Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

charset="UTF-8"

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset="UTF-8"

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

In re Rawn is a case where a mechanical engineer claimed his car was a tool
of the trade and where the Debtor did not provide evidence to support this
argument.
You may have a situation where one realtor needs her car while another
realtor does not need her car and the exemption boil down to what they
actually do.
For example, if a realtor is going to multiple houses within a short period
of time that are relatively far away (i.e. there is no alternate source of
transportation) then I'd say the car is definitely a tool of her trade. In
particular where there are many types of things she needs to transport.
OTOH, maybe a realtor hangs out at the central office all day, then, much
like the mechanical engineer, the car is not as important.
I *personally* feel like a realtor should have a nice car if she wants
business but if it's close, this should be a fact based inquiry.
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
Law Offices of David A. Tilem
www.tilemlaw.com
818-507-6000
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
> **
>
>
> I'd be happy to oppose the objection by my learned friend/trustee
> There's nothing in 704.060 that says the vehicle must be "commercial"(meaning has commercial issued license plates) or something specialized.
> But again, I haven't read any case law on this at all.
>
> *************************
> 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
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office
> of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for
> the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
> disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
> prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
> the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
> communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written 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 in this communication.
> On 11/1/2013 3:09 PM, Larry Simons wrote:
>
> Id object to the realtor using the car. My reading of that statute
> (704 tool of the trade for vehicles) is that it has to be a commercial
> vehicle or something specialized. Mere passenger car not enough. My $.02
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Steven B. Lever
> *Sent:* Friday, November 01, 2013 2:54 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] 704 combining exemptions question****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> So do I read this correctly (the statutes as well as this conversation),
> that say a realtor, who has a personal vehicle that they use to show around
> clients, cannot take both the car exemption and the tools of the trade
> exemption?****
>
> ****
>
> If not, can they take just the higher one---the tools of the trade
> exemption?****
>
> ****
>
> Steven B. Lever ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Mark J. Markus
> *Sent:* Friday, November 01, 2013 2:38 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] 704 combining exemptions question****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Thanks Jason. I had already read that and it doesn't apply in this
> situation. I just wondered if there were any other sections that prevented
> this, but most likely since there's a carve out in 704.060, that probably
> means it's ok otherwise.
>
> On 11/1/2013 2:16 PM, Jason Wallach wrote:****
>
> Mark, suggest you carefully read 704.060(c) and (d) which specifically
> regulate the overlapping tools of the trade and automobile exemptions. I
> believe this lan guage is pretty new. ****
>
> Jason****
>
> CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION****
>
> ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE****
>
> ****
>
> -- ****
>
> JASON WALLACH, ESQ.****
>
> Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC****
>
> 4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 300****
>
> Marina del Rey CA 90292-7925****
>
> Tel: (310) 821-9000****
>
> Direct: (310) 775-8725****
>
> Fax: (310) 775-8775****
>
> Email: jwallach@gladstonemichel.com****
>
> www. gladstonemichel.com****
>
> ****
>
> NOTE: The information contained in this email may contain attorney-client*
> ***
>
> privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the**
> **
>
> individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not***
> *
>
> the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver***
> *
>
> it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any****
>
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly**
> **
>
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please****
>
> notify us immediately by email and delete the original message.****
>
> ****
>
> On Nov 1, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:****
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Thanks for the answers so far, but I want to clarify the question: Can he
> take both of those exemptions on that same commercial vehicle? The value
> of the vehicle is more than the tools of trade exemption, so we need to use
> a wildcard-equivalent, which I'm hoping is the motor vehicle exemption.
>
> On 11/1/2013 12:48 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:****
>
> Debtor owns a commercial vehicle he uses in his business. Can he take
> both the tools of trade exemption AND the standard motor vehicle exemption?
> ****
>
>
> *************************
> 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 L aw Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means
> at
> http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/
> )
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office
> of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for
> the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
> disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
> prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
> the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
> communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used,
> and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> Internal Rev enue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.**
> **
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
>
>
>
In re Rawn is a case where a mechanical engineer claimed his car was a tool of the trade and where the Debtor did not provide evidence to support this argument.You may have a situation where one realtor needs her car while another realtor does not need her car and the exemption boil down to what they actually do.
For example, if a realtor is going to multiple houses within a short period of time that are relatively far away (i.e. there is no alternate source of transportation) then I'd say the car is definitely a tool of her trade. In particular where there are many types of things she needs to transport. OTOH, maybe a realtor hangs out at the central office all day, then, much like the mechanical engineer, the car is not as important.
I *personally* feel like a realtor should have a nice car if she wants business but if it's close, this should be a fact based inquiry.
Sincerely, Michael AvanesianLaw Offices of David A. Tilemwww.tilemlaw.com818-507-6000
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Mark J. Markus <bklawr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'd be
happy to oppose the objection by my learned friend/trustee
There's nothing in 704.060 that says the vehicle must be
"commercial" (meaning has commercial issued license
plates) or something specialized. But again, I haven't read any
case law on this at all.


