[CAMFFG] Cal CD: Is it a business case or a non-business case for purposes of RARA?
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:18 pm
I agree with the operating a business side of this thread.
That is the means test rule of 50% of debt to qualify as a business debt 7, does not apply to using the Ch 13 rara business fees.
I also agree apartments are businesses and they do qualify for the business fees in the 13 rara.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 26, 2012, at 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 >
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I agree with the operating a business side of this thread. That is the means test rule of 50% of debt to qualify as a business debt 7, does not apply to using the Ch 13 rara business fees.I also agree apartments are businesses and they do qualify for the business fees in the 13 rara. Sent from my iPhoneOn Nov 26, 2012, at 4:59 PM, "Larry Webb" <larry@webbklaw.com> wrote:Larry@webbklaw. comLaw Offices of Larry Webb484 Mobil Ste 43Camarillo Ca 93010 P 805.987.1400F 805.987.2866C 805.750.2150 From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark J. MarkusSent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:58 AMTo:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.