.jpg)
Unfiled objection to plan confirmation
No you don't.
On Jan 7, 2012 1:05 PM, "Nicholas Gebelt" wrote:
> **
>
>
> Dear Peter, ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for your input. In this case, Nancy had no objections. Only the
> ex-wife and her divorce attorney did, and they were sent to me a couple of
> weeks *after * the 341, but never filed with the Court. My question is:
> If there are no written objections on file with the Court, do I need to
> file a written response? And if I do, what event code would I use, since
> there are no written objections on file with the Court to relate it to?***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> Nick****
>
> ** **
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.****
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist****
>
> ** **
>
> [image: 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/****
>
> ** **
>
> *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 *P L
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 07, 2012 11:18 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Unfiled objection to plan confirmation****
>
> ** **
>
> Nick,****
>
> ****
>
> 3015-1(g)(2)(B) provides for oral objection to plan confirmation at the
> 341(a), despite (g)(1)'s requirements.****
>
> ****
>
> Nancy typically files written objections shortly after the 341(a). ****
>
> ****
>
> If you can't proide your client's responses to Nancy prior to objections,
> then you will be able to file written respones with the court afterward.**
> **
>
> ****
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA****
>
> *The Personal Financial Law Center*****
>
> A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com****
>
> Culver City (310) 391-2400****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Nicholas Gebelt
> *To:* "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
> *Cc:* Nicholas Gebelt
> *Sent:* Friday, January 6, 2012 9:03 PM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Unfiled objection to plan confirmation****
>
> ****
>
> Greetings list mates,****
>
> ****
>
> At the December 6 meeting of creditors of a Chapter 13 client, the
> clients ex-wife and her divorce attorney showed up. One again I saw the
> bards perspicuous observation about the fury of a "woman scorned" in livid
> (oops, I mean vivid) action.****
>
> ****
>
> Subsequent to the hearing I received the ex-wife's objection to plan
> confirmation - obviously produced long after the requisite seven days
> before the 341 hearing - that was sent to Nancy Curry and me, but was not
> filed with the Court. It had the wrong case number on it; so I checked,
> and it hadn't been filed under that wrong case either. ****
>
> ****
>
> The objection was clearly prepared by someone who is unfamiliar with
> bankruptcy law, and its arguments are easily refuted. However, the
> objection is rather lengthy, so it would be an unpleasant time drain to
> have to respond to it. Given that the objection was not filed with the
> Court, I am inclined to ignore it. After all, Nancy Curry is not the final
> arbiter in the matter, Judge Brand is. However, I don't want Nancy to
> assume that I think the objection has any merit and then raise an objection
> at the confirmation hearing, so I have considered sending her a response.
> Of course, since the objection wasn't filed with the Court, I wouldn't file
> the response with the Court. The confirmation hearing isn't until November
> 21 (more than one year after the petition day!).****
>
> ****
>
> Has anyone faced this sort of thing? If so, did you respond, or just
> ignore it? What happened?****
>
> ****
>
> Thanks in advance for any sage advice you can offer.****
>
> ****
>
> Nick****
>
> ****
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.****
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist****
>
> ****
>
> [image: 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/****
>
> ****
>
> *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.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
>
No you don't.
On Jan 7, 2012 1:05 PM, "Nicholas Gebelt" <ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com> wrote:562.946.1365
Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
Web:http://www.goodbye2debt.com/" target"_blank">www.goodbye2debt.com
Blog:http://www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/" target"_blank">www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for
bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
Confidentiality Note: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
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Dear Christine and Kirk,
Thank you for your thoughts. Neither the ex-wife, nor her divorce attorney, have filed proofs of claim. If they haven't filed claims by the bar date, then I'll ask Nancy to put the case on consent.
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
[cid:image001.jpg@01CCCD3D.C01D0C10]
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/
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.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Nick,
3015-1(g)(2)(B) provides for oral objection to plan confirmation at the 341(a), despite (g)(1)'s requirements.
Nancy typically files written objections shortlyafter the 341(a).If you can't proide your client's responses to Nancy prior to objections, then you will be able to file written respones with the court afterward.
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center
A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Culver City (310) 391-2400
________________________________
To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
Cc: Nicholas Gebelt
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 9:03 PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Unfiled objection to plan confirmation
Greetings list mates,
At the December 6 meeting of creditors of a Chapter 13 client,
the clients ex-wife and her divorce attorney showed up. One again
I saw the bards perspicuous observation about the fury of a "woman
scorned" in livid (oops, I mean vivid) action.
Subsequent to the hearing I received the ex-wife's objection to
plan confirmation - obviously produced long after the requisite seven days
before the 341 hearing - that was sent to Nancy Curry and me, but was not filed
with the Court. It had the wrong case number on it; so I checked, and it
hadn't been filed under that wrong case either.
The objection was clearly prepared by someone who is unfamiliar
with bankruptcy law, and its arguments are easily refuted. However, the
objection is rather lengthy, so it would be an unpleasant time drain to have to
respond to it. Given that the objection was not filed with the Court, I
am inclined to ignore it. After all, Nancy Curry is not the final arbiter
in the matter, Judge Brand is. However, I don't want Nancy to assume that
I think the objection has any merit and then raise an objection at the
confirmation hearing, so I have considered sending her a response. Of
course, since the objection wasn't filed with the Court, I wouldn't file the
response with the Court. The confirmation hearing isn't until November 21
(more than one year after the petition day!).
