past due DSO obligations not allowed on Schedule "J"?=
Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:11 pm
707(a) does not contain the abuse provisions. 9th Cir case - Neary v. Padilla, no dismissal for bad faith under 707(a).
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
Torrance, California 90503
(310) 792-5864; 792-5866 (fax)
MitnickLaw@aol.com
Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email, and delete the email message you received and all of the attached files.
To: cdcbaa
Sent: Mon, Jul 22, 2013 1:04 pm
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] past due DSO obligations not allowed on Schedule "J"?
I would cite FRBP 1007(b) for the proposition that "the debtor shall file the following schedules, statements, and other documents, prepared as prescribed by the appropriate Official Forms, if any: ... (B) a schedule of current income and expenses.' [Emphasis added].
Then I would refer the trustee to the top paragraph of official form 6J (Schedule J), which says: "Complete this Schedule by estimating the average or projected monthly expenses of the debtor and the debtor's family at the time the case is filed." Thus, the Official Form 6J prescribes a projection, not an exact recitation of the expenses actually paid by the debtor in the month of filing.
Or you could just file the amendment the way the Trustee wants it, see if a 707(a) motion is filed and, if so, oppose the motion and argue there is no abuse because there is nothing to pay to general unsecured creditors since debtor will need to allocate his postpetition income toward repayment of DSO debts.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
I find it curious that you assume it's one of the female trustees
First of all, this is a Chapter 7 case, as I indicated, so this isn't a Plan issue (yet). I believe the Trustee is getting ready to file an objection, in this case under 707(a) (because not consumer debt case), due to the resulting apparent surplus on I&J. He has asked to stip to an extension of the deadline to file objections and essentially demanded I make these amendments.*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (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 (see what this means at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.