Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

These situations are, unfortunately, not uncommon.

Presumptions are meant to be rebutted. Trustee will often seek documentary
evidence to overcome presumption. A separation letter will usually suffice.

Hale
_____

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Jeff:
Under these circumstances I usually get them through if I'm up front
about it-but it is discretionary with the attorney assigned to the case.
Expect a call, make the pitch, and above all before you file the case do
a thorough CYA letter with the client (it's ultimately his/her decision
to take the risk of an UST Motion to Dismiss) signing it and assuming
the risk.
However, if there is no reason to hurry it and force a decision like
that on the UST, then wait. I've only done it where there were exigent
circumstances or no choice.
Steve

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset="US-ASCII"
Dear Listserv members,
I would appreciate your take as to how the local UST/ch7's trustee's are
enforcing presumption of abuse cases in the context of a job loss as a
special circumstance in ch7 cases. Hypothetical example: Client, household
of 1, earned a 120K salary and earned 10K for each of the last 6 months.
Client was laid off yesterday. Client has no other job prospects and will
not find another job during the BK. For various reasons, Client wants to
file BK now without further delay even though it will trigger a presumption
of abuse. Client could have otherwise waited it out a few months and filed
later in time to avoid the presumption. Will the local UST typically file
an objection in such a scenario or be satisfied with the explanation? And
if there is an objection, can debtors typically rebut it by invoking special
circumstances under 707(b)(2)(B)(ii)?
Based on your experiences, is it better to just wait it out and file later
to avoid the presumption? While I have helped overcome the presumption of
abuse for retirees and persons who have serious medical issues (which is an
example for cause under 707(b)(2)(B)(i)), that was up in the Eastern
District where things may be enforced differently. I have never tested the
waters out in the Central District so your thoughts and experiences would be
much appreciated!
Jeffrey Hsu, Esq. | JCH Law Firm
1031 S. Garfield Ave. | Alhambra, CA 91801
Phone & Fax: 626-999-5959
jhsu@jchfirm.com |
www.jchfirm.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended only for the person
or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information protected by
the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or other privileges.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended
recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium,
please so advise the sender immediately.
charset="US-ASCII"

The post was migrated from Yahoo.