Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

I line up more with Peter: this smells like an abuse of the automatic stay.
But for the short sale, would they have filed separately? But for the
benefit of free rent, would it have played itself out this way? Creditors
have rights, and as officers of the court, I believe we have a duty to not
file cases we know to be bad faith.
Further, "they will testify" is suspect wording. Not stated in the facts
below is whether they indeed are having marital difficulties and "separated"
as defined by the Family Code and case law. There is no divorce filed, and
they both live in the house. More facts are needed as to whether this part
of the case is running afoul of the spirit and letter of the law. If
they're really struggling with the marriage and he's sleeping in a trailer
in the back yard, that could change my answer, but those facts aren't
presented.
Finally, without giving tax advice, I've seen more than one instance where
debtor first approached me with a tax liability after a short sale on the
debt forgiveness. I don't usually see a good reason to do a short sale,
given the risk of nondischargeable IRS debt after the discharge. From my
experience, only the realtor wins when there's a short sale and debtor is
filing. The downside of a foreclosure (credit ding) is relatively small when
the debtor(s) is doing a bankruptcy and trashing their credit anyway,
especially when weighed against the potential (nondischargeable) tax harm
resulting from a short sale. And when they get a 1099 after they've both
done a Chapter 7 and owe $20,000 in taxes and want you to help them, they're
likely to be a tad bit grumpy.
For the above reasons, with the facts, I'd probably stay away from it.
YMMV, etc,
J. Antico, concurring
________________________________

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Keep in mind that attorney signs petition representing to the courtpursuant toRule 9011 that it is not presented for any improper purpose, such as to cause "unnecessary delay." Participating in a coordinated effort of spouses to file separate cases only for the purpose of delaying a foreclosure sale arguablyfalls under this umbrella.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 3:34 PM, Catherine Christiansen wrote:
Filing Separately, disclosing all the necessary information, include all the household income and expenses. as long as no Relief granted on secured property then 2nd filing will be first stay for second spouse. Often used when negotiating with untrustworthy foot dragging creditor
Law Office of Catherine Christiansen
17011 Beach Blvd. Ste 900, Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Tel: (714) 375-6651 Fax: (562) 490-8572
attorneychristiansen@gmail.com
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 3:09 PM, Peter M. Lively wrote:
You haven't given very many financial figures, but your fact pattern gives off a bad smell. Keep in mind that the second spouse mustdisclose the related case of the first spouse(F 1015-2.1),both spousesneed to disclose that they are not legally separated and not living apart (Means Test), andthey wouldneed to carefully considerhow they willcomplete schedule J regarding the home loan payments.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:16 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
I don't see a problem with it.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Desiree Causey wrote:
>
>I was speaking with a short sale realtor today and a scenario came up that I thought I would run by the group.
>
>H and W own a house. House is underwater. Husband files for Chapter 7 BK and is discharged after 5 months. Then wife files for her Chapter 7 Bk. They will testify that they are separating and contemplating a divorce and that is why they are filing separately.>
>The real question is: Is this ethical? Or just good planning to get their financial house in order.
>
>Any thoughts my wise friends?
>
>
>Desiree Causey, Esq.
>Law Office of Desiree Causey
>17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
>Huntington Beach, CA 92647
>causeylaw@gmail.com
>
>714-375-6663
>714-908-7646 (fax)
>
>
Kirk Brennan
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Filing Separately, disclosing all the necessary information, include all the household income and expenses. as long as no Relief granted on secured property then 2nd filing will be first stay for second spouse. Often used when negotiating with untrustworthy foot dragging creditor
Law Office of Catherine Christiansen
17011 Beach Blvd. Ste 900, Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Tel: (714) 375-6651 Fax: (562) 490-8572
attorneychristiansen@gmail.com
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 3:09 PM, Peter M. Lively wrote:
You haven't given very many financial figures, but your fact pattern gives off a bad smell. Keep in mind that the second spouse mustdisclose the related case of the first spouse(F 1015-2.1),both spousesneed to disclose that they are not legally separated and not living apart (Means Test), andthey wouldneed to carefully considerhow they willcomplete schedule J regarding the home loan payments.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:16 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
I don't see a problem with it.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Desiree Causey wrote:
>
>I was speaking with a short sale realtor today and a scenario came up that I thought I would run by the group.
>
>H and W own a house. House is underwater. Husband files for Chapter 7 BK and is discharged after 5 months. Then wife files for her Chapter 7 Bk. They will testify that they are separating and contemplating a divorce and that is why they are filing separately.>
>The real question is: Is this ethical? Or just good planning to get their financial house in order.
>
>Any thoughts my wise friends?
>
>
>Desiree Causey, Esq.
>Law Office of Desiree Causey
>17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
>Huntington Beach, CA 92647
>causeylaw@gmail.com
>
>714-375-6663
>714-908-7646 (fax)
>
>
Kirk Brennan
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

