Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Not at all what happened. This isn't a question of the merits.   
The rules are in conflict with each other or are at least unclear. 
The 3015 says no notice is required under those circumstances. 
There is a mandatory court form for the Notice and Motion.  The
Mandatory Notice says the court can enter the order without a
hearing and without notice to creditors.  However Rule 9013-1(q)
lists the type of motions that can be heard this way, and the Motion
for Authority to Refinance that is specifically allowed under 3015-1
is NOT allowed under 9013-1.   Therefore, it is argued by the Judge
in question in my case, you must use the 9013 procedure with full
14+3 days notice to creditors and then file the mandatory
Declaration re No Hearing Requested. It took over 2 weeks for the
court to inform me of this glitch, and now I have to start all over
again and the client is likely to lose the refinance (to which the
Chapter 13 Trustee has already submitted her demand).
So in essence I made the mistake of following the rules in the 3015
series instead of the 9013 series.   Bottom line is that the 3015
motions of this type need to be included in 9013-1(q).
On a separate note, there needs to be a new Declaration re No
Hearing Requested for those matters which require 24 days notice
(e.g. MOMODS) because the current Declaration specifically states
the 14+3 day period and we are not allowed to modify mandatory forms.
Mark
On 10/24/2018 7:06 AM, Hale Andrew Antico bk.lawyer@gmail.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Mark,
>
> I think 3015-1(w) is the section you're referring to. It appears
> to be the exception to the general notice-and-time rule of
> 9013-1(o), and the exception is more specific than just 100%. From
> subsection (w)(1)(C):
>
> Motion
> for
> approval
> of
> sale
> or
> refinancing
> of
> debtor’s
> residence,
> subject
> to
> subsection
> (p)
> of
> this
> rule,
> if
> the
> /entire
> equity
> therein
> is
> exempt/
> from
> the
> claims
> of
> creditors;
> provided,
> however,
> notice
> is
> not
> required
> if
> the
> sale
> or
> refinance
> will
> pay
> off
> the
> plan
> and
> the
> plan
> allows
> 100%
> to
> the
> unsecured
> claims;
> [emphasis
> added]
>
>
> With property values being so high these days, it's likely that
> equity exceeds the exemption, which is why many of us are nervous
> about filing 7s for home owners in this hot real estate market.
> Without knowing your specific facts, that may be what happened in
> your case. If not, you can push for reconsideration, but that may
> take more time than the days required in 9013.
>
> Hale
>
> On 10/23/2018 3:43 PM, 'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa]
> wrote:
>>
>> Whoever is on the Ch. 13 Rules committee, we need to fix the
>> local rule conflict between 3015-1(p), which allows certain
>> Motions such as Motions to Refinance property if it pays 100% of
>> claims, and 9013-1(o) which requires notice and hearing and the
>> subsequent Declaration re no opposition.
>>
>> It is completely messed up and I just had a motion/order bounced
>> because of it.
>>
>> --
>>
>> *************************
>> Mark J. Markus
>> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>> _*Mailing Address Only:*_
>> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
>> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
>> Board of Legal Specialization
>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
>> ________________________________________________
>> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
>> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information
>> is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
>> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
>> the contents of this message is prohibited.
>> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
>> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
>> contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not
>> intended or written 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 in this communication.
>>
>>
>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> */Hale Andrew Antico/*
>
> (888) 54-BKLAW
> http://www.los-angeles-bankruptcy.net
>
> /Vice-President, Central Dist Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys'
> Assn.(CDCBAA)/
> /Past President, James T. King Bankruptcy Inn of Court/
> /Member, National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys
> (NACBA)/
>
> /We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United
> States Bankruptcy Laws./
> /We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems,
> including, where appropriate, assisting them with the filing of
> petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code./
>
> /Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating
> with me by email, you understand that it's not confidential./
>
> /This does not constitute an electronic signature./
>
>
>
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
_*Mailing Address Only:*_
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
written 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 in this communication.
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Mark,
I think 3015-1(w) is the section you're referring to. It appears to be
the exception to the general notice-and-time rule of 9013-1(o), and the
exception is more specific than just 100%. From subsection (w)(1)(C):

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Whoever is on the Ch. 13 Rules committee, we need to fix the local
rule conflict between 3015-1(p), which allows certain Motions such
as Motions to Refinance property if it pays 100% of claims, and
9013-1(o) which requires notice and hearing and the subsequent
Declaration re no opposition.
It is completely messed up and I just had a motion/order bounced
because of it.
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
_*Mailing Address Only:*_
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
written 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 in this communication.
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.