Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

To clarify, the ultimate conclusion you two arrived at is that if the debt
can be bifurcated into unsecured and secured portions, then it must be
characterized as such.
So a primary residence with an undersecured first lien, the undersecured
portion of which is 300k would have the 300k be treated as secured.
A primary residence with a wholly undersecured second lien in the amount of
300k would have the 300k be treated as unsecured.
Is that correct?
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Dear Larry,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the reference. I read with interest the holding in
> *Soderlund*, and some of the cases that cite it. In *Soderlund *the
> asset that partially secured the debt in question, was not the debtor> principal residence. This can be seen in footnote 5, to wit:
>
>
>
> We note that a different question might be presented if the debts in
> question were entitled to the protection afforded by 1322(b)(2), *i.e.*,
> claims secured only by a security interest in real property that is the
> debtors principal residence. *See Nobelman v. American Savings Bank*,
> 508 U.S. 324, 113 S.Ct. 2106, 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993) and *Dewsnup v. Timm*,
> 502 U.S. 410, 112 S.Ct. 773, 116 L.Ed.2d 903 (1992). Here, the debts are
> not entitled to such protection, accordingly, we do not attempt to resolve
> this issue.
>
>
>
> One case that cited *Soderlund *is *In re Marques*, Case No. 12-01434,
> Related Doc. No. 30. (Bankr. D. Haw. 2012) (available at:
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 439662&hle
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Dear Larry,
Thank you for the reference. I read with interest the holding in Soderlund, and some of the cases that cite it. In Soderlund the asset that partially secured the debt in question, was not the debtor's principal residence. This can be seen in footnote 5, to wit:
We note that a different question might be presented if the debts in question were entitled to the protection afforded by 1322(b)(2), i.e., claims secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor's principal residence. See Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324, 113 S.Ct. 2106, 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993) and Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, 112 S.Ct. 773, 116 L.Ed.2d 903 (1992). Here, the debts are not entitled to such protection, accordingly, we do not attempt to resolve this issue.
One case that cited Soderlund is In re Marques, Case No. 12-01434, Related Doc. No. 30. (Bankr. D. Haw. 2012) (available at: http://scholar.google.c
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Nick,
It appears I misread her question. I believe there is a case called Soderland (spelling may be off) dealing with this question
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 20, 2014, at 3:04 PM, "Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
Dear Larry,
I may be misreading In re Smith, 435 B.R. 637 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2010) it was your case, so you may have more information than appears in the decision but in that case the reason the debtors exceeded the 109(e) unsecured debt limit was because the value of a wholly unsecured second mortgage that had been stripped off with a Lam motion was added to the unsecured pot. As the Court put it, their task was to answer: Whether a debt secured by a consensual lien that is wholly unsecured under 506(a) should be counted as unsecured debt for purposes of determining the eligibility of debtors for chapter 13 relief under 109(e). In re Smith, 435 B.R. at 642 (emphasis added).
Hollys question concerned the bifurcation of a partially secured mortgage. Therefore, the Smith holding is inapposite to her question.
All the best,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Attorney at Law
Certified Bankruptcy Law 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/
Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528: 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.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Yes, Debtor's principal residence.
Holly Roark
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
*and Sports Lawyer*
holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600
F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
**For a quicker response, email me at holly@roarklawoffices.com.
I only use gmail for my listservs, and am likely to miss private emails
directed to my gmail account.**
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Dear Holly,
>
>
>
> I assumed that your question pertained to a mortgage on the debtor> principal residence. If that assumption is correct, then I stand by my *Nobelman
> *argument: There is no bifurcating of a partially secured mortgage on
> the debtors principal residence.
>
>
>
> Things could be different, of course, if the real property is not the
> debtors principal residence. In that case the reasoning in *Nobelman *does
> not apply, since *Nobelman *involved the debtors principal residence.
> For nonprincipal residence real property the debt can be bifurcated using
> 1322(b)(2), with the understanding that the modified loan would have to be
> paid in full over the life of the plan due to 1325(a)(5)(B). If that
> happens, then the unsecured portion would be treated as unsecured for plan
> purposes, and would therefore count toward the 109(e) unsecured debt
> limit.
>
>
>
> Good luck,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *Nicholas Gebelt*
>
>
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist
>
>
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description:
> cid:image003.jpg@01CC076B.B14D73C0]
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> *Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:* 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]
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 20, 2014 3:07 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Judge Bason and 109(e) debt limits?
