Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

So this judge is claiming that post-petition mortgage payments, vehicle
payments, child support payments, are considered to be "under the Plan"?
I've never head of anyone doing this in another jurisdiction, but 1328(a)
does speak to the child support payments if nothing else. Given the fact
that direct payments are provided for under the Plan it makes sense that
he's entitled to require the production of such proof, though it's unduly
burdensome to require the debtor to retain copies of 60 cancelled checks
(or 36, as the case may be).
I wonder how the judge would rule on a sworn affidavit from the debtor
along with a payment history provided by the mortgage and vehicle lenders.
It would seem to reduce the burden on the debtor, provide for a more
accurate representation of the post-petition payments made, and satisfy his
inquiry.
In addition, does he require the debtor's presence in the courtroom for the
hearing? I'd think that in the case of an hourly-wage employee the
financial burden of taking another day off from work would be problematic
as well.
Have these workarounds been offered up?
Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
So this judge is claiming that post-petition mortgage payments, vehicle payments, child support payments, are considered to be "under the Plan"?I've never head of anyone doing this in another jurisdiction, but 1328(a) does speak to the child support payments if nothing else. Given the fact that direct payments are provided for under the Plan it makes sense that he's entitled to require the production of such proof, though it's unduly burdensome to require the debtor to retain copies of 60 cancelled checks (or 36, as the case may be).
I wonder how the judge would rule on a sworn affidavit from the debtor along with a payment history provided by the mortgage and vehicle lenders. urate representation of the post-petition payments made, and satisfy his inquiry.
In addition, does he require the debtor's presence in the courtroom for the hearing? I'd think that in the case of an hourly-wage employee the financial burden of taking another day off from work would be problematic as well.
Have these workarounds been offered up?-------------Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.Shaev & Fleischman, LLP

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Judicial activism?
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
Judicial activism?-- Giovanni Orantes, Esq. Orantes Law Firm, P.C.3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980Los Angeles, CA 90010Tel: (213) 389-4362Fax: (877) 789-5776e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

What is a 12 step rule? Is that like a 12 step program? You mean that
debtors in 13 will have to go to Debtors Anonymous, like AA but just for
Chapter 13 Debtors?
We're too far past April 1 for you to be pulling a prank, so I guess
we'll have to believe you Nancy.
Steven B. Lever

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Unbelievable.
On Jul 25, 2012 5:17 PM, "nancybonaccorso" wrote:
> **
>
>
> So, Judge Johnson is conducting his status conference hearings on whether
> or not debtors have made their payments in "accordance with the plan under
> 1328(a)" and should be granted a chapter 13 discharge.
>
> His view is that all plan payments and direct payments to be made outside
> the plan to creditors including mortgage payments, vehicle payments, child
> support payments, etc. must be made for debtors to be eligible for a
> discharge. He is requiring proof to be filed that they were made.
>
> He is inclined to deny discharges to debtors who have surrendered a
> property during a chapter 13 after a Motion for Relief was granted and
> because no Motion to Modify was filed stating that the debtor would not
> continue to make the "proposed payment."
>
> He is also vacating discharges to debtors who received a chapter 13
> discharge and then filed a new chapter 13. He has stated that he believes
> that the debtors are perjurying themselves in the application for
> discharge.
>
> He has stated that he is well aware that he will be appealed and he is
> confident that the 9th Circuit will come up with a 12 step rule for debtors
> in the future.
>
> Nancy B. Clark
> Borowitz & Clark
>
>
>
Unbelievable.
On Jul 25, 2012 5:17 PM, "nancybonaccorso" <nclark@blclaw.com> wrote:
So, Judge Johnson is conducting his status conference hearings on whether or not debtors have made their payments in "accordance with the plan under 1328(a)" and should be granted a chapter 13 discharge.
His view is that all plan payments and direct payments to be made outside the plan to creditors including mortgage payments, vehicle payments, child support payments, etc. must be made for debtors to be eligible for a discharge. He is requiring proof to be filed that they were made.
He is inclined to deny discharges to debtors who have surrendered a property during a chapter 13 after a Motion for Relief was granted and because no Motion to Modify was filed stating that the debtor would not continue to make the "proposed payment."
He is also vacating discharges to debtors who received a chapter 13 discharge and then filed a new chapter 13. He has stated that he believes that the debtors are perjurying themselves in the application for discharge.
He has stated that he is well aware that he will be appealed and he is confident that the 9th Circuit will come up with a 12 step rule for debtors in the future.
Nancy B. Clark
Borowitz & Clark

