.jpg)
Is it a problem if the basis of the order denying
Dear Christine,
You're right. I will write a blog on the subject.
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
[cid:image001.jpg@01CCD2BA.184755E0]
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.
Thanks Nick. It's a risk the Debtor takes by NOT attending their
reaffirmation hearing and I shall so advise my clients.
Hint: This would make a great blog article......
Thanks again for your help here.
Christine
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Nicholas Gebelt wrote:
> **
>
>
> Dear Christine,****
>
> ** **
>
> Section 521(a)(6), coupled with the hanging paragraph immediately after > 521(a)(7) and *Dumont v. Ford Motor Credit Co.*, 581 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.
> 2009), make clear that if the debtor fails either to reaffirm the debt or
> redeem the item within 45 days after the first meeting of creditors, then
> the stay terminates and the creditor can repossess, even if the debtor is
> current on the payments. ****
>
> ** **
>
> The steps necessary (but not sufficient) *for the debtor to reaffirm* the
> debt are: (1) signing the proposed reaffirmation agreement, and (2)
> attending the hearing on reaffirmation, if there is one. Failure to
> complete either step is a *failure on the debtor's part* to reaffirm the
> debt, resulting in stay termination and possible repossession. After all,
> signing the agreement and attending the hearing are within the debtor's
> power.****
>
> ** **
>
> The reason the two steps are insufficient by themselves to accomplish
> reaffirmation is the possibility that the judge will refuse to approve the
> agreement. Since the debtor cannot force the judge to approve the
> reaffirmation agreement, this final step is not required for the debtor's
> compliance with 521(a)(6). This is why all of the judges I have heard
> opine on the matter say that repossession is not permitted under *Dumont*when the debtor is current on the payments, if the only reason there is no
> reaffirmation is the judge's refusal to approve the agreement.
> Unfortunately, there is no case law establishing this last proposition,
> probably because no creditor has had the temerity to repossess under those
> circumstances.****
>
> ** **
>
> 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 *Christine Wilton
> *Sent:* Friday, January 13, 2012 11:20 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] RE: Is it a problem if the basis of the order
> denying reaffirmation is the debtor did not appear?****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> Another perspective with questions:
>
> I understand that not appear may rise to the "Debtor hasn't done
> everything" arguement, but are they really "required" to appear.
>
> The reaffirmation notices to the Debtors now include language, "If you do
> not appear the Court will DENY the agreement." Would this not give the
> Debtor the option to attend? Aren't they making an affirmative action by
> not attending because they do NOT want the court to approve this agreement?
>
> Why must the Debtor appear and then tell the judge personally that they
> don't want this agreement?
>
> This is important so that we may properly advise our clients on these
> reaffirmations. At the clinics, we advise the Debtors before they see the
> judge so they understand what it is they have agreed to and whether they
> want to judge to approve it.
>
> Okay, last question: How does the lender know whether the Debtor appeared
> at the hearing and then the court denied it?****
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:31 AM, James T. King wrote:*
> ***
>
> ****
>
> Yes. The debtor has not done EVERYTHING it is required to do to reaffirm
> the debt. If the debtor appears and the court denies the reaffirmation
> that is totally different.****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Steven B. Lever
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:20 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Is it a problem if the basis of the order denying
> reaffirmation is the debtor did not appear?****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> So long as the Debtor is current on car payments, is it a problem if the
> basis of the order denying reaffirmation is the debtor did not appear?****
>
> ****
>
> Law Offices of Steven B. Lever****
>
> > ****
>
> > Steven B. Lever****
>
> >( Tel. (562) 436-5456 ext. 6470 ****
>
> >( Fax (800) 360-5161****
>
> >* sblever@leverlaw.com****
>
> ****
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.) ****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
>
>
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.)
Thanks Nick. It's a risk the Debtor takes by NOT attending their reaffirmation hearing and I shall so advise my clients.Hint: This would make a great blog article......
Thanks again for your help here.ChristineOn Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Nicholas Gebelt <ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com> wrote:
Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
15150 Hornell Street
Whittier, CA 90604
Phone: 562.777.9159
FAX:ank">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,
Section 521(a)(6), coupled with the hanging paragraph immediately after 521(a)(7) and Dumont v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 581 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2009), make clear that if the debtor fails either to reaffirm the debt or redeem the item within 45 days after the first meeting of creditors, then the stay terminates and the creditor can repossess, even if the debtor is current on the payments.
