Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

By the time I do that and set it for hearing, we are at the continued hearing day in 3 weeks anyway.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2013, at 12:51 AM, "Leventhal Law Group, P.C." wrote:
> I would file a motion to reconsider.
>
>
>
> Jonathan Leventhal, Esq..
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
> 818-347-5800
>
> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail 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.
>
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
>
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal l aw.
>
> Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not represent you until a written fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the Leventhal Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been paid.
>
> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:45 PM, "Mark Jessee" wrote:
>
>>
>> Was anyone present in Judge Klein's courtroom for Relief from Stay Motions this morning? I am still scratching my head on the outcome of a hearing on my client's motion for relief and would love to find out what actually happened.
>>
>> A Prepetition Foreclosure sale took place after Debtor's prior Chapter 13 case was dismissed a week earlier. 3 days after foreclosure sale debtor files a new Chapter 13, represented by counsel. A 3 day notice to quit was properly served the same day the petition was filed, but prior to notice of stay being provided. No motion to extend the stay was filed.
>>
>> I represent the new owners. Relief from stay motion (UD) filed by new owners on shortened 2 week notice seeking retroactive annulment. Properly served. No opposition nor communication of any sort received from debtor or her counsel. Tentative posted yesterday granting retroactive annulment and confirming the filing of future bankruptcy petitions has no impact on new property owner's ability to regain possession. No appearance required. Of course I did not want to waste my time and client's money showing up when tentative is properly in my client's favor and there was no opposition....
>>
>> Despite no opposition being filed, Debtor shows up anyway at the hearing this morning, sans counsel, and from what I gather, requested a continuance on the basis that she wanted to attempt to negotiate with my client, the new property owner. Judge Klein issued an order that I received late this afternoon finding Debtor's desire to negotiate with the new property owner to be good cause not to adopt the tentative and continued the hearing for three more weeks. I would be laughed out of Court if I made that argument in my debtor cases in opposition to a UD motion for relief. No adequate protection of any sort provided to the new owners either for allowing Debtor three more weeks just to try to negotiate. I would understand a no lock out order before a certain date if the debtor had a good sob story or a short continuance if the represented debtor had some arguably colorable claim upon which to base an opposition and a good excuse for failing to file a timely opposition or ev en notify movant before the hearing that opposition would be made, but a three week gift of time just to "attempt to negotiate"?
>>
>> I'd love to know what persuasive argument or emotional plea this individual Debtor made to cause the Court to divert from the tentative ruling, to my client's substantial detriment, just to allow Debtor to "attempt to negotiate". I want to add that successful ploy to my repertoire!
>>
>> Mark Jessee
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Was anyone present in Judge Klein's courtroom for Relief from Stay Motions this morning? I am still scratching my head on the outcome of a hearing on my client's motion for relief and would love to find out what actually happened.
A Prepetition Foreclosure sale took place after Debtor's prior Chapter 13 case was dismissed a week earlier. 3 days after foreclosure sale debtor files a new Chapter 13, represented by counsel. A 3 day notice to quit was properly served the same day the petition was filed, but prior to notice of stay being provided. No motion to extend the stay was filed.
I represent the new owners. Relief from stay motion (UD) filed by new owners on shortened 2 week notice seeking retroactive annulment. Properly served. No opposition nor communication of any sort received from debtor or her counsel. Tentative posted yesterday granting retroactive annulment and confirming the filing of future bankruptcy petitions has no impact on new property owner's ability to regain possession. No appearance required. Of course I did not want to waste my time and client's money showing up when tentative is properly in my client's favor and there was no opposition....
Despite no opposition being filed, Debtor shows up anyway at the hearing this morning, sans counsel, and from what I gather, requested a continuance on the basis that she wanted to attempt to negotiate with my client, the new property owner. Judge Klein issued an order that I received late this afternoon finding Debtor's desire to negotiate with the new property owner to be good cause not to adopt the tentative and continued the hearing for three more weeks. I would be laughed out of Court if I made that argument in my debtor cases in opposition to a UD motion for relief. No adequate protection of any sort provided to the new owners either for allowing Debtor three more weeks just to try to negotiate. I would understand a no lock out order before a certain date if the debtor had a good sob story or a short continuance if the represented debtor had some arguably colorable claim upon which to base an opposition and a good excuse for failing to file a timely opposition or even notify movant before the hearing that opposition would be made, but a three week gift of time just to "attempt to negotiate"?
I'd love to know what persuasive argument or emotional plea this individual Debtor made to cause the Court to divert from the tentative ruling, to my client's substantial detriment, just to allow Debtor to "attempt to negotiate". I want to add that successful ploy to my repertoire!
Mark Jessee

The post was migrated from Yahoo.