Re:
"The context may help you understand the distinction between stripping off
liens pursuant to 522(f) and 506. Section 522(f) is used to strip off *
judgment* liens, *i.e.*, a creditor has obtained a judgment in California
Superior Court and then recorded that judgment as a lien against the
property. Section 506 is used to strip off wholly unsecured second
mortgages where no judgment has issued."
Judgment liens can also be stripped by Section 506.
For example, if I had:
Income Producing Property value 300k, encumbered by first in the amount
of 500k. Second in the amount of 200k, judgment lien in the amount of 100k.
I would do a motion to value the property under FRBP 3012 at 300k and for
an order that the second lien is void and the judgment lien is void
*automatically
*per 506(d).
When I delved more into this question (I'm trying to learn), I realize that
522(f) motions can be brought as scream or die motions which is very nice.
I also realized that a discharge is not necessary for a 522(f) lien strip
to be valid so those are two big advantages. If only corporations had
exemptions! They're people too no?
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
Law Offices of David A. Tilem
www.tilemlaw.com
818-507-6000
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Nicholas Gebelt wrote:
> **
>
>
> Dear Michael.****
>
> ** **
>
> The context may help you understand the distinction between stripping off
> liens pursuant to 522(f) and 506. Section 522(f) is used to strip off
> *judgment* liens, *i.e.*, a creditor has obtained a judgment in
> California Superior Court and then recorded that judgment as a lien against
> the property. Section 506 is used to strip off wholly unsecured second
> mortgages where no judgment has issued.****
>
> ** **
>
> All the best,****
>
> ** **
>
> *Nicholas Gebelt*
>
> ** **
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.****
>
> Attorney at Law****
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist****
>
> ** **
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description:
> cid:
image003.jpg@01CC076B.B14D73C0]****
>
> ** **
>
> 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. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
> immediately 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 *Michael Avanesian
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:59 PM
>
> *To:*
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Re: 522(f) denied where property underwater****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> I'm sorry if this is a really dumb question but is the reason
> practitioners use 522(f) to strip these underwater liens instead of 506
> because of the Dewsnup decision? ****
>
>
> ****
>
>
> Sincerely,****
>
> Michael Avanesian****
>
> Law Offices of David A. Tilem****
>
>
www.tilemlaw.com****
>
> 818-507-6000****
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM, cdcbaa wrote:*
> ***
>
> ****
>
> It is not make-work. You have to impair an exemption to get a 522f
> result. If the exemption is zero, no exemption is impaired. So, I would
> also say it is not correct to list the exemption as zero.****
>
> ** **
>
> (f)(1) Notwithstanding any waiver of exemptions but subject to paragraph
> (3), the debtor may avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor
> in property *to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption* to which
> the debtor would have been entitled under subsection (b) of this section,
> if such lien is****
>
> (A) a judicial lien, other than a judicial lien that secures a debt of a
> kind that is specified in section 523(a)(5); or****
>
>
> Sent from Mars****
>
> ** **
>
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 3:02 PM, "sambenevento" wrote:***
> *
>
> ****
>
>
> Thanks y'all. I really appreciate the input. Just for the record - I took
> the exemption. I just CORRECTLY valued it as zero on the date of the
> petition. I didn't want to give B of A ammo to fight the junior mortgage
> lien avoidance. Amending to incorrectly claim a $1 exemption and then
> re-filing the motion just galls me! Talk about bureaucratic make-work. ***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
>
>
Re:"The context may help you understand the distinction between stripping off liens pursuant to 522(f) and 506. Section 522(f) is used to strip off
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
