Reply-To:
ssoesq@aol.com
X-Original-Return-Path:
ssoesq@aol.com
To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: groups-system
Hi Dennis,
I think they were trying to express that over time, the % to trustees will
be significantly less so in your hypothetical, the percentage would be
closer to 1% (or $2,000) which is the same amount as paying out the 10% on the
$20,000 plan.
If they are already cutting a check, then it makes little difference if the
check is for the monthly payment plus the arrears or the arrears, and
overall, it will save attorneys from having to deal with relief from stay based
on missed payments.
Back in the day, when mortgage payments were paid through the trustees, I
don't believe they counted it toward the overall plan payment and/or took
their fee, but merely noted the payment and mailed it on. At least that is my
recollection. I don't believe the deposited in the overall plan funds.
What the panel (not our moderator) seemed to convey is that chapter 13
process should only be available for cookie-cutter paycheck debtors who could
get earnings withholding order, had stable income, and could make
verifiable regular monthly payments which could be locked in for the life of the
plan.
For most of us who are in the trenches, the filing is often a decision
based on projections, support/contributions from family members, avoiding the
risks in chapter 7, and where the Debtor recognizes/ understands that if
they want to remain in chapter 13, they have to make their monthly plan
payments. This avoids the fact that some times, the filing is a decision (a
serious and costly one) to achieve a shorter term goal where a lender hasn't
confirmed a continued trustee sale date, or to provide a limited amount of
relief for Debtors who are now facing reality about their financial
conditions about their housing situation and recognize that something has to give,
ie, making more income or cutting down on expenses.
What is left is a chess game as to how the creditor's react (relief from
stay, loan modification, adversaries) which will then govern what Debtor's
next move is... surrender the property, amend the plan, relocate/downsize,
etc.
It is a lot of work. I am still thinking about the no-look fee or not
allowing any advance payments. I don't think that many practitioners
could/would do that but, I believe, would avoid the non-regulars who are filing
cases and don't know that they are doing (and will never get a plan
confirmed).
My practice sees more of the complicated cases, and while I am usually paid
in full prior to filing, often seek approval (without payment) of
additional fees when the plan/funds will allow it, but I never chase clients or
allow fees to interfere with a Debtor's plan and regularly write-off the
balance.
I regularly will bet (with myself) that the plan will be approved, and
will take fees through the plan, if needed, but I like to think I know what I
am doing (and without guaranteeing any results), don't want to be put in a
position adverse to the client because a tax claim came in higher and now my
fees aren't going to be paid.
It was still a GREAT event, entertaining - a little direct, but real (and
real issues).
Very truly yours,
Shai Oved
The Law Offices of Shai Oved
7445 Topanga Cyn. Blvd., Suite 220
_Canoga Park, California 91303_ (x-apple-data-detectors://2/0)
Tel: _(818) 992-6588_ (tel:(818)%20992-6588)
Fax: _(818) 992-6511_ (tel:(818)%20992-6511)
Email:
_ssoesq@aol.com _ (mailto:
ssoesq@aol.com) _www.shaioved.com_
(
http://www.shaioved.com/)
________________
The information contained in this email is intended only for the
individual or entity named above and may contain attorney privileged and
confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copy of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this
communication in error, please immediately notify us by the telephone number above and
return any hard copies to us via the postal service. The Law Offices of
Shai Oved is a debt relief agency which helps people file for bankruptcy under
the Bankruptcy Code. Shai Oved is a Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist by
The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization.
In a message dated 9/19/2015 2:31:13 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
Hello Everyone:
Today we had three panel members telling us to support conduit payments of
mortgages in ch 13's. I tried to ask a question to get a reason why and
was told I was too slow to get it, that the trustee's fees would come down
to 3%, and it would be cheaper, but here is the math:
Suppose your client's mortgage payment is $3,000 per month, and with late
charges, etc, the client is $20k behind and needs a 13.
$20,000 x 10% is all the trustee's fees in our current system, cost
$2,000.00 ($3,500.00 if your entire attorneys fees were in the plan.)
With conduit payments, the entire 60 months of payments would go through
the trustee, $180,000.00, plus the arrears payments, $20,000.00, total
$200,000.00. Even with a 3% fee from the trustee, the trustees fees would be
$6,000.00. ($7,500 if you add atty fees)
I don't know why Ms. Porter just insulted me to quiet my question, but
$6,000 is a greater cost than the $2,000 without a conduit.
In fact, the dollars would only turn around to be positive for the debtor
if the debtor had $120,000, more that had to be paid through the trustee.
Don't support conduit payments.
Dennis
Hi Dennis,
I think they were trying to express that over time, the % to trustees will
be significantly less so in your hypothetical, the percentage would be closer to
1% (or $2,000) which is the same amount as paying out the 10% on the $20,000
plan.
If they are already cutting a check, then it makes little difference if the
check is for the monthly payment plus the arrears or the arrears, and overall,
it will save attorneys from having to deal with relief from stay based on missed
payments.
Back in the day, when mortgage payments were paid through the trustees, I
don't believe they counted it toward the overall plan payment and/or took their
fee, but merely noted the payment and mailed it on. At least that is my
recollection. I don't believe the deposited in the overall plan
funds.
What the panel (not our moderator) seemed to convey is that chapter
13 process should only be available for cookie-cutter paycheck debtors
who could get earnings withholding order, had stable income, and could make
verifiable regular monthly payments which could be locked in for the life of the
plan.
For most of us who are in the trenches, the filing is often a decision
based on projections, support/contributions from family members, avoiding the
risks in chapter 7, and where the Debtor recognizes/ understands that if
they want to remain in chapter 13, they have to make their monthly plan
payments. This avoids the fact that some times, the filing is a decision
(a serious and costly one) to achieve a shorter term goal where a lender hasn't
confirmed a continued trustee sale date, or to provide a limited amount of
relief for Debtors who are now facing reality about their financial conditions
about their housing situation and recognize that something has to give, ie,
making more income or cutting down on expenses.
What is left is a chess game as to how the creditor's react (relief from
stay, loan modification, adversaries) which will then govern what Debtor's next
move is... surrender the property, amend the plan, relocate/downsize, etc.
It is a lot of work. I am still thinking about the no-look fee or not
allowing any advance payments. I don't think that many
practitioners could/would do that but, I believe, would avoid the
non-regulars who are filing cases and don't know that they are doing (and will
never get a plan confirmed).
My practice sees more of the complicated cases, and while I am usually paid
in full prior to filing, often seek approval (without payment) of
additional fees when the plan/funds will allow it, but I never chase clients
or allow fees to interfere with a Debtor's plan and regularly write-off the
balance.
I regularly will bet (with myself) that the plan will be approved, and
will take fees through the plan, if needed, but I like to think I know what I am
doing (and without guaranteeing any results), don't want to be put in a position
adverse to the client because a tax claim came in higher and now my fees aren't
going to be paid.
It was still a GREAT event, entertaining - a little direct, but
real (and real issues).
Very truly yours,Shai OvedThe Law Offices of Shai Oved7445
Topanga Cyn. Blvd., Suite 220Canoga
Park, California 91303Tel: (818)
992-6588Fax: (818) 992-6511Email:
ssoesq@aol.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.