Which judge was this?
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Leventhal Law Group, P.C. wrote:
> **
>
>
> Wow, the plan lays out the order of payments. I thought our job was to
> protect our clients. Now we have to protect the major creditors as well!
>
>
> Jonathan Leventhal, esq.
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
> 818-347-5800
>
> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice
> for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
> California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
> business hours.
>
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential,
> and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
> review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto)
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original
> and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
>
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.
>
> Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not reprenet you until a written
> fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the Leventhal
> Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been paid.
>
> On Jul 31, 2012, at 3:44 PM, "Nancy Clark" wrote:
>
>
>
> We opposed the motion; attached the confirmed plan; provided a printout
> from the chapter 13 trustee showing that the debtors were current. We
> advised the court that we had contacted the trustee and had requested that
> the trustee make payments to the creditor. We told the court that the
> creditor had failed to file a proof of claim. The Judge's response was that
> the debtor is responsible for making sure the creditor is adequately
> protected. The debtors responsibility is not limited to making the plan
> payments. The debtor must make sure the trustee is disbursing payments to
> creditors to adequately protect secured creditors. Next time I think we
> will have to file a request for OSC against the trustee as part of our
> response. This situation is patently unfair.
>
> Thank you,
> Nancy
>
> Nancy B. Clark
> Attorney at Law
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 31, 2012, at 12:20 PM, "Jay S. Fleischman"
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Nancy, why is the court is granting the relief sought by the lender? Have
> you been opposing their motion and having the court rule in favor of the
> lender, or is there something else at work?
>
> -------------
> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
>
> I help people with overdue bills, credit reporting problems, and debt
> collection harassment. Questions? Just hit REPLY or check out my
> website here:
http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
>
> NACBA Co-Chair, New York
> Founder and Past President, Bankruptcy Law Network
>
> NEW YORK OFFICE
> 350 Fifth Ave Ste 7210
> New York NY 10118
> T: 646.827.0758
>
> COMING SOON TO THE LOS ANGELES AREA
>
> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me
> by email, you understand that it's not confidential.
>
>
>
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.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.
Which judge was this?On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Leventhal Law Group, P.C. <
law@3yl.com> wrote:
Wow, the plan lays out the order of payments. I thought our job was to protect our clients. Now we have to protect the major creditors as well!Jonathan Leventhal, esq.Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
818-347-5800NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not reprenet you until a written fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the Leventhal Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been paid.
On Jul 31, 2012, at 3:44 PM, "Nancy Clark" <
nclark@blclaw.com> wrote:
We opposed the motion; attached the confirmed plan; provided a printout from the chapter 13 trustee showing that the debtors were current. We advised the court that we had contacted the trustee and had requested that the trustee make payments to the creditor. We told the court that the creditor had failed to file a proof of claim. The Judge's response was that the debtor is responsible for making sure the creditor is adequately protected. The debtors responsibility is not limited to making the plan payments. The debtor must make sure the trustee is disbursing payments to creditors to adequately protect secured creditors. Next time I think we will have to file a request for OSC against the trustee as part of our response. This situation is patently unfair.
Thank you,NancyNancy B. ClarkAttorney at LawSent from my iPhoneOn Jul 31, 2012, at 12:20 PM, "Jay S. Fleischman" <
bankruptcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Nancy, why is the
court is granting the relief sought by the lender?
Have you been opposing their motion and having the court rule in favor
of the lender, or is there something else at work?
The post was migrated from Yahoo.