.jpg)
Exempt car using grubstake, avoid nonpossessory, nonp=
Pat: In Reaves, the creditor also tried to argue that attempted use and then denial of the exemption in state court somehow precluded her use of the exemption in her bankruptcy proceeding. Judge Zurzolo quickly corrected the creditor on both theories, and, I thought, put it to rest. Appeals to the BAP and Court of Appeals cemented the finding. Interestingly, both my client and Garcia were battling to protect their "Mercedes" vehicles!
Steven L. Bryson
Attorney at Law
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
11377 W. Olympic Bl., Ste 500
Los Angeles, CA 90064
310-477-4555
www.file4bankruptcy.com
To: cdcbaa
Sent: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 10:41 am
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Exempt car using grubstake, avoid nonpossessory, nonpurchase money lien
Steve:
Similar as to the wildcard issue, but the issue decided in Reaves was whether the debtor had to use part of the wildcard for exempting a homestead before they could then use it to exempt the car. A nonsense argument that is not supported by the plain language of 703. In Garcia, the issue was whether the wildcard could be used to exempt the car if the debtor also was using the auto exemption. Also not supported by the plain language of 703.
In Reaves the 9th Circuit went into extensive detail about CA law on statutory interpretation which could be useful in other cases where interpretation of a CA statute is at issue. In Garcia, the court just said any property means any property. In other words, the plain language couldnt be plainer.
As an added bonus, the judge wrote: [the question is] whether the vehicle in question, a 2001 Mercedes 320E sedan, was in fact a tool of the debtors trade as a real estate agent, or just a sweet ride.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
Attorney at Law
Fitzgerald & Green
1010 E. Union St. Ste. 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.