.jpg)
PC Owes $3+ Million to Former Spouse as Property Division, Per Court Judgment
The hearts were my little neice sharing her early techy skills on my IPhone. Sorry about that.
Vicki
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: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:15 AM
>Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] PC Owes $3+ Million to Former Spouse as Property Division, Per Court Judgment
>
>
>
>My reply would not be hearts but tears.
>
>From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary Wallace
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:02 AM
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [cdcbaa] PC Owes $3+ Million to Former Spouse as Property Division, Per Court Judgment
>
>
>This California potential client is over 65, jobless and living on social security. His current financial problems arise from a marital dissolution property distribution order entered in the LA Superior Court. He does no longer has title to or possession of the underlying real property property that was awarded to the former spouse in the court judgment. I believe there was a foreclosure of one parcel and, as to the other, he apparently never had any enforceable rights or interest in the property, contrary to the court's findings. Unfortunately, the judgment awards not the property, but millions of dollars based upon valuations of those properties without any conditions relative to disposition or status of the property. The time to appeal has long since lapsed. His only other debt is a small IRS lien and a unpaid debt for a recreational vehicle. My preliminary analysis tells me that a Ch 7 is pointless due to the nondischargeable aspect of the judgment
under that chapter. Moreover, while the PC could, I believe, discharge this debt in a Ch 13 upon full compliance (as the judgment does not concern spousal support), he is ineligible for Ch 13 due to the sec 109(e) debt limitation. If so, and if he therefore files a Ch 11, he can't discharge any portion of it (any longer under BAPCA), and must somehow provide for it in a plan. This makes Ch 11, with its attendant costs, almost pointless. Moreover, the stay does not apply to this judgment during a Ch 11.
>
>Correct so far?
>
>Gary R. Wallace
>Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC
>4551 Glencoe Ave., Suite 300
>Marina del Rey, CA 90292
>Tel. (310) 821-9000
>Fax (310) 775-8775
>Email: gwallace@gladstonemichel.com
>Web: www.gladstonemichel.com
>---------
>NOTE: The information contained in this email may contain attorney-client privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee
or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by email and delete the original message.
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thanks Nick. This all makes sense except that he is still hopeful of resuming his once-profitable business ventures (he was once a very successful businessman). But with the judgment hanging over him and (as I understand it) a relentless former spouse, he has little financial incentive to do so.
Gary R. Wallace
Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC
4551 Glencoe Ave., Suite 300
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel. (310) 821-9000
Fax (310) 775-8775
Email: gwallace@gladstonemichel.com
Web: www.gladstonemichel.com
NOTE: The information contained in this email may contain attorney-client privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message.
On Mar 21, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Nicholas Gebelt wrote:
>
> Dear Gary,
>
>
>
> I agree that bankruptcy will not solve your clients problems. However, if I understood your description of his woes, he is destitute, and therefore judgment-proof. After all, if his sole source of income is social security, and his assets are minimal, against what will the judgment creditor collect? Perhaps he should tell his creditors where things stand. If they see that hes a dry well, maybe the phone calls will stop.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
James T. King
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:15 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] PC Owes $3+ Million to Former Spouse as Property Division, Per Court Judgment
>
>
>
>
>
> My reply would not be hearts but tears.
>
>
>
Gary Wallace
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:02 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] PC Owes $3+ Million to Former Spouse as Property Division, Per Court Judgment
>
>
>
>
>
> This California potential client is over 65, jobless and living on social security. His current financial problems arise from a marital dissolution property distribution order entered in the LA Superior Court. He does no longer has title to or possession of the underlying real property property that was awarded to the former spouse in the court judgment. I believe there was a foreclosure of one parcel and, as to the other, he apparently never had any enforceable rights or interest in the property, contrary to the court's findings. Unfortunately, the judgment awards not the property, but millions of dollars based upon valuations of those properties without any conditions relative to disposition or status of the property. The time to appeal has long since lapsed. His only other debt is a small IRS lien and a unpaid debt for a recreational vehicle. My preliminary analysis tells me that a Ch 7 is pointless due to the nondischargeable aspect of the judgment under that chapter. Moreover, while the PC could, I believe, discharge this debt in a Ch 13 upon full compliance (as the judgment does not concern spousal support), he is ineligible for Ch 13 due to the sec 109(e) debt limitation. If so, and if he therefore files a Ch 11, he can't discharge any portion of it (any longer under BAPCA), and must somehow provide for it in a plan. This makes Ch 11, with its attendant costs, almost pointless. Moreover, the stay does not apply to this judgment during a Ch 11.
>
> Correct so far?
>
> Gary R. Wallace
> Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC
> 4551 Glencoe Ave., Suite 300
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel. (310) 821-9000
> Fax (310) 775-8775
> Email: gwallace@gladstonemichel.com
> Web: www.gladstonemichel.com
> ---------
> NOTE: The information contained in this email may contain attorney-client privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message.