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, my question is about bifucating a second mortgage. I want to know if
> the unsecured portion is added to the unsecured debts for 109(e) purposes.
>
>
> Holly Roark
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
>
> *and Sports Lawyer*
>
> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
>
> www.roarklawoffices.com
>
> Central District of California
>
> Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>
> 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90067
>
> T (310) 553-2600
>
> F (310) 553-2601
>
> *By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>
>
>
> **For a quicker response, email me at holly@roarklawoffices.com.
>
> I only use gmail for my listservs, and am likely to miss private emails
>
> directed to my gmail account.**
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Larry,
>
>
>
> I may be misreading *In re Smith*, 435 B.R. 637 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2010) > it was your case, so you may have more information than appears in the
> decision but in that case the reason the debtors exceeded the > unsecured debt limit was because the value of a *wholly unsecured *
> second mortgage that had been stripped off with a *Lam *motion was added
> to the unsecured pot. As the Court put it, their task was to answer:
> Whether a debt secured by a consensual lien that is *wholly unsecured*
> under 506(a) should be counted as unsecured debt for purposes of
> determining the eligibility of debtors for chapter 13 relief under
> 109(e). *In re Smith*, 435 B.R. at 642 (emphasis added).
>
>
>
> Hollys question concerned the bifurcation of a *partially secured*
> mortgage. Therefore, the *Smith *holding is inapposite to her question.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *Nicholas Gebelt*
>
>
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist
>
>
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description:
> cid:image003.jpg@01CC076B.B14D73C0]
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> *Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:* 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]
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 20, 2014 2:48 PM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Judge Bason and 109(e) debt limits?
>
>
>
>
>
> As the losing party (along with Lou Esbin) in Smith v. Rojas where the BAP
> found that such debt must be counted against the unsecured debt cap, I'm
> not sure why Bason would rule otherwise
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2014, at 2:30 PM, "Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
> [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Holly,
>
>
>
> Given the Supreme Courts holding in *Nobelman v. American Savings Bank*,
> 508 U.S. 324 (1993), *i.e.*, that a partially secured mortgage on a
> debtors primary residence cannot be bifurcated into secured and unsecured
> parts for 506(a) purposes, I do not see why Judge Bason would bifurcate
> it for 109(e) purposes. To do so would pit create an unwarranted
> inconsistency between the two Code subsections.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *Nicholas Gebelt*
>
>
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Law 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/
>
>
>
> *Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:* 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
> ]
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 20, 2014 1:08 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa; Strictly Bankruptcy Issues
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Judge Bason and 109(e) debt limits?
>
>
>
>
>
> Does Judge Bason consider an unsecured portion of a mortgage as part of
> the unsecured debts for purposes of 109(e)?
>
>
>
> Holly Roark
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
>
> *and Sports Lawyer*
>
> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
>
> www.roarklawoffices.com
>
> Central District of California
>
> Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>
> 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90067
>
> T (310) 553-2600
>
> F (310) 553-2601
>
> *By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>
>
>
> **For a quicker response, email me at holly@roarklawoffices.com.
>
> I only use gmail for my listservs, and am likely to miss private emails
>
> directed to my gmail account.**
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yes, Debtor's principal residence.Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*and Sports Lawyer
holly@roarklawoffices.com**primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600
F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal
Specialization
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Yes, my question is about bifucating a second mortgage. I want to know if
the unsecured portion is added to the unsecured debts for 109(e) purposes.
Holly Roark
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
*and Sports Lawyer*
holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600
F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
**For a quicker response, email me at holly@roarklawoffices.com.
I only use gmail for my listservs, and am likely to miss private emails
directed to my gmail account.**
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Dear Larry,
>
>
>
> I may be misreading *In re Smith*, 435 B.R. 637 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2010) > it was your case, so you may have more information than appears in the
> decision but in that case the reason the debtors exceeded the > unsecured debt limit was because the value of a *wholly unsecured *second
> mortgage that had been stripped off with a *Lam * motion was added to the
> unsecured pot. As the Court put it, their task was to answer: Whether a
> debt secured by a consensual lien that is *wholly unsecured* under
> 506(a) should be counted as unsecured debt for purposes of determining the
> eligibility of debtors for chapter 13 relief under 109(e).> Smith*, 435 B.R. at 642 (emphasis added).
>
>
>
> Hollys question concerned the bifurcation of a *partially secured*
> mortgage. Therefore, the *Smith *holding is inapposite to her question.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *Nicholas Gebelt*
>
>
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist
>
>
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description:
> cid:image003.jpg@01CC076B.B14D73C0]
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> *Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:* 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]
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 20, 2014 2:48 PM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Judge Bason and 109(e) debt limits?
