.jpg)
Re-noticing claims bar date in Chapter 7 after no-dividen=
Thiscase was reopened for 541(a)(5)property(still being liquidated and not yet turned over to the trustee).Debtor offered to pay the trustee's administrative costs after the bar date passed and no claims were filed. It was apparently the UST thatrejected disapproved of debtor'sofferand instructed the Chapter 7 Trustee tocause a new notice ofclaimsbar date.
Of course the debtor wants to keephis inheritance funds rather than paying the creditors (almost all medical bills). I can understand a Chapter 7 Trustee with a profit incentive wanting to solicit claims, but I can't understand why the UST's officeis trying to bend the rules to the detriment of the debtor.
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, February 12, 2014 3:13 PM, Nicholas Gebelt wrote:
Dear Peter and Frank,
There is another reason why you should care. It is found in 726(a)(6): . . . property of the estate shall be distributed . . . sixth, to the debtor. Therefore, if no creditors file proofs of claim, the debtor would be entitled to the proceeds of the liquidated assets (after deducting cost of sale and trustee fees).
All the best,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Attorney at Law
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist
Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
15150 Hornell Street
Whittier, CA 90604
Phone: 562.777.9159
FAX: 562.946.1365
Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
Confidentiality Note: This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. at 562.777.9159 or e-mail info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the original message and all copies.
Representation Note: If you have not signed a contract of representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you, and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter M. Lively
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 2:20 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re-noticing claims bar date in Chapter 7 after no-dividend report and first properly noticed claims bar date. [3 Attachments] Frank,
You are correct that late filed claims still get paid in a surplus estate.I care because I have a responsibility to my client to make sure that theThanks,
Peter
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, February 12, 2014 1:44 PM, Frank Ruggier wrote:
I am not sure whether a new bar date can be set or not, although I suspect that the answer is no unless there was something procedurally wrong with the first notice of bar date. With all of that being said, I am not sure why you care. If there are assets and this is a chapter 7 case, the code still requires payment on late filed claims. Late filed claims just receive lower priority than timely filed claims. To that end, I have heard of some chapter 7 trustees calling and writing to scheduled creditors asking them to file proof of claims to get paid (even if bar date has passed).
Frank X. Ruggier
Price Law Group, APC
15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1100
Encino, CA 91436
Direct: (818) 205-2406
Fax: (818) 907-2106
http://www.pricelawgroup.com/
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter M. Lively
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:17 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re-noticing claims bar date in Chapter 7 after no-dividend report and first properly noticed claims bar date. [3 Attachments] Thanks Nick!
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, February 12, 2014 12:53 PM, Nicholas Gebelt wrote:
Dear Peter,
The answer to your question is no.
The Court in In re Hall, 218 B.R. 275, 276-77 (Bankr. D. R.I. 1998) faced a similar fact pattern. The Court summarized the prior history in the case (with emphasis added):
On September 29, 1997, the Chapter 7 Trustee advised the Court that although thirteen creditors were listed in the petition, only one had filed a proof of claim. The Trustee sought instructions as to whether creditors should be given a second notice of the existence of assets, and given additional time within which to file claims. On October 29, 1997, no opposition having been filed, the Trustee was authorized to re-notice this as an asset case. . . . DEPCO seeks reconsideration of that Order, arguing that there is no authority for the Court to allow the Trustee to re-notice creditors or to extend claims bar dates in Chapter 7 cases.
The Court concluded that DEPCO was correct, and vacated its prior order extending the claims bar date, holding (with italicized emphasis in original, bold and underlined emphasis added):
Deadlines for filing proofs of claim in Chapter 7 cases are governed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c), and the grounds for extension are set forth within the rule. Rule 9006(b)(3), which restricts the Courts ability to enlarge Rule 3002(c) deadlines, states that: "The court may enlarge the time for taking actions under rules 1006(b)(2), 1017(e), 3002(c), 4003(b), 4004(a), 4007(c), 8002, and 9033, only to the extent and under the conditions stated in those rules." See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)(3) (emphasis added); In re M.A.P. Restaurant, Inc., 191 B.R. 519, 520 (Bankr.D.R.I.1996); Silver City, Inc. v. Forte (In re Forte), 146 B.R. 592 (Bankr. D. R.I. 1992) (holding that under Rule 9006(b)(3) the court lacks discretion to extend the time to file complaints to determine dischargeability of debt under Rule 4007(c) after the expiration of the deadline). In this case Washington Trust received proper notice of the claims bar date, and we agree with DEPCO's
argument that there is no provision for extending the deadline under Rule 3002(c). Therefore, our October 29, 1997 Order extending the deadline to file claims was unauthorized, and it is VACATED.