The steps necessary (but not sufficient) for the debtor to reaffirm the debt are: (1) signing the proposed reaffirmation agreement, and (2) attending the hearing on reaffirmation, if there is one. Failure to complete either step is a failure on the debtor's part to reaffirm the debt, resulting in stay termination and possible repossession. After all, signing the agreement and attending the hearing are within the debtor's power.
The reason the two steps are insufficient by themselves to accomplish reaffirmation is the possibility that the judge will refuse to approve the agreement. Since the debtor cannot force the judge to approve the reaffirmation agreement, this final step is not required for the debtor's compliance with 521(a)(6). This is why all of the judges I have heard opine on the matter say that repossession is not permitted under Dumont when the debtor is current on the payments, if the only reason there is no reaffirmation is the judge's refusal to approve the agreement. Unfortunately, there is no case law establishing this last proposition, probably because no creditor has had the temerity to repossess under those circumstances.
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
[cid:image001.jpg@01CCD211.2FEF4A30]
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.
Another perspective with questions:
I understand that not appear may rise to the "Debtor hasn't done
everything" arguement, but are they really "required" to appear.
The reaffirmation notices to the Debtors now include language, "If you do
not appear the Court will DENY the agreement." Would this not give the
Debtor the option to attend? Aren't they making an affirmative action by
not attending because they do NOT want the court to approve this agreement?
Why must the Debtor appear and then tell the judge personally that they
don't want this agreement?
This is important so that we may properly advise our clients on these
reaffirmations. At the clinics, we advise the Debtors before they see the
judge so they understand what it is they have agreed to and whether they
want to judge to approve it.
Okay, last question: How does the lender know whether the Debtor appeared
at the hearing and then the court denied it?
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:31 AM, James T. King wrote:
> **
>
>
> Yes. The debtor has not done EVERYTHING it is required to do to reaffirm
> the debt. If the debtor appears and the court denies the reaffirmation
> that is totally different.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Steven B. Lever
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:20 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Is it a problem if the basis of the order denying
> reaffirmation is the debtor did not appear?****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> So long as the Debtor is current on car payments, is it a problem if the
> basis of the order denying reaffirmation is the debtor did not appear?****
>
> ****
>
> Law Offices of Steven B. Lever****
>
> > ****
>
> > Steven B. Lever****
>
> >( Tel. (562) 436-5456 ext. 6470****
>
> >( Fax (800) 360-5161****
>
> >* sblever@leverlaw.com****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
>
>
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.)
Another perspective with questions:I understand that not appear may rise to the "Debtor hasn't done everything" arguement, but are they really "required" to appear.The reaffirmation notices to the Debtors now include language, "If you do not appear the Court will DENY the agreement." Would this not give the Debtor the option to attend? Aren't they making an affirmative action by not attending because they do NOT want the court to approve this agreement?
Why must the Debtor appear and then tell the judge personally that they don't want this agreement?This is important so that we may properly advise our clients on these reaffirmations. At the clinics, we advise the Debtors before they see the judge so they understand what it is they have agreed to and whether they want to judge to approve it.
Okay, last question: How does the lender know whether the Debtor appeared at the hearing and then the court denied it?On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:31 AM, James T. King <king@kingobk.com> wrote:
Yes. The debtor has not done EVERYTHING it is required to do to reaffirm the debt. If the debtor appears and the court denies the reaffirmation that is totally different.
From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven B. Lever
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:20 AMTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSubject: [cdcbaa] Is it a problem if the basis of the order denying reaffirmation is the debtor did not appear?
So long as the Debtor is current on car payments, is it a problem if the basis of the order denying reaffirmation is the debtor did not appear?
Law Offices of Steven B. Lever>> Steven B. Lever
>( Tel. (562) 436-5456 ext. 6470
>( Fax (800) 360-5161>* sblever@leverlaw.com
-- Christine A. WiltonLaw Office of Christine A. Wilton4067 Hardwick Street, Suite 335Lakewood, CA 90712Office: 877-631-2220Cell: 562-824-7563Fax: 1-636-212-7078
Email: attorneychristine@gmail.comWeb: www.attorneychristine.comBlog:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.