>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 21, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Gary Wallace wrote:
> This California potential client is over 65, jobless and living on social security. His current financial problems arise from a marital dissolution property distribution order entered in the LA Superior Court. He does no longer has title to or possession of the underlying real property property that was awarded to the former spouse in the court judgment. I believe there was a foreclosure of one parcel and, as to the other, he apparently never had any enforceable rights or interest in the property, contrary to the court's findings. Unfortunately, the judgment awards not the property, but millions of dollars based upon valuations of those properties without any conditions relative to disposition or status of the property. The time to appeal has long since lapsed. His only other debt is a small IRS lien and a unpaid debt for a recreational vehicle. My preliminary analysis tells me that a Ch 7 is pointless due to the nondischargeable aspect of the judgment under that chapter. Moreover, while the PC could, I believe, discharge this debt in a Ch 13 upon full compliance (as the judgment does not concern spousal support), he is ineligible for Ch 13 due to the sec 109(e) debt limitation. If so, and if he therefore files a Ch 11, he can't discharge any portion of it (any longer under BAPCA), and must somehow provide for it in a plan. This makes Ch 11, with its attendant costs, almost pointless. Moreover, the stay does not apply to this judgment during a Ch 11.
>
> Correct so far?
>
> Gary R. Wallace
> Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC
> 4551 Glencoe Ave., Suite 300
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel. (310) 821-9000
> Fax (310) 775-8775
> Email: gwallace@gladstonemichel.com
> Web: www.gladstonemichel.com
> ---------
> NOTE: The information contained in this email may contain attorney-client privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message.
>
>
, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Gary Wallace <gwallace@gladstonemichel.com> wrote:
This California potential client is over 65, jobless and living on social security. His current financial problems arise from a marital dissolution property distribution order entered in the LA Superior Court. He does no longer has title to or possession of the underlying real property property that was awarded to the former spouse in the court judgment. I believe there was a foreclosure of one parcel and, as to the other, he apparently never had any enforceable rights or interest in the property, contrary to the court's findings. Unfortunately, the judgment awards not the property, but millions of dollars based upon valuations of those properties without any conditions relative to disposition or status of the property. The time to appeal has long since lapsed. His only other debt is a small IRS lien and a unpaid debt for a recreational vehicle. My preliminary analysis tells me that a Ch 7 is pointless due to the nondischargeable aspect of the judgment under that chapter. Moreover, while the PC could, I believe, discharge this debt in a Ch 13 upon full compliance (as the judgment does not concern spousal support), he is ineligible for Ch 13 due to the sec 109(e) debt limitation. If so, and if he therefore files a Ch 11, he can't discharge any portion of it (any longer under BAPCA), and must somehow provide for it in a plan. This makes Ch 11, with its attendant costs, almost pointless. Moreover, the stay does not apply to this judgment during a Ch 11.
Correct so far?
Gary R. Wallace
Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC
4551 Glencoe Ave., Suite 300
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel. (310) 821-9000
Fax (310) 775-8775
Email: gwallace@gladstonemichel.com
Web: www.gladstonemichel.com
NOTE: The information contained in this email may contain attorney-client privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
This California potential client is over 65, jobless and living on social security. His current financial problems arise from a marital dissolution property distribution order entered in the LA Superior Court. He does no longer has title to or possession of the underlying real property property that was awarded to the former spouse in the court judgment. I believe there was a foreclosure of one parcel and, as to the other, he apparently never had any enforceable rights or interest in the property, contrary to the court's findings. Unfortunately, the judgment awards not the property, but millions of dollars based upon valuations of those properties without any conditions relative to disposition or status of the property. The time to appeal has long since lapsed. His only other debt is a small IRS lien and a unpaid debt for a recreational vehicle. My preliminary analysis tells me that a Ch 7 is pointless due to the nondischargeable aspect of the judgment under that chapter. Moreover, while the PC could, I believe, discharge this debt in a Ch 13 upon full compliance (as the judgment does not concern spousal support), he is ineligible for Ch 13 due to the sec 109(e) debt limitation. If so, and if he therefore files a Ch 11, he can't discharge any portion of it (any longer under BAPCA), and must somehow provide for it in a plan. This makes Ch 11, with its attendant costs, almost pointless. Moreover, the stay does not apply to this judgment during a Ch 11.
Correct so far?
Gary R. Wallace
Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC
4551 Glencoe Ave., Suite 300
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel. (310) 821-9000
Fax (310) 775-8775
Email: gwallace@gladstonemichel.com
Web: www.gladstonemichel.com
NOTE: The information contained in this email may contain attorney-client privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.