.jpg)
Reaffirmation of Leases
Just for grins - see attached
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Dennis wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> Nick. I nominate you for the appeal. You have this issue wired
>
> D.
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 7, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Nicholas Gebelt wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Christian (I'm assuming thats the correct spelling you have two
> different spellings in your email. Please forgive me if I chose the wrong
> one.),****
>
> ** **
>
> Indicating the desire to assume a lease in Part B of the Statement of
> Intention is insufficient by itself to assume the lease. Otherwise,
> 365(p) would not be in the Code since 521(a)(2) would take care of the
> matter.****
>
> ** **
>
> Technically, 365(p), combined with 365(d), requires the assumption of
> a lease, rather than the reaffirmation of a lease. Otherwise, the
> automatic stay terminates with respect to the leased item (usually a motor
> vehicle) on the 61st day after the petition date. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Since 521(a)(6) requires that reaffirmation be done no later than 45
> days after the first 341(a) hearing, rather than 365(d)s 60 days after
> the filing date requirement, I view lease assumption and debt reaffirmation
> as distinct concepts. Indeed, on an intuitive level I think of
> reaffirmation as a secured purchase concept (even though a debtor can, in
> theory, reaffirm an unsecured debt though it is, admittedly, a bit
> unusual), and assumption as a lease concept.****
>
> ** **
>
> Some creditors, such as Toyota, ask the debtor to sign a one-page lease
> assumption agreement, while others, such as Honda, demand a full-blown
> reaffirmation agreement in order to assume the lease. I have gotten
> nowhere pointing out the difference in concepts to Honda. Their policy is
> that the debtor must sign a reaffirmation agreement to assume the lease.
> Therefore, if your client wants to assume a Honda lease, the better part of
> wisdom is to have them sign the reaffirmation agreement.****
>
> ** **
>
> As for Judge Donovans position, he is, after all, the final arbiter in
> the matter. Therefore, a debtor in his courtroom who wants to keep a
> leased vehicle will have to reaffirm, unless the lessor doesnt demand it.
> And who in his right mind is going to mount an appeal based on the somewhat
> arcane distinction between lease assumption and debt reaffirmation? ****
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> Nick****
>
> ** **
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.****
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> 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 *Dennis McGoldrick
> *Sent:* Friday, July 06, 2012 5:47 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Reaffirmation of Leases****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> 365p****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Christian Cooper
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:30 PM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Reaffirmation of Leases****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> Hi, all,****
>
> ****
>
> We are creating a checklist for volunteer attorneys who counsel debtors
> before reaffirmation hearings, and have a question regarding automobile
> leases. Are auto leases treated any differently in the reaffirmation
> process than car purchase agreements? ****
>
> ****
>
> We were under the impression that as long as the debtor stated an
> intention to assume a lease in Part B of the Statement of Intention, it was
> not necessary to reaffirm a lease. However, at last weeks reaffirmation
> hearings, Judge Donovan told a pro se debtor that, in order to keep the
> lease, she had to reaffirm it at the reaffirmation hearing.****
>
> ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Christain****
>
> ****
>
> *Christian Cooper*****
>
> *Staff Attorney*****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
>
>
Marvin Mann
2706 Artesia Blvd A
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Just for grins - see attachedOn Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Dennis <easky1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nick. I nominate you for the appeal. You have this issue wiredD.Sent from my iPhoneOn Jul 7, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Nicholas Gebelt <ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com> wrote:
Dear Christian (I'm assuming thats the correct spelling
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Nick. I nominate you for the appeal. You have this issue wired
D.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 7, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Nicholas Gebelt wrote:
> Dear Christian (I'm assuming thats the correct spelling chose the wrong one.),
>
>
>
> Indicating the desire to assume a lease in Part B of the Statement of Intention is insufficient by itself to assume the lease. Otherwise, 365(p) would not be in the Code since 521(a)(2) would take care of the matter.
>
>
>
> Technically, 365(p), combined with 365(d), requires the assumption of a lease, rather than the reaffirmation of a lease. Otherwise, the automatic stay terminates with respect to the leased item (usually a motor vehicle) on the 61st day after the petition date.
>
>
>
> Since 521(a)(6) requires that reaffirmation be done no later than 45 days after the first 341(a) hearing, rather than 365(d)on and debt reaffirmation as distinct concepts. Indeed, on an intuitive level I think of reaffirmation as a secured purchase concept (even though a debtor can, in theory, reaffirm an unsecured debt though it is, admittedly, a bit unusual), and assumption as a lease concept.
>
>
>
> Some creditors, such as Toyota, ask the debtor to sign a one-page lease assumption agreement, while others, such as Honda, demand a full-blown reaffirmation agreement in order to assume the lease. I have gotten nowhere pointing out the difference in concepts to Honda. Their policy is that the debtor must sign a reaffirmation agreement to assume the lease. Therefore, if your client wants to assume a Honda lease, the better part of wisdom is to have them sign the reaffirmation agreement.
