Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

And Zurzolo dismisses cases filed by attorneys with a 180 day bar if the
debtors don't make ANY plan payments. Judge Z questioned one individual
why someone was 7 months behind in payments and quickly the attorney
responded because debtor lost job 7 months ago...... okay no bar on that
one.... but imagine if lawyer didn't know his client's case and didn't
explain.... potentially looking at a bar.
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (818) 554-9922
And Zurzolo dismisses cases filed by attorneys with a 180 day bar if the debtors don't make ANY plan payments. Judge Z questioned one individual why someone was 7 months behind in payments and quickly the attorney responded because debtor lost job 7 months ago...... okay no
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

he rules that you have intentionally violated his order and maybe you should have a 180 day bar from practicing bankruptcy.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Nov 6, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
>
> Would the motion for order vacating the bar be filed immediately after filing a second case?
> Judge is VZ. How doss he rule on these?
> Thanks,
>
>> On Nov 6, 2013 10:46 AM, "Peter M. Lively" wrote:
>>
>> See 109(g) re 180 day bar.
>>
>> If debtor has a reasonable excuse for failing to timely file the required documents, then debtor can prosecute a motion for an order vacating the 180 day bar.
>>
>> 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, November 6, 2013 10:10 AM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
>>
>> PC's chapter 13 case was recently dismissed for failure to file required schedules and plan. Oddly, the order dismissing the case includes a 180 day bar to refiling. No prior bk filings of PC for over 10 years, and no indication in the order dismissing the case of inappropriate behavior by the debtor. PC wants to file another chapter 13 (this time with help of a bk attorney), but the 180 day bar is a problem.
>> Since the 180 day bar appears to have been done in error, what is the best procedure to handle this? File the case, then file a motion to allow the case to proceed despite the bar?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Kirk Brennan
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
>> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

No, never. You never want to intentionally violate an order. File a motion to alter or amend the prior order. Point out no prior filings. Judge will vacate and you will not be personally held in contempt.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
>
> PC's chapter 13 case was recently dismissed for failure to file required schedules and plan. Oddly, the order dismissing the case includes a 180 day bar to refiling. No prior bk filings of PC for over 10 years, and no indication in the order dismissing the case of inappropriate behavior by the debtor. PC wants to file another chapter 13 (this time with help of a bk attorney), but the 180 day bar is a problem.
> Since the 180 day bar appears to have been done in error, what is the best procedure to handle this? File the case, then file a motion to allow the case to proceed despite the bar?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Highly suggest you do not file the new case without getting an order setting aside the 180 day bar first. I have seen at least one Judge (other than Zurzolo) set an OSC re sanctions for an attorney doing this...
>
> PC's chapter 13 case was recently dismissed for failure to file required
> schedules and plan. Oddly, the order dismissing the case includes a 180
> day bar to refiling. No prior bk filings of PC for over 10 years, and no
> indication in the order dismissing the case of inappropriate behavior by
> the debtor. PC wants to file another chapter 13 (this time with help of a
> bk attorney), but the 180 day bar is a problem.
> Since the 180 day bar appears to have been done in error, what is the best
> procedure to handle this? File the case, then file a motion to allow the
> case to proceed despite the bar?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director.
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

