Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Cosign. No hyphen. "co" is a prefix, not a prehyphen. That is why codebtor is not hyphenated in 1301.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 5, 2012, at 4:06 PM, "t_mannis" wrote:
> I'm amazed this issue hasn't come up for me before, and maybe it has, but I just don't remember.
>
> My client co-signs for daughter's car with Ford Motor Credit. Cooksey sends their usual reaffirmation agreement. I call them up and tell them that in this particular case, parent co-signed for daughter, who did not file, and daughter will still make payments, etc. No reason for mom to sign a reaff. Their response was to get hostile and say doesn't matter, we can and will repossess daughter's car if the co-signer doesn't sign/file the reaff. I said I've got the Code in front of me, please point that out to me, and as soon as you do, I'll immediateyl forward it along to the client. Their response was literally silence, followed by they're not going to discuss the matter.
>
> In any case, am I wrong? Seems patently absurd, and I can't find anything in the Code supporting their position.
>
> Todd Mannis, Esq.
> Calabasas
>
>
>
>
> TODAY(Beta) Powered by Yahoo!
> NBA player's stunning alley-oop dunk
> New Jersey's Gerald Green finishes off a tricky play with the best dunk of the season, a writer says.
> Privacy Policy
Cosign. No hyphen. "co" is a prefix, not a prehyphen. That is why codebtor is not hyphenated in 1301. Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 5, 2012, at 4:06 PM, "t_mannis" <toddlaw@dslextreme.com> wrote:

I'm amazed this issue hasn't come up for me before, and maybe it has, but I just don't remember.
My client co-signs for daughter's car with Ford Motor Credit. Cooksey sends their usual reaffirmation agreement. I call them up and tell them that in this particular case, parent co-signed for daughter, who did not file, and daughter will still make payments, etc. No reason for mom to sign a reaff. Their response was to get hostile and say doesn't matter, we can and will repossess daughter's car if the co-signer doesn't sign/file the reaff. I said I've got the Code in front of me, please point that out to me, and as soon as you do, I'll immediateyl forward it along to the client. Their response was literally silence, followed by they're not going to discuss the matter.
In any case, am I wrong? Seems patently absurd, and I can't find anything in the Code supporting their position.
Todd Mannis, Esq.
Calabasas

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Nonfiling. No hyphen. Codebtor never hyphenated. Read 1301.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2012, at 5:57 AM, R Grace Rodriguez wrote:
> Hi There!
>
>
> You might want to talk to Maggie Bordeaux at Public Counsel about this case. If I understood her correctly she was looking for a case to challenge Ford with it if they took a car from a debtor that refused to reaffirm and the payments were still being made. I think this is something they wanted to challenge Ford on as a breach of contract issue.
>
> If I read correctly the parents co-signed. The daughter is still a signer to the contract and of course we ask what about her rights? If the parents bankruptcy and fail to reaffirm is this a substantial default which warrants repossession under civil law? I don't think you will get a state court judge to say that it does. And there are attorneys fees to enforce the contract? I'm thinking this is perfect case to challenge Ford on behalf of the daughter who continues to pay, along with the parents challenge on the reaffirmation.
>
> Just a few thoughts I had...
>
> Renay.
>
>
> R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
> OFF: (818) 734-7223
> CEL: (818) 554-9922
>
>
>
Nonfiling. No hyphen. Codebtor never hyphenated. Read 1301. Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 6, 2012, at 5:57 AM, R Grace Rodriguez <rgracelaw@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi There!You might want to talk to Maggie Bordeaux at Public Counsel about this case. If I understood her correctly she was looking for a case to challenge Ford with it if they took a car from a debtor that refused to reaffirm and the payments were still being made. I think this is something they wanted to challenge Ford on as a breach of contract issue.
If I read correctly the parents co-signed. The daughter is still a signer to the contract and of course we ask what about her rights? If the parents bankruptcy and fail to reaffirm is this a substantial default which warrants repossession under civil law? I don't think you will get a state court judge to say that it does. And there are attorneys fees to enforce the contract? I'm thinking this is perfect case to challenge Ford on behalf of the daughter who continues to pay, along with the parents challenge on the reaffirmation.
Just a few thoughts I had...Renay. R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.OFF: (818) 734-7223CEL: (818) 554-9922