Has anyone faced this sort of thing? If so, did you
respond, or just ignore it? What happened?
Thanks in advance for any sage advice you can offer.
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Certified Bankruptcy 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/
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.comand 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.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Nick,
Reach out to the trustee's office and try to get the case on the
confirmation calendar earlier than the scheduled date. If the trustee
brings up the unfiled objection, explain why it has no merit.
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Christine Wilton wrote:
> **
>
>
> Nick, This is a great inquiry. I don't have a "woman scorned" scenario,
> but rather an HOA scorned that has written a letter to my office and to the
> trustee about my client not paying her HOA dues. I have a confirmed
> Chapter 13 Plan and nothing has been filed with the Court. I have taken no
> action other than to notify my client of the correspondence and ask my
> client for a status and some information.
>
> I am going to keep watching this to see what others have to say. Is it a
> Stay Violation?
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Nicholas Gebelt wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Greetings list mates,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> At the December 6 meeting of creditors of a Chapter 13 client, the
>> clients ex-wife and her divorce attorney showed up. One again I saw the
>> bards perspicuous observation about the fury of a "woman scorned" in livid
>> (oops, I mean vivid) action.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Subsequent to the hearing I received the ex-wife's objection to plan
>> confirmation - obviously produced long after the requisite seven days
>> before the 341 hearing - that was sent to Nancy Curry and me, but was not
>> filed with the Court. It had the wrong case number on it; so I checked,
>> and it hadn't been filed under that wrong case either. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The objection was clearly prepared by someone who is unfamiliar with
>> bankruptcy law, and its arguments are easily refuted. However, the
>> objection is rather lengthy, so it would be an unpleasant time drain to
>> have to respond to it. Given that the objection was not filed with the
>> Court, I am inclined to ignore it. After all, Nancy Curry is not the final
>> arbiter in the matter, Judge Brand is. However, I don't want Nancy to
>> assume that I think the objection has any merit and then raise an objection
>> at the confirmation hearing, so I have considered sending her a response.
>> Of course, since the objection wasn't filed with the Court, I wouldn't file
>> the response with the Court. The confirmation hearing isn't until November
>> 21 (more than one year after the petition day!).****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Has anyone faced this sort of thing? If so, did you respond, or just
>> ignore it? What happened?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any sage advice you can offer.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Nick****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.****
>>
>> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> [image: 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/****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *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.
>> ****
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Christine A. Wilton
> Law Office of Christine A. Wilton
> 4067 Hardwick Street, Suite 335
> Lakewood, CA 90712
> Office: 877-631-2220
> Cell: 562-824-7563
> Fax: 1-636-212-7078
> Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
> Web: www.attorneychristine.com
> Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
> ***************************
> Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments,
> is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the
> intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT
> PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this
> communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained
> in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot
> be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may
> be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant
> to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
>
>
>
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
calibankrutpcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
Nick,Reach out to the trustee's office and try to get the case on the confirmation calendar earlier than the scheduled date. If the trustee brings up the unfiled objection, explain why it has no merit.
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Christine Wilton <attorneychristine@gmail.com> wrote:
Nick, This is a great inquiry. I don't have a "woman scorned" scenario, but rather an HOA scorned that has written a letter to my office and to the trustee about my client not paying her HOA dues. I have a confirmed Chapter 13 Plan and nothing has been filed with the Court. I have taken no action other than to notify my client of the correspondence and ask my client for a status and some information.
I am going to keep watching this to see what others have to say. Is it a Stay Violation?On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Nicholas Gebelt <ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com> wrote:
Greetings list mates,
At the December 6 meeting of creditors of a Chapter 13 client,
the clients ex-wife and her divorce attorney showed up. One again
I saw the bards perspicuous observation about the fury of a "woman
scorned" in livid (oops, I mean vivid) action.
Subsequent to the hearing I received the ex-wife's objection to
plan confirmation - obviously produced long after the requisite seven days
before the 341 hearing - that was sent to Nancy Curry and me, but was not filed
with the Court. It had the wrong case number on it; so I checked, and it
hadn't been filed under that wrong case either.
The objection was clearly prepared by someone who is unfamiliar
with bankruptcy law, and its arguments are easily refuted. However, the
objection is rather lengthy, so it would be an unpleasant time drain to have to
respond to it. Given that the objection was not filed with the Court, I
am inclined to ignore it. After all, Nancy Curry is not the final arbiter
in the matter, Judge Brand is. However, I don't want Nancy to assume that
I think the objection has any merit and then raise an objection at the
confirmation hearing, so I have considered sending her a response. Of
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Nick, This is a great inquiry. I don't have a "woman scorned" scenario,
but rather an HOA scorned that has written a letter to my office and to the
trustee about my client not paying her HOA dues. I have a confirmed
Chapter 13 Plan and nothing has been filed with the Court. I have taken no
action other than to notify my client of the correspondence and ask my
client for a status and some information.
