping in a Chapter 13--both on a principal residence and rental proper after a discharge has been granted in a Chapter 7)
>>
>>
>>*************************
>>Mark J. Markus
>>Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>>11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>>Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>>(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460
(fax)
>>web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>>This Firm is a Qualified Federal
Debt Relief Agency (see what
this means at http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/)
>>________________________________________________
>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>*****PLEASE NOTE - WE HAVE A NEW DOWNTOWN ADDRESS*****
>>
>>Matthew D. Resnik
>>Attorney at Law
>>
>>Los Angeles Office - Downtown
>>
>>Simon and Resnik LLP
>>510 W. Sixth Street
>>Suite 1220
>>Los Angeles, Ca 90014
>>T:213-572-0800
>>F: 213-572-0860
>>Matt@resniklaw.com
>>www.simonresnik.com
>>
>>San Fernando Valley - Sherman Oaks
>>Simon & Resnik, LLP
>>15233 Ventura Boulevard
>>Suite 300
>>Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
>>P: 818-783-6251 #2
>>F: 818-827-4919
>>
>>
>>
>>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

So as far as anyone knows, Zurzolo does NOT allow it?
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
means at

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I have gotten two chapter 20s with Judge Donovan.
On Mar 2, 2012 1:02 PM, "sofiya davtyan" wrote:
> **
>
>
> Judge Donovan was ok since I had one granted few months ago but Trustee
> had requested that I amend the plan to indicate that the lien avoidance be
> conditional upon completion of the plan since Debtor was not eligible for
> discharge. Hope this helps.
>
> Sofya
>
> *From:* Matt Resnik
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Friday, March 2, 2012 10:55 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Judge Zurzolo and Winitsky--Chapter 20
>
>
> My understanding is he does not. In fact, I do not believe there is a Los
> Angeles Judge that allows for the Chapter 20 to remove a lien (maybe WB)?
>
> *To: *cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent: *Friday, March 2, 2012 10:26:50 AM
> *Subject: *[cdcbaa] Judge Zurzolo and Winitsky--Chapter 20
>
>
> Does Judge Zurzolo follow the Winitsky decision? (i.e. does he allow lien
> stripping in a Chapter 13--both on a principal residence and rental proper
> after a discharge has been granted in a Chapter 7)
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means
> at
> http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/
> )
> ________________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> --
> *****PLEASE NOTE - WE HAVE A NEW DOWNTOWN ADDRESS*****
>
> Matthew D. Resnik
> Attorney at Law
>
> Los Angeles Office - Downtown
>
> Simon and Resnik LLP
> 510 W. Sixth Street
> Suite 1220
> Los Angeles, Ca 90014
> T:213-572-0800
> F: 213-572-0860
> Matt@resniklaw.com
> www.simonresnik.com
>
> San Fernando Valley - Sherman Oaks
> Simon & Resnik, LLP
> 15233 Ventura Boulevard
> Suite 300
> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
> P: 818-783-6251 #2
> F: 818-827-4919
>
>
>
>
>
I have gotten two chapter 20s with Judge Donovan.
On Mar 2, 2012 1:02 PM, "sofiya davtyan" <s_dav2005@yahoo.com> wrote:
Judge Donovan was ok since I had one granted few months ago but Trustee had requested that I amend the plan to indicate that the lien avoidance be conditional upon completion of the plan since Debtor was not eligible for discharge. Hope this helps.
Sofya

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Judge Donovan was ok since I had one granted few months ago but Trustee had requested that I amend the plan to indicate that the lien avoidance be conditional upon completion of the plan since Debtor was not eligible for discharge. Hope this helps.
Sofya

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

My understanding is he does not. In fact, I do not believe there is a Los Angeles Judge that allows for the Chapter 20 to remove a lien (maybe WB)?

The post was migrated from Yahoo.