.jpg)
IMPORTANT! Ch13 cases before Judge Kaufman
Per Judge Kaufman -- best interests of the DEBTOR.
Keith Higginbotham
cdcbaacheck@aol.com
To: cdcbaa
Sent: Thu, Oct 5, 2017 9:13 am
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] IMPORTANT! Ch13 cases before Judge Kaufman
Thanks Keith for the heads up..but best interest of the debtor
Marcus G. Tiggs
BAYER WISHMAN & LEOTTA
1055 Wilshire Bvd, Ste 1900
Los Angeles, CA. 90017
|p| 213-629-8801 |f| 213-629-8802
mtiggs@lawbwl.com
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents, materials, and attachments contains confidential information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Recipient(s) is not to share or forward any such information without written consent from BAYER WISHMAN & LEOTTA. Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Furthermore, if the intended recipient is a Client, this communication is protected by the ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact BAYER WISHMAN & LEOTTA and the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related matter.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Can anyone send me a sample Motion for Reconsideration.
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
Full service Real Estate Attorney &
California State Bar
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (818) 554-9922
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept notice for *Ex
Parte* Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If
you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute,
store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system.
This message, electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto
are protected by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (18 USC 2510-2522) and are intended solely for the named recipient(s) and
authorized agent(s).
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To comply with requirements imposed by the
Department of the Treasury, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written by the practitioner to be used, and that it cannot be
used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties
that may be imposed on the taxpayer, and (ii) supporting the
promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters addressed herein.
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:22 AM, John Faucher j.d.faucher@sbcglobal.net
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> A cursory glance at Rosson suggests that, in the 9th Circuit, 1307b's
> absolute right to convert is limited by a bad-faith exception, and that the
> conversion requires notice and a hearing. Grace's post sounds like there
> was no finding of bad faith, and no notice of the hearing. My quick
> assessment is to follow David's advice, ask for a motion to reconsider, and
> appeal if necessary.
> I'd also research whether "interest of the debtor" is a factor at all
> here.
> - John D. Faucher
> 818/889-8080
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 11:11 AM, "'Peter M. Lively'
> petermlively2000@yahoo.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
>
> A hardship discharge is often better than a chapter 7 discharge - this
> approach should satisfy the judge's concern that the debtor exit the
> chapter 13 without owing general unsecured debt.
>
>
> Peter M. Lively, J.D., M.B.A.
> Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
> 11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230
>
> -4647
> Telephone: (310) 391-2400 * Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310)
> 391-2462
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 04> Rodriguez rgracelaw@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Members:
>
> I had a case yesterday in front of her. Debtor has equity in her
> property. In her best interest I argued the Chapter 13 case should be
> dismissed, so she can sell her property since she is 55 years old has never
> worked and living on spousal support income. There would enough money for
> her to purchase a mobile home with the exemption and then she could come
> back to file a chapter 7 afterwards and claim her homeowner's exemption for
> the mobile home, plus the cost of resale would protect a little more of the
> equity in the property.
>
> Judge Kaufman was adamant that the debtor get her "Discharge" from this
> bankruptcy rather than come back to refile. S he was adamant that all of
> her creditors be paid whatever they could be paid in the chapter 7, and
> that it didn't matter that the Chapter 7 Trustee's administrative claim
> would eat away at that. She did not accept this as an argument for the
> best interests of the Debtor.
>
> Given 1307(b) which I did not argue, and I had asked the court to dismiss
> at the Confirmation hearing because she wanted to do something different
> and no money to reorganize . . . she denied my request and converted the
> case instead.
>
> I asked her about the fact that this has not been the court's policy and
> that this debtor is now being taken by surprised because while I advised
> her that the court may have always had the right to do this, the facts
> remain that it hadn't been and the chances were unlikely.
>
> Any suggestions offline would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
> Full service Real Estate Attorney &
> California State Bar
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
> OFF: (818) 734-7223
> CEL: (818) 554-9922
>
> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept notice for *Ex
> Parte* Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
> California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
> business hours.
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
> confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If
> you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute,
> store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
> delete this e-mail from your system.
>
> This message, electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto
> are protected by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (18 USC > 2510-2522) and are intended solely for the named recipient(s) and
> authorized agent(s).
>
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To comply with requirements imposed by the
> Department of the Treasury, we inform you that any U.S. tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments)
> is not intended or written by the practitioner to be used, and that it
> cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
> penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer, and (ii) supporting
> the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters addressed herein.
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Keith Higginbotham cdcbaacheck@aol.com
> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Dear Colleagues!
>
> Please be informed that Judge Kaufman has started unilaterally using
> her own determination to convert cases to Ch7 in Ch13 Cf Hrgs and TMDs
> using what she determines is the "best interest of the debtor" test.
> Therefore, even if you are representing the debtor and you are seeking
> dismissal of your own debtor's case the Court may instead convert the case
> to a Ch7.
