I never sign the reaffirmations and did not sign this one. Debtor attended
the reaffirmation hearing and did not request a dismissal, but rather told
the judge that the agreement was not in their best interest as the reason
they wanted the court to deny the agreement.
Thanks, Christine
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Link W. Schrader wrote:
> **
>
>
> **
> Christine,
>
> From what you describe it does not sound like the order was in error. The
> court granted the relief the debtors' requested.
>
> If you have reviewed the RA, sign the attorney's certification and check
> the box on the front page that there is no presumption of undue harI dship,
> then no hearing is required. Refiling a correct RA would be the easiest way
> to go. No order is required on such a RA. However, you might need to
> request the court vacate its prior order.
>
>
> Link W. Schrader, Attorney
>
lschrader@schrader-law.com
> Mail: PO Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
> Office: 106 W 4th St, #308, Santa Ana, CA 92701
>
> Orange County: (714) 542-5922
> Los Angeles: (310) 413-6924 *
> San Diego: (619) 952-8342
> Facsimile: (310) 878-4158
> * Texts received at LA number only
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *To*:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Cc*: Maggie Bordeaux
> *Sent*: Fri Sep 07 13:46:13 2012
>
> *Subject*: Re: [cdcbaa] Ford Motor Credit: Wants to Repossess after Order
> Denying Reaffirmation Due to "Debtor Voluntarily Dismissed Motion?"
>
>
>
> I just spoke to Maggie Bordeaux at length on this issue. My client
> insists that they asked the court to Deny the reaffirmation because it was
> NOT in their Best Interest and that they Never asked the Judge to dismiss
> the motion.
>
>
> So, I have a call into Judge Russell's clerk to request a corrected
> Order. I also have a call into Ford Credit's counsel Ben Gage to see if we
> can call off the repo dogs.
>
> Thanks again for the quick feedback.
>
> Christine
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Link W. Schrader
lschrader@schrader-law.com> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> There is a case (I cant recall) where a federal court said that no
>> federal law prohibited a creditor from repossessing a vehicle if the debtor
>> did not reaffirm in bankruptcy... even if the debtor was current on all the
>> payments. So far as I know the issue has not been decided under California
>> law.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *Link Schrader, Attorney*
>>
>> Law Office of Link W. Schrader****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:*
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
>> Behalf Of *Christine Wilton
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 07, 2012 11:09 AM
>> *To:*
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Ford Motor Credit: Wants to Repossess after
>> Order Denying Reaffirmation Due to "Debtor Voluntarily Dismissed Motion?"
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Thanks for the quick feedback. Yes, I understand from others that Ford
>> Motor Credit does in fact have an Ipso Facto clause that bankruptcy equals
>> a default.
>>
>> I'll check with my client on the conversation they had with the judge and
>> put a call in to chambers. I'm not sure procedurally how a Debtor can
>> Dismiss a Motion filed by the Creditor and why that box is even on the
>> Order.
>>
>> ****
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Ask your client if he did, in fact, dismiss the motion. If he didn't,
>> call chambers and tell them the order is incorrect and ask them to reissue
>> it with the correct language and explain the urgency of it. If the Judge
>> does not want to do it that way, you may need to file a motion to clarify
>> order under the FRCP 59 equivalent (i.e., 9023). There are other things to
>> look out for. For example, does the purchase agreement actually have a
>> clause that bankrutpcy is an event of default. If not, then Ford cannot
>> repossess - though I believe Ford's contract does usually have such
>> otherwise ipso facto clause. Also, I believe there are estoppel issues
>> involving acceptance of payments, etc. Ultimately, the order may need to
>> be fixed.****
>>
>> --****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
>> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
>> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
>> Los Angeles, CA 90010
>> Tel: (213) 389-4362
>> Fax: (877) 789-5776
>> e-mail:
go@gobklaw.com
>> website:
www.gobklaw.com
>>
>> ****
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christine A. Wilton, Esq.
>> Law Office of Christine A. Wilton
>>
>> *Office:*
>> 5150 Candlewood Street, Suite 17F
>> Lakewood, CA 90712
>>
>> *Mailing:*
>> 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.)
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ****
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Christine A. Wilton, Esq.
> Law Office of Christine A. Wilton
>
> *Office:*
> 5150 Candlewood Street, Suite 17F
> Lakewood, CA 90712
>
> *Mailing:*
> 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.)
>
>
>
Christine A. Wilton, Esq.
Law Office of Christine A. Wilton
*Office:*
5150 Candlewood Street, Suite 17F
Lakewood, CA 90712
*Mailing:*
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.)
I never sign the reaffirmations and did not sign this one. Debtor attended the reaffirmation hearing and did not request a dismissal, but rather told the judge that the agreement was not in their best interest as the reason they wanted the court to deny the agreement.
Thanks, ChristineOn Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Link W. Schrader <
lschrader@schrader-law.com> wrote:
Christine,From what you describe it does not sound like the order was in error. The court granted the relief the debtors' requested.If you have reviewed the RA, sign the attorney's certification and check the box on the front page that there is no presumption of undue harI dship, then no hearing is required. Refiling a correct RA would be the easiest way to go. No order is required on such a RA. However, you might need to request the court vacate its prior order.
Link W. Schrader, Attorney
lschrader@schrader-law.com
Mail: PO Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
Office: 106 W 4th St, #308, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Orange County: (714) 542-5922
Los Angeles: (310) 413-6924 *
San Diego: (619) 952-8342
Facsimile: (310) 878-4158
* Texts received at LA number only
From:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com <
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>
To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com <
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: Maggie Bordeaux <
mbordeaux@publiccounsel.org>
Sent: Fri Sep 07 13:46:13 2012Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Ford Motor Credit: Wants to Repossess after Order Denying Reaffirmation Due to "Debtor Voluntarily Dismissed Motion?"
I just spoke to Maggie Bordeaux at length on this issue. My client insists that they asked the court to Deny the reaffirmation because it was NOT in their Best Interest and that they Never asked the Judge to dismiss the motion.
So, I have a call into Judge Russell's clerk to request a corrected Order. I also have a call into Ford Credit's counsel Ben Gage to see if we can call off the repo dogs. Thanks again for the quick feedback.
ChristineOn Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Link W. Schrader <
lschrader@schrader-law.com> wrote:
There is a case (I cant recall) where a federal court said that no federal law prohibited a creditor from repossessing a vehicle if the debtor did not reaffirm in bankruptcy... even if the debtor was current on all the payments. So far as I know the issue has not been decided under California law.
Link Schrader, AttorneyLaw Office of Link W. Schrader
From:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.