Id. at 277.
I hope this helps.
All the best,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Attorney at Law
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist
Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
15150 Hornell Street
Whittier, CA 90604
Phone: 562.777.9159
FAX: 562.946.1365
Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/ Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code. Confidentiality Note: This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. at 562.777.9159 or e-mail info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the original message and all copies.
Representation Note: If you have not signed a contract of representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you, and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein. From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter M. Lively
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:03 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re-noticing claims bar date in Chapter 7 after no-dividened report and first propertly noticed claims bar date.
Does the Chapter 7 Trustee has a right to re-notice a claims bar date where there was originally a no dividend report and thereafter a properly noticed deadline to file claims pursuant to Rules 3002(c)(5) and 2002(h) that resulted in no claims being filed?
Thanks,
Peter
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
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Frank,
You are correct that late filed claims still get paid in a surplus estate.
I care because I have a responsibility to my client to make sure that the
Thanks,
Peter
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, February 12, 2014 1:44 PM, Frank Ruggier wrote:
I am not sure whether a new bar date can be set or not, although I suspect that the answer is no unless there was something procedurally wrong with the first notice of bar date. With all of that being said, I am not sure why you care. If there are assets and this is a chapter 7 case, the code still requires payment on late filed claims. Late filed claims just receive lower priority than timely filed claims. To that end, I have heard of some chapter 7 trustees calling and writing to scheduled creditors asking them to file proof of claims to get paid (even if bar date has passed).
Frank X. Ruggier
Price Law Group, APC
15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1100
Encino, CA 91436
Direct: (818) 205-2406
Fax: (818) 907-2106
www.pricelawgroup.com
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter M. Lively
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:17 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re-noticing claims bar date in Chapter 7 after no-dividend report and first properly noticed claims bar date. [3 Attachments]
Thanks Nick!
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, February 12, 2014 12:53 PM, Nicholas Gebelt wrote:
Dear Peter,
The answer to your question is no.
The Court in In re Hall, 218 B.R. 275, 276-77 (Bankr. D. R.I. 1998) faced a similar fact pattern. The Court summarized the prior history in the case (with emphasis added):
On September 29, 1997, the Chapter 7 Trustee advised the Court that although thirteen creditors were listed in the petition, only one had filed a proof of claim. The Trustee sought instructions as to whether creditors should be given a second notice of the existence of assets, and given additional time within which to file claims. On October 29, 1997, no opposition having been filed, the Trustee was authorized to re-notice this as an asset case. . . . DEPCO seeks reconsideration of that Order, arguing that there is no authority for the Court to allow the Trustee to re-notice creditors or to extend claims bar dates in Chapter 7 cases.
The Court concluded that DEPCO was correct, and vacated its prior order extending the claims bar date, holding (with italicized emphasis in original, bold and underlined emphasis added):
Deadlines for filing proofs of claim in Chapter 7 cases are governed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c), and the grounds for extension are set forth within the rule. Rule 9006(b)(3), which restricts the Courts ability to enlarge Rule 3002(c) deadlines, states that: "The court may enlarge the time for taking actions under rules 1006(b)(2), 1017(e), 3002(c), 4003(b), 4004(a), 4007(c), 8002, and 9033, only to the extent and under the conditions stated in those rules." See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)(3) (emphasis added); In re M.A.P. Restaurant, Inc., 191 B.R. 519, 520 (Bankr.D.R.I.1996); Silver City, Inc. v. Forte (In re Forte), 146 B.R. 592 (Bankr. D. R.I. 1992) (holding that under Rule 9006(b)(3) the court lacks discretion to extend the time to file complaints to determine dischargeability of debt under Rule 4007(c) after the expiration of the deadline). In this case Washington Trust received proper notice of the claims bar date, and we agree with DEPCO's
argument that there is no provision for extending the deadline under Rule 3002(c). Therefore, our October 29, 1997 Order extending the deadline to file claims was unauthorized, and it is VACATED.
