Citation for rule that Bankruptcy Court cannot modify
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:23 pm
I am not saying I agree 100% but I have seen case law that agrees with you
proposition. I would look for cases discussing 524(e).
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
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.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Giovanni Orantes go@gobklaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> I'm drafting and assembling a motion for summary judgment while trying to
> meet other deadlines, which would make it wonderful if someone would have
> handy a citation to a case that stands for the proposition that a debtor or
> bankruptcy plan cannot modify the rights of a creditor as to a non-debtor
> party or the non-debtor party's obligations thereof.
>
> I realize that in a community property state, a non-filing spouse's
> community assets would not be liable for the discharged debts and that
> Chapter 13 has a co-debtor stay that applies even to non-filing debtors.
> The situation I'm dealing with is of a co-borrower on a loan who holds
> title as joint tenant and wants his obligation under the loan ended and I
> know that Bankruptcy law cannot compel the secured lender to forgive the
> obligation of the non-debtor co-borrower.
>
> --
> 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 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 at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with 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.
>
>
>
I am not saying I agree 100% but I have seen case law that agrees with you proposition. I would look for cases discussing 524(e).ail_signature">
The post was migrated from Yahoo.