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

So, Judge Johnson is conducting his status conference hearings on whether or not debtors have made their payments in "accordance with the plan under 1328(a)" and should be granted a chapter 13 discharge.
His view is that all plan payments and direct payments to be made outside the plan to creditors including mortgage payments, vehicle payments, child support payments, etc. must be made for debtors to be eligible for a discharge. He is requiring proof to be filed that they were made.
He is inclined to deny discharges to debtors who have surrendered a property during a chapter 13 after a Motion for Relief was granted and because no Motion to Modify was filed stating that the debtor would not continue to make the "proposed payment."
He is also vacating discharges to debtors who received a chapter 13 discharge and then filed a new chapter 13. He has stated that he believes that the debtors are perjurying themselves in the application for discharge.
He has stated that he is well aware that he will be appealed and he is confident that the 9th Circuit will come up with a 12 step rule for debtors in the future.
Nancy B. Clark
Borowitz & Clark

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I understood that the "Gods" were speaking to him about these sort of
practices that seem to abuse the bankruptcy system itself. I wonder if
that's been done and now a more formal movement should be had in order to
protect the debtors of that community? What can be done?
Anybody?
Renay
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:58 PM, t_mannis wrote:
> **
>
>
> That certainly sounds sane. Nothing like subverting the interests of both
> debtor and creditor at the same time...
>
> Unreal. Truthfully, it goes beyond that, how is that not an abuse?
>
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, "nancybonaccorso" wrote:
> >
> > Judge Johnson just dismissed our client's 100% chapter 13 b/c the debtor
> made his mortgage payment for January on the 23rd instead of the 15th.
> > Nancy B. Clark
> > Borowitz & Clark, LLP
> >
>
>
>
I understood that the "Gods" were speaking to him about these sort of practices that seem to abuse the bankruptcy system itself. I wonder if that's been done and now a more formal movement should be had in order to protect the debtors of that community? What can be done?
Anybody?RenayOn Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:58 PM, t_mannis <toddlaw@dslextreme.com> wrote:
That certainly sounds sane. Nothing like subverting the interests of both debtor and creditor at the same time...
Unreal. Truthfully, it goes beyond that, how is that not an abuse?
@yahoogroups.com, "nancybonaccorso" <nclark@...> wrote:
>
> Judge Johnson just dismissed our client's 100% chapter 13 b/c the debtor made his mortgage payment for January on the 23rd instead of the 15th.
> Nancy B. Clark
> Borowitz & Clark, LLP
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

That certainly sounds sane. Nothing like subverting the interests of both debtor and creditor at the same time...
Unreal. Truthfully, it goes beyond that, how is that not an abuse?
>
> Judge Johnson just dismissed our client's 100% chapter 13 b/c the debtor made his mortgage payment for January on the 23rd instead of the 15th.
> Nancy B. Clark
> Borowitz & Clark, LLP
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Unbelievable
On Feb 1, 2012 3:36 PM, "nancybonaccorso" wrote:
> **
>
>
> Judge Johnson just dismissed our client's 100% chapter 13 b/c the debtor
> made his mortgage payment for January on the 23rd instead of the 15th.
> Nancy B. Clark
> Borowitz & Clark, LLP
>
>
>
Unbelievable
On Feb 1, 2012 3:36 PM, "nancybonaccorso" <nclark@blclaw.com> wrote:
Judge Johnson just dismissed our client's 100% chapter 13 b/c the debtor made his mortgage payment for January on the 23rd instead of the 15th.
Nancy B. Clark
Borowitz & Clark, LLP

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I always thought that the "R" in Riverside stood for ridiculous
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
means at

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Let me know if I can help with amicus brief or whatever. That is
ridiculous !
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 3:36 PM, nancybonaccorso wrote:
> **
>
>
> Judge Johnson just dismissed our client's 100% chapter 13 b/c the debtor
> made his mortgage payment for January on the 23rd instead of the 15th.
> Nancy B. Clark
> Borowitz & Clark, LLP
>
>
>
Robert K. Lee
State Bar Certified Specialist in Bankruptcy Law
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT K. LEE
Managing Attorney
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1035
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Ph 888-777-0839
Fx 888-777-0849
www.robertklee.com
Let me know if I can help with amicus brief or whatever. That is ridiculous !On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 3:36 PM, nancybonaccorso <nclark@blclaw.com> wrote:
Judge Johnson just dismissed our client's 100% chapter 13 b/c the debtor made his mortgage payment for January on the 23rd instead of the 15th.
Nancy B. Clark
Borowitz & Clark, LLP
--
The post was migrated from Yahoo.