*************************
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

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I'd object to the realtor using the car. My reading of that statute (704 tool of the trade for vehicles) is that it has to be a commercial vehicle or something specialized. Mere passenger car not enough. My $.02

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

So do I read this correctly (the statutes as well as this conversation),
that say a realtor, who has a personal vehicle that they use to show
around clients, cannot take both the car exemption and the tools of the
trade exemption?
If not, can they take just the higher one---the tools of the trade
exemption?
Steven B. Lever

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charsetndows-1252
Mark, suggest you carefully read 704.060(c) and (d) which specifically regulate the overlapping tools of the trade and automobile exemptions. I believe this language is pretty new.
Jason
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
JASON WALLACH, ESQ.
Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC
4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 300
Marina del Rey CA 90292-7925
Tel: (310) 821-9000
Direct: (310) 775-8725
Fax: (310) 775-8775
Email: jwallach@gladstonemichel.com
www. gladstonemichel.com
NOTE: The information contained in this email may contain attorney-client
privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not
the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver
it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by email and delete the original message.
On Nov 1, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
> Thanks for the answers so far, but I want to clarify the question: Can he take both of those exemptions on that same commercial vehicle? The value of the vehicle is more than the tools of trade exemption, so we need to use a wildcard-equivalent, which I'm hoping is the motor vehicle exemption.
>
> On 11/1/2013 12:48 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>> Debtor owns a commercial vehicle he uses in his business. Can he take both the tools of trade exemption AND the standard motor vehicle exemption?
>>
>> *************************
>> 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 http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/)
>> ________________________________________________
>> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
>> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written 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 in this communication.
>>
>
>
>
charsetndows-1252
Mark, suggest you carefully read 704.060(c) and (d) which specifically regulate the overlapping tools of the trade and automobile exemptions. I believe this language is pretty new.Jason
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE-- JASON WALLACH, ESQ.Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 300Marina del Rey CA 90292-7925Tel: (310) 821-9000Direct: (310) 775-8725Fax: (310) 775-8775Email: jwallach@gladstonemichel.comwww. gladstonemichel.comNOTE: The information contained in this email may contain attorney-clientprivileged and confidential information intended only for the use of theindividual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is notthe intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliverit to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that anydissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictlyprohibited. If you have received this communication in error, pleasenotify us immediately by email and delete the original message.
On Nov 1, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:

Thanks
for the answers so far, but I want to clarify the question: Can
he take both of those exemptions on that same commercial
vehicle? The value of the vehicle is more than the tools of
trade exemption, so we need to use a wildcard-equivalent, which
I'm hoping is the motor vehicle exemption.

On 11/1/2013 12:48 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:


Debtor owns a commercial vehicle he
uses in his business. Can he take both the tools of trade
exemption AND the standard motor vehicle exemption?


*************************
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.

sure.
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
*Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
*Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
sure.--Giovanni Orantes, Esq.Certified Bankruptcy Specialist* les, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362Fax: (877) 789-5776e-mail: go@gobklaw.comwebsite: www.gobklaw.com*Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
*Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

yes
Law Office of Catherine Christiansen
17011 Beach Blvd. Ste 900, Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Tel: (714) 375-6651 Fax: (562) 490-8572
attorneychristiansen@gmail.com
On Friday, November 1, 2013 1:16 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
Debtor owns a commercial vehicle he uses in his business. Can he take both the tools of trade exemption AND the standard motor vehicle exemption?
*************************
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 http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/)
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the
law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The
information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If
you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy,
distribution or use of the contents of this message is
prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with
requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S.
tax advice contained in this communication (or in any
attachment) is not intended or written 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 in this communication.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.