PC Owes $3+ Million to Former Spouse as Property Division, Per Court Judgment
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:05 pm
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.