In re Jacobson
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:51 pm
It sure sounds like it.
*
*
*
*
*ROBERT KEVIN LEE, A.P.C.*
*Bankruptcy Lawyers*
*A Strategic Part of Any Corporate Reorganization.*
_________________________
Robert K. Lee, Esq
State Bar Certified Specialist
[Bankruptcy Law]
3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1035
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Ph [888] 777-0839 Ext 505
Fax [888] 777-0849
WEBSITE
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Jim Selth wrote:
> **
>
>
> Could a Chapter 7 trustee use this case to argue that following a sale of
> a property by the trustee and payment of the homestead exemption to the
> debtor, the debtor must reinvest that payment in a new homestead within
> six months or the trustee can take it back?
>
> Jim Selth
>
> *Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID*
>
>
> -----Original message-----
>
> To: *"cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com" *
> Sent: *Mon, Apr 23, 2012 23:35:24 PDT
> *
> Subject: *Re: [cdcbaa] In re Jacobson
>
>
>
> Thanks Daniela:
>
> From the Jacobson case: I thought the previous case from the 9th Cir
> was 15 years ago, it was 26 years ago. I am getting old.....This is not a
> new theory. We had the same worry 26 years ago and it did not pan out.
>
> I have, on occasion, advised people to move to Big Bear and buy a small
> cabin within 6 months, to save the exemption.
>
> Note, Judge Ferris cannot spell postpetition.
>
> d
>
> In In re Golden, 789 F.2d 698 (9th
> Cir. 1986), the debtor had filed for bankruptcy after selling his
> California homestead and had then let the reinvestment period
> lapse without investing his exempt share of the proceeds. Id.
> at 699. The debtor argued the proceeds were nonetheless
> exempt because they had been exempt when he filed for bankruptcy. Id. at
> 700. We rejected that argument and held the debtor had received the
> proceeds subject to the reinvestment
> There is no material difference between Golden and
> this case. The homestead exemption gave the Jacobsons
> clearly defined rights with respect to the Kensington property.
> The Jacobsons had a right to $150,000 in proceeds. Cal. Civ.
> Proc. Code 704.730(a)(3) (2007). That right was contingent
> on their reinvesting the proceeds in a new homestead within
> six months of receipt. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 704.720(b). The
> Jacobsons did not abide by that condition and thus forfeited
> the exemption.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Daniela Romero
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2012 11:12 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] In re Jacobson [1 Attachment]
>
>
>
> NINTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
>
> *-Bankruptcy-*
> Where debtors home was sold at a sheriffs sale to satisfy judgment, and
> debtor failed to reinvest the exempt portion of the proceeds within six
> months, the proceeds lost their exempt character under California law as it
> existed at the time of the bankruptcy filing. Trustee failed to establish
> by preponderance of the evidence that the estate was entitled to turnover
> of certain property owned by debtors spouse, where spouse was the sole
> owner of record, the property was acquired with proceeds of his
> inheritance, and was subsequently sold by him in his own name with his
> spouses confirmation that it was his separate property. Trustee lacked
> standing to claim that the inheritance belonged to a prior bankruptcy
> estate. Determination in prior bankruptcy that debtor ran her husbands
> affairs--as a result of which he was not implicated in wifes fraud and was
> discharged--did not estop him from claiming that his property was not part
> of her bankruptcy estate, since that issue was not litigated in the prior
> proceeding.
> *In re Jacobson* - filed April 23, 2012
> Cite as 10-60040
> Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0412%2F10-60040
> Sincerely,
> *
>
> Daniela P. Romero*
> *Law Office of Daniela P. Romero, APLC*
> *1015 North Lake Ave., Ste. 212*
> *Pasadena, CA 91104*
> *Tel: (626) 817-2611*
> *Fax: (626) 296-6991*
> *email: dromerolaw@gmail.com *
> *web: www.pasadenabankruptcylaw.com*
> ______________________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This email (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
> Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. The information herein is
> confidential, privileged & exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
> This E-mail (including attachments) are intended solely for the use of the
> addressee hereof. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
> you are prohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing,
> disseminating, or otherwise using this transmission. The originator of this
> email and its affiliates do not represent, warrant or guarantee that the
> integrity of this communication has been maintained or that this
> communication is free of errors, viruses or other defects. Delivery of
> this message or any portions herein to any person other than the intended
> recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have
> received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by email
> and immediately delete this message.
> My profiles: [image: Blogger] [image: Facebook] [image:
> Twitter] [image: LinkedIn]
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Dennis McGoldrick wrote:
>
> **
>
> ok, I'll be more specific. What is the cite?
> This has been the law for a long time.
>
> d
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Robert Lee
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2012 9:57 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] In re Jacobson
>
>
> No just got a email update from findlaw today
> On Apr 23, 2012 9:41 PM, "Dennis McGoldrick" wrote:
>
> **
>
> Is this case you are asking about, 15 years, or so, years old?
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Robert Lee
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2012 9:31 PM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] In re Jacobson
>
> **
>
> *Has anyone seen this ruling ? Homestead exemption ruled as belonging to
> the bankruptcy estate because it was not reinvested in a homestead within 6
> months. *
>
> *The reinvestment period under the California homestead exemption lasts*
> *six months regardless of when a debtor sells his homestead.*
> *Lane theorized that if the proceeds from post-petition homestead*
> *sales could lose their exempt status, trustees might*
> *claim an interest in the homestead and postpone closing a*
> *case so long as there is any possibility the debtors circumstances*
> *might change. Id. at 765. We find this concern too*
> *speculative. We doubt a trustee would delay liquidating an*
> *estate because (1) the debtors homestead might be sold at*
> *some point in the future and (2) the debtor might fail to reinvest*
> *his share of the proceeds six months after the sale.*
> *
> *
> *The reasoning is flawed for at least two reasons:*
> *1] Trustees will most likely delay closing of cases because they've
> done it before capture the growth in equity unless a motion to abandon is
> filed and granted;*
> *2] Since when can a debtor in Los Angeles County buy another home for
> $75,000 / $100,000 / $175,000 ? No bank is going to give them a loan
> during bankruptcy or shortly thereafter thereby requiring them to buy one
> for cash.*
> * *
> * *
>
>
> _________________________
> Robert K. Lee, Esq
> State Bar Certified Specialist
> [Bankruptcy Law]
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1035
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Ph [888] 777-0839 Ext 505
> Fax [888] 777-0849
> WEBSITE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
It sure sounds like it.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.