>
>
>
>
> *Keith Higginbotham*
> cdcbaacheck@aol.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
Can anyone send me a sample Motion for Reconsideration.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
A cursory glance at Rosson suggests that, in the 9th Circuit, 1307b's absolute right to convert is limited by a bad-faith exception, and that the conversion requires notice and a hearing. Grace's post sounds like there was no finding of bad faith, and no notice of the hearing. My quick assessment is to follow David's advice, ask for a motion to reconsider, and appeal if necessary.I'd also research whether "interest of the debtor" is a factor at all here.- John D. Faucher818/889-8080
On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 11:11 AM, "'Peter M. Lively' petermlively2000@yahoo.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
A hardship discharge is often better than a chapter 7 discharge - this approach shouldsatisfy the judge's concern that the debtor exit the chapter 13 without owing general unsecured debt.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
On Wednesday, October 04:00 AM, R Grace Rodriguez rgracelaw@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
Dear Members:
I had a case yesterday in front of her. Debtor has equity in her property. In her best interest I argued the Chapter 13 case should be dismissed, so she can sell her property since she is 55 years old has never worked and living on spousal support income. There would enough money for her to purchase a mobile home with the exemption and then she could come back to file a chapter 7 afterwards and claim her homeowner's exemption for the mobile home, plus the cost of resale would protect a little more of the equity in the property.
Judge Kaufman was adamant that the debtor get her "Discharge" from this bankruptcy rather than come back to refile. S he was adamant that all of her creditors be paid whatever they could be paid in the chapter 7, and that it didn't matter that the Chapter 7 Trustee's administrative claim would eat away at that. She did not accept this as an argument for the best interests of the Debtor.
Given 1307(b) which I did not argue, and I had asked the court to dismiss at the Confirmation hearing because she wanted to do something different and no money to reorganize . . . she denied my request and converted the case instead.
I asked her about the fact that this has not been the court's policy and that this debtor is now being taken by surprised because while I advised her that the court may have always had the right to do this, the facts remain that it hadn't been and the chances were unlikely.
Any suggestions offline would be appreciated.
CEL: (818) 554-9922
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not acceptnotice forEx ParteApplications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
This message, electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto are protected by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (18 USC rized agent(s).
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To comply with requirements imposed by the Department of theTreasury, we inform you that this communication (including anyattachments) is not intended or written by the practitioner to be used, and that it cannot be used by anytaxpayer, for the purpose of (i) on the taxpayer, and (ii)supporting the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters addressed herein.
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Keith Higginbotham cdcbaacheck@aol.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
Dear Colleagues!
using her own determination to convert cases to Ch7 in Ch13 Cf Hrgs and TMDs using what she determines is the "best interest of the debtor" test.dismissal of your own debtor's case the Court may instead convert the case to a Ch7.
Keith Higginbotham
cdcbaacheck@aol.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
A hardship discharge is often better than a chapter 7 discharge - this approach shouldsatisfy the judge's concern that the debtor exit the chapter 13 without owing general unsecured debt.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
On Wednesday, October 04:00 AM, R Grace Rodriguez rgracelaw@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
Dear Members:
I had a case yesterday in front of her. Debtor has equity in her property. In her best interest I argued the Chapter 13 case should be dismissed, so she can sell her property since she is 55 years old has never worked and living on spousal support income. There would enough money for her to purchase a mobile home with the exemption and then she could come back to file a chapter 7 afterwards and claim her homeowner's exemption for the mobile home, plus the cost of resale would protect a little more of the equity in the property.
Judge Kaufman was adamant that the debtor get her "Discharge" from this bankruptcy rather than come back to refile. S he was adamant that all of her creditors be paid whatever they could be paid in the chapter 7, and that it didn't matter that the Chapter 7 Trustee's administrative claim would eat away at that. She did not accept this as an argument for the best interests of the Debtor.
Given 1307(b) which I did not argue, and I had asked the court to dismiss at the Confirmation hearing because she wanted to do something different and no money to reorganize . . . she denied my request and converted the case instead.
I asked her about the fact that this has not been the court's policy and that this debtor is now being taken by surprised because while I advised her that the court may have always had the right to do this, the facts remain that it hadn't been and the chances were unlikely.
Any suggestions offline would be appreciated.
CEL: (818) 554-9922
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not acceptnotice forEx ParteApplications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
This message, electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto are protected by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (18 USC rized agent(s).
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To comply with requirements imposed by the Department of theTreasury, we inform you that this communication (including anyattachments) is not intended or written by the practitioner to be used, and that it cannot be used by anytaxpayer, for the purpose of (i) on the taxpayer, and (ii)supporting the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters addressed herein.
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Keith Higginbotham cdcbaacheck@aol.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
Dear Colleagues!
using her own determination to convert cases to Ch7 in Ch13 Cf Hrgs and TMDs using what she determines is the "best interest of the debtor" test.dismissal of your own debtor's case the Court may instead convert the case to a Ch7.
Keith Higginbotham
cdcbaacheck@aol.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Dear Members:
I had a case yesterday in front of her. Debtor has equity in her
property. In her best interest I argued the Chapter 13 case should be
dismissed, so she can sell her property since she is 55 years old has never
worked and living on spousal support income. There would enough money for
her to purchase a mobile home with the exemption and then she could come
back to file a chapter 7 afterwards and claim her homeowner's exemption for
the mobile home, plus the cost of resale would protect a little more of the
equity in the property.
