.jpg)
Contingent Liability/Debt?
It's a liability but it is contingent. I would describe it in the schedules
but I would take the position with a straight face that his current
liability is zero as parents often consult estate planning attorneys and
simply benefit their children otherwise, such as in ways that are not
"liquid" etc, through other legal options; so, he may never get liquid
assets of $750,000 ...
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:40 PM 'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Potential Chapter 7 client recently went through a divorce. As part of
> the settlement, the following language appears in their agreement:
>
>
>
> *"If and only if Father inherits $750,000 or more in liquid assets, at one
> time or over a cumulative period of time, Father shall be obligated pay
> Mother $145,500 as reimbursement for 50% of the monies Mother
> early-withdrew from her 401K Plan in 2016 on behalf of the both Parties and
> their Children. Such payment to Mother shall be made within 90 days of
> Father receiving $750,000 or more in inherited, liquid assets. The family
> court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this provision irrespective of
> how many years subsequent to the Effective Date." *Can it be successfully
> argued that this is somehow NOT a debt (contingent or otherwise)? This is
> critical for purposes of consumer vs. nonconsumer debt calculations in this
> case.
>
> "Debt" is defined in 11 USC 101 as: Liability on a Claim.
> "Claim" is defined in 11 USC 101 as: "a right to payment, whether or not
> such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, contingent,
> matured...."
>
> So the question is: Is this a liability on a claim? It seems that this
> is not a claim unless and until the condition precedent occurs. Or is it
> just that payment is contingent on that happening?
>
> Thoughts, arguments, prayers?
>
>
> *************************************************
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL UNLESS WE HAVE AGREED TO ACCEPT IT IN
WRITING.
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
**Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal
Specialization*
*Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
*Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
Commercial Litigation
Estate Planning
Outside General Counsel
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
Note: The information in this e-mail message is not intended to be legal
advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice unless counsel
expressly contracted in writing to provide such advice. Furthermore, the
information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail
It's a liability but it is contingent. I would describe it in the schedules but I would take the position with a straight face that his current liability is zero as parents often consult estate planning attorneys and simply benefit their children otherwise, such asin ways that are not "liquid" etc,through other legal options; so, he may never get liquid assets of $750,000 ...On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:40
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Potential Chapter 7 client recently went through a divorce. As part
of the settlement, the following language appears in their agreement:
/"If and only if Father inherits $750,000 or more in liquid assets,
at one time or over a cumulative period of time, Father shall be
obligated pay Mother $145,500 as reimbursement for 50% of the monies
Mother early-withdrew from her 401K Plan in 2016 on behalf of the
both Parties and their Children. Such payment to Mother shall be
made within 90 days of Father receiving $750,000 or more in
inherited, liquid assets. The family court shall retain
jurisdiction to enforce this provision irrespective of how many
years subsequent to the Effective Date."
/Can it be successfully argued that this is somehow NOT a debt
(contingent or otherwise)? This is critical for purposes of
consumer vs. nonconsumer debt calculations in this case.
"Debt" is defined in 11 USC 101 as: Liability on a Claim.
"Claim" is defined in 11 USC 101 as: "a right to payment, whether or
not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated,
contingent, matured...."
So the question is: Is this a liability on a claim? It seems that
this is not a claim unless and until the condition precedent
occurs. Or is it just that payment is contingent on that happening?
Thoughts, arguments, prayers?
*************************************************
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.