I am going to keep watching this to see what others have to say. Is it a
Stay Violation?
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Nicholas Gebelt wrote:
> **
>
>
> Greetings list mates,****
>
> ** **
>
> At the December 6 meeting of creditors of a Chapter 13 client, the
> clients ex-wife and her divorce attorney showed up. One again I saw the
> bards perspicuous observation about the fury of a "woman scorned" in livid
> (oops, I mean vivid) action.****
>
> ** **
>
> Subsequent to the hearing I received the ex-wife's objection to plan
> confirmation - obviously produced long after the requisite seven days
> before the 341 hearing - that was sent to Nancy Curry and me, but was not
> filed with the Court. It had the wrong case number on it; so I checked,
> and it hadn't been filed under that wrong case either. ****
>
> ** **
>
> The objection was clearly prepared by someone who is unfamiliar with
> bankruptcy law, and its arguments are easily refuted. However, the
> objection is rather lengthy, so it would be an unpleasant time drain to
> have to respond to it. Given that the objection was not filed with the
> Court, I am inclined to ignore it. After all, Nancy Curry is not the final
> arbiter in the matter, Judge Brand is. However, I don't want Nancy to
> assume that I think the objection has any merit and then raise an objection
> at the confirmation hearing, so I have considered sending her a response.
> Of course, since the objection wasn't filed with the Court, I wouldn't file
> the response with the Court. The confirmation hearing isn't until November
> 21 (more than one year after the petition day!).****
>
> ** **
>
> Has anyone faced this sort of thing? If so, did you respond, or just
> ignore it? What happened?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks in advance for any sage advice you can offer.****
>
> ** **
>
> Nick****
>
> ** **
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.****
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist****
>
> ** **
>
> [image: 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/****
>
> ** **
>
> *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.*
> ***
>
>
>
Christine A. Wilton
Law Office of Christine A. Wilton
4067 Hardwick Street, Suite 335
Lakewood, CA 90712
Office: 877-631-2220
Cell: 562-824-7563
Fax: 1-636-212-7078
Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
Web: www.attorneychristine.com
Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
***************************
Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments,
is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the
intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this
communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained
in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot
be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may
be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant
to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
Nick, This is a great inquiry. I don't have a "woman scorned" scenario, but rather an HOA scorned that has written a letter to my office and to the trustee about my client not paying her HOA dues. I have a confirmed Chapter 13 Plan and nothing has been filed with the Court. I have taken no action other than to notify my client of the correspondence and ask my client for a status and some information.
I am going to keep watching this to see what others have to say. Is it a Stay Violation?On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Nicholas Gebelt <ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com> wrote:
Greetings list mates,
At the December 6 meeting of creditors of a Chapter 13 client,
the clients ex-wife and her divorce attorney showed up. One again
I saw the bards perspicuous observation about the fury of a "woman
scorned" in livid (oops, I mean vivid) action.
Subsequent to the hearing I received the ex-wife's objection to
plan confirmation - obviously produced long after the requisite seven days
before the 341 hearing - that was sent to Nancy Curry and me, but was not filed
with the Court. It had the wrong case number on it; so I checked, and it
hadn't been filed under that wrong case either.
The objection was clearly prepared by someone who is unfamiliar
with bankruptcy law, and its arguments are easily refuted. However, the
objection is rather lengthy, so it would be an unpleasant time drain to have to
respond to it. Given that the objection was not filed with the Court, I
am inclined to ignore it. After all, Nancy Curry is not the final arbiter
in the matter, Judge Brand is. However, I don't want Nancy to assume that
I think the objection has any merit and then raise an objection at the
confirmation hearing, so I have considered sending her a response. Of
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Greetings list mates,
At the December 6 meeting of creditors of a Chapter 13 client, the client's ex-wife and her divorce attorney showed up. One again I saw the bard's perspicuous observation about the fury of a "woman scorned" in livid (oops, I mean vivid) action.
Subsequent to the hearing I received the ex-wife's objection to plan confirmation - obviously produced long after the requisite seven days before the 341 hearing - that was sent to Nancy Curry and me, but was not filed with the Court. It had the wrong case number on it; so I checked, and it hadn't been filed under that wrong case either.
The objection was clearly prepared by someone who is unfamiliar with bankruptcy law, and its arguments are easily refuted. However, the objection is rather lengthy, so it would be an unpleasant time drain to have to respond to it. Given that the objection was not filed with the Court, I am inclined to ignore it. After all, Nancy Curry is not the final arbiter in the matter, Judge Brand is. However, I don't want Nancy to assume that I think the objection has any merit and then raise an objection at the confirmation hearing, so I have considered sending her a response. Of course, since the objection wasn't filed with the Court, I wouldn't file the response with the Court. The confirmation hearing isn't until November 21 (more than one year after the petition day!).
Has anyone faced this sort of thing? If so, did you respond, or just ignore it? What happened?
Thanks in advance for any sage advice you can offer.
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
[cid:image001.jpg@01CCCCB4.1BA1CD30]
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/
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.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.