Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

You could likely submit it exparte (manually) with a POS and use return envelopes for service list
Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos.
Thank you.
> On Jan 27, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> Dear Bankruptcy Brain Trust,
>
>
>
> I had a Chapter 13 client for whom I did a lot of work. I filed a fee app and Judge Zurzolo granted it in January 2014. Shortly thereafter the clients case was dismissed and he disappeared. I just located him, and would like to use the services of the U.S. Marshals to garnish his wages. I called their office and spoke to a very helpful person who told me that I had to get Judge Zurzolo to issue a writ of execution. I assume I can do this by motion. I would like to keep the costs down. Since the case is closed, do I have to file a motion to reopen it first, or can I file the motion for the writ without reopening the case. I havent found anything in the rules or case law that is on point.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts? If you have successfully done this sort of thing, would you please give me the case number so I can mimic your work?
>
>
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Gebelt
>
>
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>
> Commissioner, California State Bars Bankruptcy Law Advisory Committee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 8:46 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: Revoking Discharge after Conversion to 13
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark;
>
>
>
> Thats pretty interesting. So unlike a case filed under Chapter 13 where the discharge comes at the end, you start as a 7, get the discharge and then pay?
>
>
>
> Did you do this because you wanted to deal with an asset case?
>
>
>
> What happens if they start making the payments and then stop? The case gets dismissed with a discharge?
>
>
>
> Im having a hard time getting this.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 8:26 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Revoking Discharge after Conversion to 13
>
>
>
>
>
> Why do you say there would be nothing to pay in the Chapter 13 if the discharge order were to stand? It's still the same case. It's been 15 years since I had a case like this, and had to research the issue but Judge Riblet granted a motion to convert from Chapter 7 to 13 3 weeks after discharge and specifically delineated in her order that revocation of the discharge was not necessary. I recall a citation being provided but I long since shredded the file and it does not appear the order can retrieved from Pacer. The case was In Re Arnold 9:00-bk-13214-RR
>
>
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/26/2016 5:39:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
>
>
> The discharge needs to be vacated because there would be nothing to pay in the Chapter 13 after conversion if the discharge order were to stand.
>
> Im thinking the court may do it automatically without a motion.
>
> The reason I asked this is because I thought I was going to not be able to settle with the Chapter 7 Trustee in an asset case. I made many offers after the Trustee responded, but they never took me up on oneor even paid attention or communicated. Then I saw a Request for Special Notice from an attorney who is a Trustee as well and I know that they were going to want the attorney employed in the case, which to me signaled an impasse if not an outright fight with a possible community property tracing.
>
> So I wanted to convert to Chapter 13 way after the discharge was entered in this case that has been pending 9-10 months.
>
> I may have jumped the gun though, as its possible the attorney for the Trustee will finally communicate and work out a settlement after all.
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:57 PM
> To: Cdcbaa Yahoo Listserv
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Revoking Discharge after Conversion to 13
>
>
>
> Do you need a chapter 13 discharge (e.g. for divorce property settlements)?
> If not, I don't see the point in vacating the discharge.
>
> On Jan 26, 2016 3:52 PM, "Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
>
> Why does the discharge need to be vacated? I did not understand that part.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Michael Avanesian, Esq.
>
> Avanesian Law Firm
>
> 801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130
> Glendale, CA 91203
>
> Tel: 818.276.2477 | Fax: 818.208.4550
>
> Confidentiality: This electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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.
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:40 PM, sam@southbaybk.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
>
> Steve - did anyone email you on this or pick up the thread? I have the same situation and am looking for some perspective.
>
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.