Is it a business case or a non-business case for purposes
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:38 am
Hello Nick:
I think "type of debts" is correct, if you're talking about, for
instance, all the credit card debts as opposed to all the medical bill
debts. ("What is the type of debts that you, oh debtor, have listed for
me on the back of this Best Buy receipt?")
We can also use the phrase "types of debt" to distinguish between the
different buckets of debtthat our petitions carry to the discharge
trough. So that means that every conceivable combination of "type[s] of
debt[s]" is allowable, and carries a slightly different semantic meaning.
I am surprised, however, to hear that a "surprisingly largenumber of
people" insist on the erroneousness (is that a word? should it have a
hyphen in it someplace?) of "type of debts." I am sure that I have
never knowingly met one of these passionate people; I guess that means
that forme, "one" might actually be "a surprisingly large number of
people."
Cheers,
John
On 11/27/12 1:09 AM, Nicholas Gebelt wrote:
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> As you know, there is nothing grammatically incorrect about the phrase
> "type of debts" by itself, since "of debts" is merely a prepositional
> phrase which need not agree in number with "type."
>
> However, as you noted, your use of a plural verb in the sentence was
> obviously incorrect because the subject of the sentence was "type,"
> rather than "debts." (Thus, the sentence would have been perfectly
> acceptable if it had been worded: "The type of debts has nothing to
> do with it.") I know that the verb misuse was the solecism that
> provoked your expression of linguistic horror, but I'm making the
> point anyway because I have come across a surprisingly large number of
> people who insist that while it is correct to say, "type of debt," or
> "types of debts," it is not correct to say "type of debts." They are,
> of course, mistaken. For example, credit card debts are unsecured
> (except for Best Buy debts), so the type of those debts is "unsecured."
>
> Oops. Is my pedantry showing? I apologize.
>
> All the best,
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>
> Board Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
>
> Description: cid:image003.jpg@01CC076B.B14D73C0
>
> Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
>
> 15150 Hornell Street
>
> Whittier, CA 90604
>
> Phone: 562.777.9159
>
> FAX: 562.946.1365
>
> Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com ;
> ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
>
> Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
>
> Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
>
>
> *We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy
> relief under the Bankruptcy Code.*
>
> *Confidentiality Note*: This e-mail is intended only for the person
> or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
> privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure.
> Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the
> information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an
> employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the
> intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
> in error, please notify us immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail
> info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the original
> message and all copies.
>
> *Representation Note*: If you have not signed a contract of
> representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent
> you, and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
>
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: *In order to comply with the
> 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.
>
> *From:*cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Mark J. Markus
> *Sent:* Monday, November 26, 2012 5:18 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] [CAMFFG] Cal CD: Is it a business case or a
> non-business case for purposes of RARA?
>
> wow...terrible grammar. The TYPES of debts HAVE nothing to do with it....
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> *Subject: *
>
>
>
> Re: [cdcbaa] [CAMFFG] Cal CD: Is it a business case or a non-business
> case for purposes of RARA?
>
> *Date: *
>
>
>
> Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:16:20 -0800
>
>
>
>
> Mark J. Markus
>
> *To: *
>
>
>
> cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>
> The type of debts have nothing to do with it. Debtor either operates a
> business or doesn't. If he closed the business prepetition, then he's
> not operating a business....
>
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board
> of Legal Specialization
>
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
> means at
> http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
> intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the
> contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
> in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
> written 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 in this communication.
>
> On 11/26/2012 4:59 PM, Larry Webb wrote:
>
> What if the debtor has closed the business, but has two lawsuits
> and a judgment for personal guarantees on business debt? The
> shuttered business is the only reason he is filing a chapter 13,
> seems like a business case to me.
>
> Best regards
>
> Larry Webb
>
> State Bar of California 229344
>
> Central District California
>
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
>
> Check out my Blog
>
> Larry@webbklaw. com
>
> Law Offices of Larry Webb
>
> 484 Mobil Ste 43
>
> Camarillo Ca 93010
>
> P 805.987.1400
>
> F 805.987.2866
>
> C 805.750.2150
>
> *From:*cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark J. Markus
> *Sent:* Monday, November 26, 2012 10:58 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] [CAMFFG] Cal CD: Is it a business case or
> a non-business case for purposes of RARA?
>
> The requirements in a business case are set forth in the local
> rules and are substantially more involved than a non-business case.
>
> However, there is no definition anywhere of what a business case
> is. The local rules merely say: "If the debtor is operating a
> business or is otherwise self-employed..."
>
> Many debtors are both employed, and have self-employment side jobs
> (which can include renting property, or the under water basket
> weaving website they have).
>
> I have asked the Trustees about this in the past, and they
> generally say they know it when they see it. It is really up to
> the Trustee to determine whether or not it is a business case.
> This makes it difficult for attorneys representing debtors to
> figure out ex ante what needs to be provided in a given case. I've
> NEVER heard of a Trustee objecting to the treatment of a case as a
> business case when it's unclear (as where, for example, the facts
> are like the hypothetical in this thread) whereas if you don't
> treat a case as business case and provide the documents, you will
> most likely have to provide the additional documentation to the
> Trustee and, as Jay points out, if you chose to do the RARA and
> did not treat it as a business case, you're out of luck on your
> additional fees.
>
> Thus, my default is to err on the side of something being a
> business case. It doesn't have to be 100% business or even over
> 50%. It doesn't say that ANYWHERE. That being said, this is an
> area that would be nice if future revisions of our local rules
> would define what a business case actually is....
>
>
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
> Board of Legal Specialization
>
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
> means at
> http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information
> is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
> the contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
> contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not
> intended or written 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 in this communication.
>
> On 11/26/2012 9:06 AM, Jay S. Fleischman wrote:
>
> Wait a minute. I'm all for higher legal fees but you're
> calling this a business case without knowing if the debtors
> are treating this as a business?
>
> So a guy with all consumer debt, working a 9-5 job who happens
> to own two rental properties is automatically a business case?
>
> Sorry guys, I don't see it.
>
> If there's more work to be done, opt out of the RARA and bill
> hourly.
>
> On Nov 26, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Giovanni Orantes > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Business. Lots more work to provide information to trustee.
>
> On Monday, November 26, 2012, Jay Fleischman wrote:
>
> Even if the debtors are otherwise employed?
>
> On Nov 26, 2012 7:50 AM, "Kirk Brennan"
>
> wrote:
>
> Business
>
> On Nov 26, 2012 1:21 AM, "Alik Segal"
> > wrote:
>
> The optional local form in the Central District of
> California, the Rights and Responsibilities Agreement
> ("RARA"), provides that where both attorney and clients
> agree to proceed under RARA, attorney can be paid up to
> $5K for a business chapter 13 case and up to $4K for a
> non-business case.
>
> Is a chapter 13 wage-earner case with two income real
> estate properties a business case or a non-business case
> for purposes of RARA?
>
> --
> Alik Segal
> Alik.Segal@gmail.com
> 310-362-6157
> California Central District
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
> Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
>
> Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE,
> SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11
> AND 15 CASES.
>
> 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.
>
> --
>
> ******************************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist- The State Bar of California Board
> of Legal Specialization
>
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
> means at
> http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
> intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the
> contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
> in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
> written 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 in this communication.
>
> --
>
> ******************************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist- The State Bar of California Board
> of Legal Specialization
>
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
> means at
> http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
> intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the
> contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
> in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
> written 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 in this communication.
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.