If you file your second case before obtaining a motion to vacate then God
be with you because Judge Z will have his way with you. His rationale is
the filing of the second case is violating his order. I have not personally
made this mistake but I've seen it happen and the Debtors are usually the
only ones to suffer.
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
Law Offices of David A. Tilem
www.tilemlaw.com
818-507-6000
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Peter M. Lively
wrote:
>
>
> I've always obtained orders vacating 180 bars prior to filing the next
> case. I'm not sure the clerk will accept a next case when a bar exists and
> I don't intend to find out myself.
>
> 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, November 6, 2013 1:18 PM, Kirk Brennan kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Would the motion for order vacating the bar be filed immediately after
> filing a second case?
> Judge is VZ. How doss he rule on these?
> Thanks,
> On Nov 6, 2013 10:46 AM, "Peter M. Lively"
> wrote:
>
>
> See 109(g) re 180 day bar.
>
> If debtor has a reasonable excuse for failing to timely file the required
> documents, then debtor can prosecute a motion for an order vacating the 180
> day bar.
>
> 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, November 6, 2013 10:10 AM, Kirk Brennan kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> PC's chapter 13 case was recently dismissed for failure to file required
> schedules and plan. Oddly, the order dismissing the case includes a 180
> day bar to refiling. No prior bk filings of PC for over 10 years, and no
> indication in the order dismissing the case of inappropriate behavior by
> the debtor. PC wants to file another chapter 13 (this time with help of a
> bk attorney), but the 180 day bar is a problem.
> Since the 180 day bar appears to have been done in error, what is the best
> procedure to handle this? File the case, then file a motion to allow the
> case to proceed despite the bar?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>
>
>
>
>
If you file your second case before obtaining a motion to vacate then God be with you because Judge Z will have his way with you. His rationale is the filing of the second case is violating his order. I have not personally made this mistake but I've seen it happen and the Debtors are usually the only ones to suffer.
Sincerely, Michael AvanesianLaw Offices of David A. Tilem
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I've always obtained orders vacating 180 bars prior to filing the next case. I'm not sure the clerk will accept a next case when a bar exists and I don't intend to find out myself.
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, November 6, 2013 1:18 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
Would the motion for order vacating the bar be filed immediately after filing a second case?
Judge is VZ. How doss he rule on these?
Thanks,
On Nov 6, 2013 10:46 AM, "Peter M. Lively" wrote:
>
>See 109(g) re 180 day bar.
>
>If debtor has a reasonable excuse for failing to timely file the required documents, then debtor can prosecute a motion for an order vacating the 180 day bar.
>
>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, November 6, 2013 10:10 AM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
>
>
>PC's chapter 13 case was recently dismissed for failure to file required schedules and plan. Oddly, the order dismissing the case includes a 180 day bar to refiling. No prior bk filings of PC for over 10 years, and no indication in the order dismissing the case of inappropriate behavior by the debtor. PC wants to file another chapter 13 (this time with help of a bk attorney), but the 180 day bar is a problem.
>
>Since the 180 day bar appears to have been done in error, what is the best procedure to handle this? File the case, then file a motion to allow the case to proceed despite the bar?
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>--
>
>Kirk Brennan
>
>
>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
>TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Would the motion for order vacating the bar be filed immediately after
filing a second case?
Judge is VZ. How doss he rule on these?
Thanks,
On Nov 6, 2013 10:46 AM, "Peter M. Lively"
wrote:
>
>
> See 109(g) re 180 day bar.
>
> If debtor has a reasonable excuse for failing to timely file the required
> documents, then debtor can prosecute a motion for an order vacating the 180
> day bar.
>
> 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, November 6, 2013 10:10 AM, Kirk Brennan kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> PC's chapter 13 case was recently dismissed for failure to file required
> schedules and plan. Oddly, the order dismissing the case includes a 180
> day bar to refiling. No prior bk filings of PC for over 10 years, and no
> indication in the order dismissing the case of inappropriate behavior by
> the debtor. PC wants to file another chapter 13 (this time with help of a
> bk attorney), but the 180 day bar is a problem.
> Since the 180 day bar appears to have been done in error, what is the best
> procedure to handle this? File the case, then file a motion to allow the
> case to proceed despite the bar?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>
>
>
Would the motion for order vacating the bar be filed immediately after filing a second case?
Judge is VZ. How doss he rule on these?
Thanks,
On Nov 6, 2013 10:46 AM, "Peter M. Lively" <petermlively2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
See 109(g) re 180 day bar.If debtor has a reasonable excuse for failing to timely file the required documents, then debtor can prosecute a motion for an order vacating the 180 day bar.
space, sans-serif">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, November 6, 2013 10:10 AM, Kirk Brennan <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
PC's chapter 13 case was recently dismissed for failure to file required schedules and plan. Oddly, the order dismissing the case includes a 180 day bar to refiling. No prior bk filings of PC for over 10 years, and no indication in the order dismissing the case of inappropriate behavior by the debtor. PC wants to file another chapter 13 (this time with help of a bk attorney), but the 180 day bar is a problem.
Since the 180 day bar appears to have been done in error, what is the best procedure to handle this? File the case, then file a motion to allow the case to proceed despite the bar?
Thanks,
-- Kirk BrennanCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

It's not an error. Some judges impose a 180 day bar if you fail to file
the schedules as a matter of course, e.g., Zurzolo.
It's not an error. Some judges impose a 180 day bar if you fail to file the schedules as a matter of course, e.g., Zurzolo.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

See 109(g) re 180 day bar.
If debtor has a reasonable excuse for failing to timely file the required documents, then debtor can prosecute a motion for an order vacating the 180 day bar.
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, November 6, 2013 10:10 AM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
PC's chapter 13 case was recently dismissed for failure to file required schedules and plan. Oddly, the order dismissing the case includes a 180 day bar to refiling. No prior bk filings of PC for over 10 years, and no indication in the order dismissing the case of inappropriate behavior by the debtor. PC wants to file another chapter 13 (this time with help of a bk attorney), but the 180 day bar is a problem.
Since the 180 day bar appears to have been done in error, what is the best procedure to handle this? File the case, then file a motion to allow the case to proceed despite the bar?
Thanks,
Kirk Brennan
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

PC's chapter 13 case was recently dismissed for failure to file required
schedules and plan. Oddly, the order dismissing the case includes a 180
day bar to refiling. No prior bk filings of PC for over 10 years, and no
indication in the order dismissing the case of inappropriate behavior by
the debtor. PC wants to file another chapter 13 (this time with help of a
bk attorney), but the 180 day bar is a problem.
Since the 180 day bar appears to have been done in error, what is the best
procedure to handle this? File the case, then file a motion to allow the
case to proceed despite the bar?
Thanks,
Kirk Brennan
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
PC's chapter 13 case was recently dismissed for failure to file required schedules and plan. Oddly, the order dismissing the case includes a 180 day bar to refiling. No prior bk filings of PC for over 10 years, and no indication in the order dismissing the case of inappropriate behavior by the debtor. PC wants to file another chapter 13 (this time with help of a bk attorney), but the 180 day bar is a problem.
Since the 180 day bar appears to have been done in error, what is the best procedure to handle this? File the case, then file a motion to allow the case to proceed despite the bar? Thanks,
-- Kirk BrennanCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.