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I think so too. I have never recommended a reaff be even signed when there is a cosigner. Of course, the language of the contract has to be looked at regarding the ipso facto clause.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Thank you Jim for the clarification. I'm still liking the claims the
daughter might have....
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (818) 554-9922
Thank you Jim for the clarification. I'm still liking the claims the daughter might have....R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.OFF: (818) 734-7223CEL: (818) 554-9922

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

The case that is being looked for is one where the debtor signs the Statement of Intention, correctly completes and signs the reaffirmation, attends the reaffirmation hearing, the judge denies the reaff and THEN they pick up the car. This is all assuming that payments and insurance are current.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Hi There!
You might want to talk to Maggie Bordeaux at Public Counsel about this
case. If I understood her correctly she was looking for a case to
challenge Ford with it if they took a car from a debtor that refused to
reaffirm and the payments were still being made. I think this is something
they wanted to challenge Ford on as a breach of contract issue.
If I read correctly the parents co-signed. The daughter is still a signer
to the contract and of course we ask what about her rights? If the parents
bankruptcy and fail to reaffirm is this a substantial default which
warrants repossession under civil law? I don't think you will get a state
court judge to say that it does. And there are attorneys fees to enforce
the contract? I'm thinking this is perfect case to challenge Ford on
behalf of the daughter who continues to pay, along with the parents
challenge on the reaffirmation.
Just a few thoughts I had...
Renay.
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (818) 554-9922
Hi There!You might want to talk to Maggie Bordeaux at Public Counsel about this case. If I understood her correctly she was looking for a case to challenge Ford with it if they took a car from a debtor that refused to reaffirm and the payments were still being made. I think this is something they wanted to challenge Ford on as a breach of contract issue.
If I read correctly the parents co-signed. The daughter is still a signer to the contract and of course we ask what about her rights? If the parents bankruptcy and fail to reaffirm is this a substantial default which warrants repossession under civil law? I don't think you will get a state court judge to say that it does. And there are attorneys fees to enforce the contract? I'm thinking this is perfect case to challenge Ford on behalf of the daughter who continues to pay, along with the parents challenge on the reaffirmation.
Just a few thoughts I had...Renay. R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.OFF: (818) 734-7223CEL: (818) 554-9922

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I didn't look into it in too much detail, but I believe 521 was adopted in
1978 and 362(c)(3) was added in 2005. Even if we ignore this as
insignificant then proponents of Reswick would argue that 362 provides the
context and when they wrote "with respect to the debtor" they just meant to
provide protection to a spouse that could be tangled into it.
Interpreting "with respect to the debtor" as distinguishing between a debtor
and his or her spouse is consistent with the distinction made at the
beginning of