>
>
>
> As for Judge Donovans position, he is, after all, the final arbiter in the matter. Therefore, a debtor in his courtroom who wants to keep a leased vehicle will have to reaffirm, unless the lessor doesnt demand it. And who in his right mind is going to mount an appeal based on the somewhat arcane distinction between lease assumption and debt reaffirmation?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
Dennis McGoldrick
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 5:47 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Reaffirmation of Leases
>
>
>
>
>
> 365p
>
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:30 PM
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Reaffirmation of Leases
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi, all,
>
>
>
> We are creating a checklist for volunteer attorneys who counsel debtors before reaffirmation hearings, and have a question regarding automobile leases. Are auto leases treated any differently in the reaffirmation process than car purchase agreements?
>
>
>
> We were under the impression that as long as the debtor stated an intention to assume a lease in Part B of the Statement of Intention, it was not necessary to reaffirm a lease. However, at last weeks reaffirmation hearings, Judge Donovan told a pro se debtor that, in order to keep the lease, she had to reaffirm it at the reaffirmation hearing.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Christain
>
>
>
> Christian Cooper
>
> Staff Attorney
>
>
>
>
>
Nick. I nominate you for the appeal. You have this issue wiredD. Sent from my iPhoneOn Jul 7, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Nicholas Gebelt <ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com> wrote:
Dear Christian (I'm assuming thats the correct spelling
you have two different spellings in your email. Please forgive me if I chose the
wrong one.),
Indicating the desire to assume a lease in Part B of the Statement of Intention is insufficient by itself to assume the lease. Otherwise, 365(p) would
not be in the Code since 521(a)(2) would take care of the matter.
Technically, 365(p), combined with 365(d), requires the assumption of a lease, rather than the reaffirmation of a lease. Otherwise, the automatic stay
terminates with respect to the leased item (usually a motor vehicle) on the 61st day after the petition date.
Since 521(a)(6) requires that reaffirmation be done no later than 45 days after the first 341(a) hearing, rather than 365(d) date requirement, I view lease assumption and debt reaffirmation as distinct concepts. Indeed, on an intuitive level I think of reaffirmation as a secured purchase concept (even though a debtor can, in theory, reaffirm an unsecured debt
though it is, admittedly, a bit unusual), and assumption as a lease concept.
Some creditors, such as Toyota, ask the debtor to sign a one-page lease assumption agreement, while others, such as Honda, demand a full-blown reaffirmation
agreement in order to assume the lease. I have gotten nowhere pointing out the difference in concepts to Honda. Their policy is that the debtor must sign a reaffirmation agreement to assume the lease. Therefore, if your client wants to assume a Honda lease,
the better part of wisdom is to have them sign the reaffirmation agreement.
As for Judge Donovans position, he is, after all, the final arbiter in the matter. Therefore, a debtor in his courtroom who wants to keep a leased vehicle
will have to reaffirm, unless the lessor doesnt demand it. And who in his right mind is going to mount an appeal based on the somewhat arcane distinction between lease assumption and debt reaffirmation?
Best regards,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
<image001.jpg>
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:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
365p
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:30 PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Reaffirmation of Leases
Hi, all,
We are creating a checklist for volunteer attorneys who counsel debtors before reaffirmation hearings, and have a question regarding automobile leases. Are auto leases treated any differently in the reaffirmation process than car purchase agreements?
We were under the impression that as long as the debtor stated an intention to assume a lease in Part B of the Statement of Intention, it was not necessary to reaffirm a lease. However, at last weeks reaffirmation hearings, Judge Donovan told a pro se debtor that, in order to keep the lease, she had to reaffirm it at the reaffirmation hearing.
Thanks,
Christain
Christian Cooper
Staff Attorney
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Hi, all,
We are creating a checklist for volunteer attorneys who counsel debtors
before reaffirmation hearings, and have a question regarding automobile
leases. Are auto leases treated any differently in the reaffirmation
process than car purchase agreements?
We were under the impression that as long as the debtor stated an
intention to assume a lease in Part B of the Statement of Intention, it
was not necessary to reaffirm a lease. However, at last week's
reaffirmation hearings, Judge Donovan told a pro se debtor that, in
order to keep the lease, she had to reaffirm it at the reaffirmation
hearing.
Thanks,
Christain
Christian Cooper
Staff Attorney
Consumer Law Project & Debtor Assistance Project
Public Counsel
610 S. Ardmore Ave. | Los Angeles, CA 90005
(213) 385-2977 ext. 125 | fax (213) 385-9089
ccooper@publiccounsel.org |
publiccounsel.org
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged.Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you
may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the
message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by
reply e-mail and delete any version, response or reference to it. Thank you.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.