Id. at 277.
I hope this helps.
All the best,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Attorney at Law
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist
Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
15150 Hornell Street
Whittier, CA 90604
Phone: 562.777.9159
FAX: 562.946.1365
Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
Confidentiality Note: This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. at 562.777.9159 or e-mail info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the original message and all copies.
Representation Note: If you have not signed a contract of representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you, and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter M. Lively
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:03 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re-noticing claims bar date in Chapter 7 after no-dividened report and first propertly noticed claims bar date.
Does the Chapter 7 Trustee has a right to re-notice a claims bar date where there was originally a no dividend report and thereafter a properly noticed deadline to file claims pursuant to Rules 3002(c)(5) and 2002(h) that resulted in no claims being filed?
Thanks,
Peter
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
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thanks Nick!
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, February 12, 2014 12:53 PM, Nicholas Gebelt wrote:
Dear Peter,
The answer to your question is no.
The Court in In re Hall, 218 B.R. 275, 276-77 (Bankr. D. R.I. 1998) faced a similar fact pattern. The Court summarized the prior history in the case (with emphasis added):
On September 29, 1997, the Chapter 7 Trustee advised the Court that although thirteen creditors were listed in the petition, only one had filed a proof of claim. The Trustee sought instructions as to whether creditors should be given a second notice of the existence of assets, and given additional time within which to file claims. On October 29, 1997, no opposition having been filed, the Trustee was authorized to re-notice this as an asset case. . . . DEPCO seeks reconsideration of that Order, arguing that there is no authority for the Court to allow the Trustee to re-notice creditors or to extend claims bar dates in Chapter 7 cases.
The Court concluded that DEPCO was correct, and vacated its prior order extending the claims bar date, holding (with italicized emphasis in original, bold and underlined emphasis added):
Deadlines for filing proofs of claim in Chapter 7 cases are governed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c), and the grounds for extension are set forth within the rule. Rule 9006(b)(3), which restricts the Courts ability to enlarge Rule 3002(c) deadlines, states that: "The court may enlarge the time for taking actions under rules 1006(b)(2), 1017(e), 3002(c), 4003(b), 4004(a), 4007(c), 8002, and 9033, only to the extent and under the conditions stated in those rules." See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)(3) (emphasis added); In re M.A.P. Restaurant, Inc., 191 B.R. 519, 520 (Bankr.D.R.I.1996); Silver City, Inc. v. Forte (In re Forte), 146 B.R. 592 (Bankr. D. R.I. 1992) (holding that under Rule 9006(b)(3) the court lacks discretion to extend the time to file complaints to determine dischargeability of debt under Rule 4007(c) after the expiration of the deadline). In this case Washington Trust received proper notice of the claims bar date, and we agree with DEPCO's
argument that there is no provision for extending the deadline under Rule 3002(c). Therefore, our October 29, 1997 Order extending the deadline to file claims was unauthorized, and it is VACATED.
Id. at 277.
I hope this helps.
All the best,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Attorney at Law
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist
Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
15150 Hornell Street
Whittier, CA 90604
Phone: 562.777.9159
FAX: 562.946.1365
Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
Confidentiality Note: This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. at 562.777.9159 or e-mail info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the original message and all copies.
Representation Note: If you have not signed a contract of representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you, and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter M. Lively
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:03 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re-noticing claims bar date in Chapter 7 after no-dividened report and first propertly noticed claims bar date.
Does the Chapter 7 Trustee has a right to re-notice a claims bar date where there was originally a no dividend report and thereafter a properly noticed deadline to file claims pursuant to Rules 3002(c)(5) and 2002(h) that resulted in no claims being filed?
Thanks,
Peter
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
The post was migrated from Yahoo.