.jpg)
Recovery of foreclosed house [1 Attachment]
So now I'm wondering......
Does this mean then that if a bankruptcy is filed and the Debtor
(prior owner of home) informs the Foreclosure Trustee of the bankruptcy,
then the Foreclosure Trustee is not allowed to execute and record the
Trustee's Deed Upon Sale..... UNTIL they get relief from automatic stay to
perfect title? Could the new owner of the property do a MFR asking for
relief for both..... request perfection of title and allow unlawful
detainer?
It seems then however, that the sale that took place before the
filing of the BK was valid and not in violation of a stay will stand. So
not necessarily case authority that could be used to get the home back? N
Thanks for sharing that case Matt it is interesting....
Renay
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Matt Resnik wrote:
> **
>
> [Attachment(s) from Matt Resnik included
> below]
>
> Thanks.
>
> I have attached the case.
>
> Very interesting. Goes against the Garner case (208 BR 698) from 1997 that
> states there is no violation due to the relation back doctrine.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *To: *cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:57:38 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [cdcbaa] Recovery of foreclosed house
>
>
>
> Yes. But note that there is a couple of weeks' lag time between
> recordation and the time the TDUS actually shows up on the public records.
> If the client can afford it, you probably want to file the petition
> immediately based on its not showing up on the records so far. See In Re
> Gonzalez from Judge Wallace for a good discussion on this.
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:33 PM, JMB2BLB wrote:
>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN
>> BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA.
>>
>> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
>> information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
>> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
>> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
>> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
>> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
>> please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
>> e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>>
>> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with 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.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *****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
>
>
>
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (818) 554-9922
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. You must comply with
California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If
you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute,
store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system.
So now I'm wondering...... Does this mean then that if a bankruptcy is filed and the Debtor (prior owner of home) informs the Foreclosure Trustee of the bankruptcy, then the Foreclosure Trustee is not allowed to execute and record the Trustee's Deed Upon Sale..... UNTIL they get relief from automatic stay to perfect title? Could the new owner of the property do a MFR asking for relief for both..... request perfection of title and allow unlawful detainer?
It seems then however, that the sale that took place before the filing of the BK was valid and not in violation of a stay will stand. So not necessarily case authority that could be used to get the home back? N
Thanks for sharing that case Matt it is interesting....RenayOn Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Matt Resnik <matt@simonresniklaw.com> wrote:
[Attachment(s) from Matt Resnik included below]
Thanks.I have attached the case.Very interesting. Goes against the Garner case (208 BR 698) from 1997 that states there is no violation due to the relation back doctrine.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.