Judge Kaufman was adamant that the debtor get her "Discharge" from this
bankruptcy rather than come back to refile. S he was adamant that all of
her creditors be paid whatever they could be paid in the chapter 7, and
that it didn't matter that the Chapter 7 Trustee's administrative claim
would eat away at that. She did not accept this as an argument for the
best interests of the Debtor.
Given 1307(b) which I did not argue, and I had asked the court to dismiss
at the Confirmation hearing because she wanted to do something different
and no money to reorganize . . . she denied my request and converted the
case instead.
I asked her about the fact that this has not been the court's policy and
that this debtor is now being taken by surprised because while I advised
her that the court may have always had the right to do this, the facts
remain that it hadn't been and the chances were unlikely.
Any suggestions offline would be appreciated.
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
Full service Real Estate Attorney &
California State Bar
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (818) 554-9922
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept notice for *Ex
Parte* Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If
you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute,
store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system.
This message, electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto
are protected by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (18 USC 2510-2522) and are intended solely for the named recipient(s) and
authorized agent(s).
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To comply with requirements imposed by the
Department of the Treasury, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written by the practitioner to be used, and that it cannot be
used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties
that may be imposed on the taxpayer, and (ii) supporting the
promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters addressed herein.
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Keith Higginbotham cdcbaacheck@aol.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Dear Colleagues!
>
> Please be informed that Judge Kaufman has started unilaterally using
> her own determination to convert cases to Ch7 in Ch13 Cf Hrgs and TMDs
> using what she determines is the "best interest of the debtor" test.
> Therefore, even if you are representing the debtor and you are seeking
> dismissal of your own debtor's case the Court may instead convert the case
> to a Ch7.
>
>
>
>
> *Keith Higginbotham*
> cdcbaacheck@aol.com
>
>
>
Dear Members:I had a case yesterday in front of her. Debtor has equity in her property. In her best interest I argued the Chapter 13 case should be dismissed, so she can sell her property since she is 55 years old has never worked and living on spousal support income. There would enough money for her to purchase a mobile home with the exemption and then she could come back to file a chapter 7 afterwards and claim her homeowner's exemption for the mobile home, plus the cost of resale would protect a little more of the equity in the property.Judge Kaufman was adamant that the debtor get her "Discharge" from this bankruptcy rather than come back to refile. S he was adamant that all of her creditors be paid whatever they could be paid in the chapter 7, and that it didn't matter that the Chapter 7 Trustee's administrative claim would eat away at that. She did not accept this as an argument for the best interests of the Debtor. ms,sans-serif">Given 1307(b) which I did not argue, and I had asked the court to dismiss at the Confirmation hearing because she wanted to do something different and no money to reorganize . . . she denied my request and converted the case instead.Any suggestions offline would be appreciated.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I assume it's based on In re Rosson, 545 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2008)
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
_*Mailing Address Only:*_
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (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
________________________________________________
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 10/3/2017 12:45 PM, John Faucher j.d.faucher@sbcglobal.net
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> How can she do this, given 1307b?
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 12:14 PM, "Keith Higginbotham
> cdcbaacheck@aol.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
> Dear Colleagues!
>
> Please be informed that Judge Kaufman has started unilaterally
> using her own determination to convert cases to Ch7 in Ch13 Cf
> Hrgs and TMDs using what she determines is the "best interest of
> the debtor" test. Therefore, even if you are representing the
> debtor and you are seeking dismissal of your own debtor's case the
> Court may instead convert the case to a Ch7.
>
>
>
> /Keith Higginbotham/
> cdcbaacheck@aol.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thanks Keith for the heads up..but best interest of the debtorcreditors?
Marcus G. Tiggs
*BAYER WISHMAN & LEOTTA*
1055 Wilshire Bvd, Ste 1900
Los Angeles, CA. 90017
|p| 213-629-8801 |f| 213-629-8802
*mtiggs@lawbwl.com *
[image: 11ACR (png)xSmall]
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication
with its contents, materials, and attachments contains confidential
information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s).
Recipient(s) is not to share or forward any such information without
written consent from BAYER WISHMAN & LEOTTA. Unauthorized interception,
review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws
including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Furthermore, if the
intended recipient is a Client, this communication is protected by the
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact BAYER WISHMAN & LEOTTA and the sender and destroy all copies of the
communication.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to requirements imposed by the
Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication
(including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used,
for purposes of avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal
Revenue Code or promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any
tax-related matter.
*From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 03, 2017 12:14 PM
*To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
*Subject:* [cdcbaa] IMPORTANT! Ch13 cases before Judge Kaufman
Dear Colleagues!
Please be informed that Judge Kaufman has started unilaterally using her
own determination to convert cases to Ch7 in Ch13 Cf Hrgs and TMDs using
what she determines is the "best interest of the debtor" test. Therefore,
even if you are representing the debtor and you are seeking dismissal of
your own debtor's case the Court may instead convert the case to a Ch7.
*Keith Higginbotham*
cdcbaacheck@aol.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.