Bert,
The Order granting lien avoidance specifically permits it be paid through
the plan as a general unsecured.
The plan confirmation order also sets forth terms.
If the junior gets paid the same 100% as the other general unsecureds then
there is no point in modifying the plan.
My opinion: The trustee won't allow it based upon the orders avoiding lien
and confirming plan.
The junior lien must not be treated any differently than the remainder of
the unsecured creditors.
Christine
Christine A. Wilton,
Esq.
Law Office of Christine A.
Wilton
5011 Argosy Avenue, Suite 3
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Office: 714-533-9210
Fax: 714-489-8150
Email:
attorneychristine@gmail.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.)
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Bert Briones
bertbri@ymail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> I have a chapter 13 debtor who wants to modify the confirmed plan in the
> following way:
>
> a. Begin to pay an avoided HELOC directly to the lender.
> b. Modify the plan to make it 100% to GUCs
>
> This is happening in the aftermath of a successful loan modification.
> However, with the reduced loan payment the plan increase would be
> substantial. Plan payment now is $3000 would be close to $4000
> post-modification. The plan was intended to cure six-figure arrears, but
> now that is unnecessary. Other unsecured debt is nil and Priority Taxes
> are about $25,000.
>
> So I see the possibility of just dismissing the case or trying to modify
> the plan to allow direct payments. the plan payment would drop to about
> $800 (with 100% to GUCS) and to this self-employed debtor that would be
> useful. On the otherhand, dismissing the case would just require them to
> make direct arrangements with the IRS and save on trustee fees.
>
> Anyone faced this situation before?
>
> Can a motion to avoid be disregarding via a plan modification? Or would
> it need to be revolked?
>
>
>
Bert,The Order granting lien avoidance specifically permits it be paid through the plan as a general unsecured.The plan confirmation order also sets forth terms.
If the junior gets paid the same 100% as the other general unsecureds then there is no point in modifying the plan.My opinion:nd confirming plan.
The junior lien must not be treated any differently than the remainder of the unsecured creditors.ChristineChristine A. Wilton, Esq.Law Office of Christine A. Wilton649Office: 714-533-9210Fax: 714-489-8150
Email:
attorneychristine@gmail.comBlog:
www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
***************************************achments, 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.
ten 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.)
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Bert Briones
bertbri@ymail.com [cdcbaa] <
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.