Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

I think with same sex marriage allowed in CA, I do not think you have the
same argument you did in 2009. 302 allows joint cases for spouses. The
couple has a right to marry and have not done so.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
Attorney at Law
Fitzgerald & Green
1010 E. Union St. Ste. 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Holly: I say try it and see what happens.
In 2009 I filed a lesbian couple's bk, Chapter 13 in the valley and got no
opposition and plan got confirmed. I was ready to file the appeal and
push this issue. I had contacted GLADD to help me but it was a big bust
because there was no opposition.
This is tongue in cheek mind you.... An argument could be made that
domestic partnerships existed only because of the unconstitutional
provisions banning same sex marriage. And that for all intents and
purposes DP's are marriages but for the unconstitutional laws that existed
at the time the Domestic Partnership Act was passed.
So which one of you will file the lawsuit for the heterosexual couple who
would like the rights and privileges of a domestic partnership and don't
want to get married (if there are financial distinctions) but they are not
allowed to do so because they are a mixed sex couple and have not reached a
certain age. Doesn't it violate equal protection that older people and
same sex couples are the only ones who get to enjoy the privilege of a
domestic partnership without the "Burdens" of marriage?
I'm just sayin .....
Hope you are well and I want to wish you and your family a very happy
holiday season. If you need anything feel free to give me a call or email
me.
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (818) 554-9922
PS: Anyone have a good NISSAN mechanic in the Valley?
Holly: I say try it and see what happens.
In 2009 I filed a lesbian couple's bk, Chapter 13 in the valley and got no opposition and plan got confirmed. I was ready to file the appeal and push this issue. I had contacted GLADD to help me but it was a big bust because there was no opposition.
This is tongue in cheek mind you.... An argument could be made that domestic partnerships existed only because of the unconstitutional provisions banning same sex marriage. And that for all intents and purposes DP's are marriages but for the unconstitutional laws that existed at the time the Domestic Partnership Act was passed.
So which one of you will file the lawsuit for the heterosexual couple who would like the rights and privileges of a domestic partnership and don't want to get married (if there are financial distinctions) but they are not allowed to do so because they are a mixed sex couple and have not reached a certain age. Doesn't it violate equal protection that older people and same sex couples are the only ones who get to enjoy the privilege of a domestic partnership without the "Burdens" of marriage?
I'm just sayin .....
Hope you are well and I want to wish you and your family a very happy holiday season. If you need anything feel free to give me a call or email me.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I want to revisit this thread. Since I posted this back in July, has anyone
filed any joint cases for same sex domestic partners? I have a chapter 7 I
can file in Woodland Hills, but I am not sure if it will fly. Has anyone
filed one there? Yes, they can legally marry now, but they' just don't want
to do it yet. Under CA law they are spouses. Just wondering whether the UST
is inclined to object to the joint filing since same sex marriage is now
legal in CA and so domestic partnerships may be distinguishable (even
though state law treats them the same).
Any updates on this issue?
Thanks,
Holly Roark
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600
F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
**For a quicker response, email me at holly@roarklawoffices.com.
I only use gmail for my listservs, and am likely to miss private emails
directed to my gmail account.**
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Holly Roark wrote:
> DOMA section 3 that defined the word spouse to refer only to a person of
> the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife was recently ruled
> unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.
>
> California Family Code 297.5 says: (a) Registered domestic partners shall
> have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to
> the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether
> they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government
> policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are
> granted to and imposed upon spouses.
> ...
> (e) To the extent that provisions of California law adopt, refer to, or
> rely upon, provisions of federal law in a way that otherwise would cause
> registered domestic partners to be treated differently than spouses,
> registered domestic partners shall be treated by California law as if
> federal law recognized a domestic partnership in the same manner as
> California law.
>
> 11 USC 302 says:(a) A joint case under a chapter of this title is
> commenced by the filing with the bankruptcy court of a single petition
> under such chapter by an individual that may be a debtor under such chapter
> and such individuals spouse.
>
> It seems to me that under California law a registered domestic partner is
> the same as a "spouse". Now that DOMA does not define spouse as an
> opposite sex husband or wife, do you think that there will be much
> objection to filing joint bankruptcy cases where the debtors are in a
> same-sex registered domestic partnership? Has anyone filed such a case? I
> have one and I want to try it, but I want to know what you all think.
>
>
>
>
> Holly Roark
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
> www.roarklawoffices.com
> Central District of California
> Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
> 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
> Los Angeles, CA 90067
> T (310) 553-2600
> F (310) 553-2601
>
> *By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>
>
> **For a quicker response, email me at holly@roarklawoffices.com.
> I only use gmail for my listservs, and am likely to miss private emails
> directed to my gmail account.**
>
>
I want to revisit this thread. Since I posted this back in July, has anyone filed any joint cases for same sex domestic partners? I have a chapter 7 I can file in Woodland Hills, but I am not sure if it will fly. Has anyone filed one there? Yes, they can legally marry now, but they&
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I would interpret 297.5(e) to say that where federal law would otherwise
alter the meaning and intent of California domestic partnership law, that
domestic partners will be treated as if federal law did not alter the
meaning and intent of California law.
I don't believe a domestic partnership is the same as a marriage. Now that
DOMA has been found unconstitutional in certain regards, a same sex married
couple can file joint tax returns as a married couple, something I don't
believe a domestic partnership can do. Could they file a federal return as
a "partnership return"? (Any tax attorneys want to chime in?).
Especially now when a same sex couple could marry in California and receive
the same benefits of a joint filing, I would not file a joint return for a
domestic partnership.
*Link Schrader, Attorney*
Law Office of Link W. Schrader
Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
www.schrader-law.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

DOMA section 3 that defined the word spouse to refer only to a person of
the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife was recently ruled
unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.
California Family Code 297.5 says: (a) Registered domestic partners shall
have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to
the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether
they derive
from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government
policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are
granted to and imposed upon spouses.
...
(e) To the extent that provisions of California law adopt, refer to, or
rely upon, provisions of federal law in a way that otherwise would cause
registered domestic partners to be treated differently than spouses,
registered domestic partners shall be treated by California law as if
federal law recognized a domestic partnership in the same manner as
California law.
11 USC 302 says:(a) A joint case under a chapter of this title is commenced
by the filing with the bankruptcy court of a single petition under such
chapter by an individual that may be a debtor under such chapter and such
individuals spouse.
It seems to me that under California law a registered domestic partner is
the same as a "spouse". Now that DOMA does not define spouse as an
opposite sex husband or wife, do you think that there will be much
objection to filing joint bankruptcy cases where the debtors are in a
same-sex registered domestic partnership? Has anyone filed such a case? I
have one and I want to try it, but I want to know what you all think.
Holly Roark
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600
F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
**For a quicker response, email me at holly@roarklawoffices.com.
I only use gmail for my listservs, and am likely to miss private emails
directed to my gmail account.**
DOMA section 3 that defined the word spouse to refer only to a personof the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife was recently ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.
California Family Code 297.5 says: (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the sameresponsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether theyderive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sourcesof law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
...(e) To the extent that provisions of California law adopt, referto, or rely upon, provisions of federal law in a way that otherwisewould cause registered domestic partners to be treated differentlythan spouses, registered domestic partners shall be treated byCalifornia law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership inthe same manner as California law.
11 USC 302 says:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.