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Hey, doesn't the language in 521 contradict In Re Reswick?! It is clear
that the drafters knew how to say the automatic stay is automatically
terminated "as to both the debtor and the bankruptcy estate" when that is
what they meant.
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
Hey, doesn'tthe language in 521 contradict In Re Reswick?! It is clear that the drafters knew how to say the automatic stay is automatically terminated "as to both the debtor and the bankruptcy estate" when that is what they meant.
-- Giovanni Orantes, Esq. Orantes Law Firm, P.C.3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980Los Angeles, CA 90010Tel: (213) 389-4362Fax: (877) 789-5776e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.comWE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I know they play hardball, and that's part of the reason I'd love to tell them to get lost.....
And I'm not going to risk it and play poker with my client's car, or rather her daughter's car, but still, I'm reading 521(a)(6)...
"an individual debtor shall not retain possession of personal property as to which a creditor has an allowed purchase money secured claim, unless the debtor, not later than 45 days after the first meeting of creditors either reaffirms or redeems the property. If the debtor fails to reaffirm or redeem within the 45 days, the automatic stay is automatically terminated as to both the debtor and the bankruptcy estate...."
Now, while it is a default under the ipso facto clause, what are the rights of the non-filing signator? The code says that the DEBTOR shall not maintain possession, but how about the non-debtor? And taking this further, let's say Ford repos. Non-filing debtor says wait, this is why you have co-signers, you still have someone liable on the contract, namely, me, and *I* didn't default, and I'm completely current. It strikes me as impossible that her rights were vanquished by mom filing BK and not reaffirming...
I know, life's not fair...
>
> Ford plays hardball on every case. The ipso facto clause in Ford's
> finance agreement says bankrupty is a default. The code says such
> clauses are enforceable if debtor does not take steps reaffirm secured
> auto loan. Irrelevant whether debtor is a personal guarantor. If
> Ford wants to bite off its nose to spite its face, it may do so.
>
> I've been fighting them on a redemption motion, where Ford tried to
> argue that the costs of needed repairs cannot be deducted from dealor
> retail and that they can use some absurdly high advertised price in the
> auto trader to reflect dealer retail even though that is thousands
> higer than KBB/NADA/EDMUNDS dealer retail quote, which of course are
> themselves absurdly overvalued compared to what the car can actually be
> sold. Judge Peter Carrol forced Ford to inspect the car and appraise
> it. The appraisal was lower than my client's valuation....
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:06:50 -0000, t_mannis wrote:
>
> I'm amazed this issue hasn't come up for me before, and
> maybe it has, but I just don't remember.
>
> My client co-signs for daughter's car with Ford Motor Credit. Cooksey
> sends their usual reaffirmation agreement. I call them up and tell them
> that in this particular case, parent co-signed for daughter, who did
> not file, and daughter will still make payments, etc. No reason for mom
> to sign a reaff. Their response was to get hostile and say doesn't
> matter, we can and will repossess daughter's car if the co-signer
> doesn't sign/file the reaff. I said I've got the Code in front of me,
> please point that out to me, and as soon as you do, I'll immediateyl
> forward it along to the client. Their response was literally silence,
> followed by they're not going to discuss the matter.
>
> In any case, am I wrong? Seems patently absurd, and I can't find
> anything in the Code supporting their position.
>
> Todd Mannis, Esq.
> Calabasas
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charsetF-8;
format="flowed"
Ford plays hardball on every case. The ipso facto clause in Ford's
finance agreement says bankrupty is a default. The code says such
clauses are enforceable if debtor does not take steps reaffirm secured
auto loan. Irrelevant whether debtor is a personal guarantor. If
Ford wants to bite off its nose to spite its face, it may do so.
I've been fighting them on a redemption motion, where Ford tried to
argue that the costs of needed repairs cannot be deducted from dealor
retail and that they can use some absurdly high advertised price in the
auto trader to reflect dealer retail even though that is thousands
higer than KBB/NADA/EDMUNDS dealer retail quote, which of course are
themselves absurdly overvalued compared to what the car can actually be
sold. Judge Peter Carrol forced Ford to inspect the car and appraise
it. The appraisal was lower than my client's valuation....
Mark T. Jessee
Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
"A Debt Relief Agency"
50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:06:50 -0000, t_mannis wrote:
I'm amazed this issue hasn't come up for me before, and
maybe it has, but I just don't remember.
My client co-signs for daughter's car with Ford Motor Credit. Cooksey
sends their usual reaffirmation agreement. I call them up and tell them
that in this particular case, parent co-signed for daughter, who did
not file, and daughter will still make payments, etc. No reason for mom
to sign a reaff. Their response was to get hostile and say doesn't
matter, we can and will repossess daughter's car if the co-signer
doesn't sign/file the reaff. I said I've got the Code in front of me,
please point that out to me, and as soon as you do, I'll immediateyl
forward it along to the client. Their response was literally silence,
followed by they're not going to discuss the matter.
In any case, am I wrong? Seems patently absurd, and I can't find
anything in the Code supporting their position.
Todd Mannis, Esq.
Calabasas
start="67dixax0s1kw@webmail.mysuperpageshosting.com"
charsetF-8
p{margin: 0;padding: 0;}Ford plays hardball on every
case. The ipso facto clause in Ford's finance agreement says
bankrupty is a default. The code says such clauses are enforceable
if debtor does not take steps reaffirm secured auto
loan. Irrelevant whether debtor is a personal guarantor.
If Ford wants to bite off its nose to spite its face, it may do so.

I've been fighting them on a redemption motion, where Ford tried to argue
that the costs of needed repairs cannot be deducted from dealor retail and that
they can use some absurdly high advertised price in the auto trader to reflect
dealer retail even though that is thousands higer than KBB/NADA/EDMUNDS dealer
retail quote, which of course are themselves absurdly overvalued compared to
what the car can actually be sold. Judge Peter Carrol
forced Ford to inspect the car and appraise it. The
appraisal was lower than my client's valuation....
Mark T. JesseeLaw Offices of Mark T. Jessee"A Debt Relief
Agency"50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200Thousand Oaks, CA 91360(805)
497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)On Tue, 06 Mar 2012
00:06:50 -0000, t_mannis <toddlaw@dslextreme.com> wrote:

The post was migrated from Yahoo.