You haven't given very many financial figures, but your fact pattern gives off a bad smell. Keep in mind that the second spouse mustdisclose the related case of the first spouse(F 1015-2.1),both spousesneed to disclose that they are not legally separated and not living apart (Means Test), andthey wouldneed to carefully considerhow they willcomplete schedule J regarding the home loan payments.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:16 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
I don't see a problem with it.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Desiree Causey wrote:
>
>I was speaking with a short sale realtor today and a scenario came up that I thought I would run by the group.
>
>H and W own a house. House is underwater. Husband files for Chapter 7 BK and is discharged after 5 months. Then wife files for her Chapter 7 Bk. They will testify that they are separating and contemplating a divorce and that is why they are filing separately.>
>The real question is: Is this ethical? Or just good planning to get their financial house in order.
>
>Any thoughts my wise friends?
>
>
>Desiree Causey, Esq.
>Law Office of Desiree Causey
>17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
>Huntington Beach, CA 92647
>causeylaw@gmail.com
>
>714-375-6663
>714-908-7646 (fax)
>
>
Kirk Brennan
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I don't see a problem with it.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Desiree Causey wrote:
>
>
> I was speaking with a short sale realtor today and a scenario came up that
> I thought I would run by the group.
>
>
>
> H and W own a house. House is underwater. Husband files for Chapter 7 BK
> and is discharged after 5 months. Then wife files for her Chapter 7 Bk.
> They will testify that they are separating and contemplating a divorce
> and that is why they are filing separately. They obviously are living in
> the house without payments to the lender.
>
>
>
> The real question is: Is this ethical? Or just good planning to get
> their financial house in order.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts my wise friends?
>
>
>
>
>
> Desiree Causey, Esq.
>
> Law Office of Desiree Causey
>
> 17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
>
> Huntington Beach, CA 92647
>
> causeylaw@gmail.com
>
>
>
> 714-375-6663
>
> 714-908-7646 (fax)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Kirk Brennan
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
I don't see a problem with it.On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Desiree Causey <causeylaw@gmail.com> wrote:

I was speaking with a short sale realtor today and a scenario came up that I thought I would run by the group.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: groups-system
I was speaking with a short sale realtor today and a scenario came up that I
thought I would run by the group.
H and W own a house. House is underwater. Husband files for Chapter 7 BK
and is discharged after 5 months. Then wife files for her Chapter 7 Bk.
They will testify that they are separating and contemplating a divorce and
that is why they are filing separately. They obviously are living in the
house without payments to the lender.
The real question is: Is this ethical? Or just good planning to get their
financial house in order.
Any thoughts my wise friends?
Desiree Causey, Esq.
Law Office of Desiree Causey
17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
causeylaw@gmail.com
714-375-6663
714-908-7646 (fax)

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charsetndows-1252
I second Larry on that one. Maybe if the firm represented the Trustee in some personal matter or concurrently represents trustee (except as special counsel) and a creditor in this matter, there would be a conflict.
Jason
Jason Wallach
jwallach@gladstonemichel.com
On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Larry Simons wrote:
>
> Ummm no. Each estate is a different legal entity and a law firm is not precluded from representing a creditor in one case and the same trustee you have in another case.
>
>
>
Desiree Causey
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:08 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Ethics question
>
>
>
>
>
> I have a continued 341A hearing today on an asset Chapter 7. Yesterday, while preparing, I popped open the website of the creditors counsel I expect to appear today at the hearing (they were there at the original 341A hearing and have filed a claim). I discovered, on their extensive website that they represent panel trustees in situations like my case. So my questions are:
>
>
>
> 1. Can I ask if this law firm has represented this panel trustee?>
>
>
> 2. And if so, can I object to the whole hearing even taking place and ask the OUST for a new panel trustee?
>
>
>
> The hearing is early this afternoon, so anyone with thoughts on this would respond, I would appreciate it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Desiree Causey, Esq.
>
> Law Office of Desiree Causey
>
> 17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
>
> Huntington Beach, CA 92647
>
>
>
> 714-375-6663
>
> 714-908-7646 (fax)
>
>
>
> Any tax advice contained in the body of this e-mail (and any attachments thereto) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.
>
> Privileged And Confidential Communication.
> This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>
>
>
>
>
>
charsetndows-1252
I second Larry on that one. Maybe if the firm represented the Trustee in some personal matter or concurrently represents trustee (except as special counsel) and a creditor in this matter, there would be a conflict. Jason
Jason Wallach
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Ummm no. Each estate is a different legal entity and a law firm is not precluded from representing a creditor in one case and the same trustee you have in another case.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I have a continued 341A hearing today on an asset Chapter 7. Yesterday,
while preparing, I popped open the website of the creditors counsel I
expect to appear today at the hearing (they were there at the original 341A
hearing and have filed a claim). I discovered, on their extensive website
that they represent panel trustees in situations like my case. So my
questions are:
1. Can I ask if this law firm has represented this panel trustee?
2. And if so, can I object to the whole hearing even taking place and
ask the OUST for a new panel trustee?
The hearing is early this afternoon, so anyone with thoughts on this would
respond, I would appreciate it.
Desiree Causey, Esq.
Law Office of Desiree Causey
17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
714-375-6663
714-908-7646 (fax)
Any tax advice contained in the body of this e-mail (and any attachments
thereto) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the
recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.
Privileged And Confidential Communication.
This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are
protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC
2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named
above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify
the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is
strictly prohibited.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
I have a continued 341A hearing today on an asset Chapter 7.
Yesterday, while preparing, I popped open the website of the creditor’s counsel
I expect to appear today at the hearing (they were there at the original 341A hearing
and have filed a claim). I discovered, on their extensive website that they
represent panel trustee’s in situations like my case. So my questions
are:

1.
Can I ask if this law firm has represented this panel
trustee?

2.
And if so, can I object to the whole hearing even
taking place and ask the OUST for a new panel trustee?

The hearing is early this afternoon, so anyone with thoughts
on this would respond, I would appreciate it.


Desiree Causey, Esq.
Law Office of Desiree Causey
17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647

714-375-6663
714-908-7646 (fax)

Any tax advice contained in the body of this e-mail (and any
attachments thereto) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by the recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be
imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law
provisions.
Privileged And Confidential Communication.
This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are
protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC 2510-2521),
(b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are
for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received
this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the
electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the
contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.


The post was migrated from Yahoo.