>
>
>
>
>
> As the losing party (along with Lou Esbin) in Smith v. Rojas where the BAP
> found that such debt must be counted against the unsecured debt cap, I'm
> not sure why Bason would rule otherwise
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2014, at 2:30 PM, "Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
> [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Holly,
>
>
>
> Given the Supreme Courts holding in *Nobelman v. American Savings Bank*,
> 508 U.S. 324 (1993), *i.e.*, that a partially secured mortgage on a
> debtors primary residence cannot be bifurcated into secured and unsecured
> parts for 506(a) purposes, I do not see why Judge Bason would bifurcate
> it for 109(e) purposes. To do so would pit create an unwarranted
> inconsistency between the two Code subsections.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *Nicholas Gebelt*
>
>
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Law 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/
>
>
>
> *Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:* 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
> ]
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 20, 2014 1:08 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa; Strictly Bankruptcy Issues
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Judge Bason and 109(e) debt limits?
>
>
>
>
>
> Does Judge Bason consider an unsecured portion of a mortgage as part of
> the unsecured debts for purposes of 109(e)?
>
>
>
> Holly Roark
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
>
> *and Sports Lawyer*
>
> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
>
> www.roarklawoffices.com
>
> Central District of California
>
> Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>
> 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90067
>
> T (310) 553-2600
>
> F (310) 553-2601
>
> *By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>
>
>
> **For a quicker response, email me at holly@roarklawoffices.com.
>
> I only use gmail for my listservs, and am likely to miss private emails
>
> directed to my gmail account.**
>
>
>
>
>
Yes, my question is about bifucating a second mortgage. I want to know if the unsecured portion is added to the unsecured debts for 109(e) purposes.Holly RoarkCertified Bankruptcy Specialist*and Sports Lawyer
holly@roarklawoffices.com**primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600
F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal
Specialization
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Dear Larry,
I may be misreading In re Smith, 435 B.R. 637 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2010) - it was your case, so you may have more information than appears in the decision - but in that case the reason the debtors exceeded the 109(e) unsecured debt limit was because the value of a wholly unsecured second mortgage that had been stripped off with a Lam motion was added to the unsecured pot. As the Court put it, their task was to answer: "Whether a debt secured by a consensual lien that is wholly unsecured under 506(a) should be counted as unsecured debt for purposes of determining the eligibility of debtors for chapter 13 relief under 109(e)." In re Smith, 435 B.R. at 642 (emphasis added).
Holly's question concerned the bifurcation of a partially secured mortgage. Therefore, the Smith holding is inapposite to her question.
All the best,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Attorney at Law
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist
[Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.jpg@01CC076B.B14D73C0]
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/
Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528: 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.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Apparently, I have been out of the loop on 13s for a while.
Holly Roark
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
*and Sports Lawyer*
holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600
F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
**For a quicker response, email me at holly@roarklawoffices.com.
I only use gmail for my listservs, and am likely to miss private emails
directed to my gmail account.**
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Larry Simons larry@lsimonslaw.com [cdcbaa]
wrote:
>
>
> As the losing party (along with Lou Esbin) in Smith v. Rojas where the BAP
> found that such debt must be counted against the unsecured debt cap, I'm
> not sure why Bason would rule otherwise
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 20, 2014, at 2:30 PM, "Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
> [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Holly,
>
>
>
> Given the Supreme Courts holding in *Nobelman v. American Savings Bank*,
> 508 U.S. 324 (1993), *i.e.*, that a partially secured mortgage on a
> debtors primary residence cannot be bifurcated into secured and unsecured
> parts for 506(a) purposes, I do not see why Judge Bason would bifurcate
> it for 109(e) purposes. To do so would pit create an unwarranted
> inconsistency between the two Code subsections.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *Nicholas Gebelt*
>
>
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Law 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/
>
>
>
> *Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:* 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
> ]
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 20, 2014 1:08 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa; Strictly Bankruptcy Issues
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Judge Bason and 109(e) debt limits?
>
>
>
>
>
> Does Judge Bason consider an unsecured portion of a mortgage as part of
> the unsecured debts for purposes of 109(e)?
>
>
>
> Holly Roark
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
>
> *and Sports Lawyer*
>
> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
>
> www.roarklawoffices.com
>
> Central District of California
>
> Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>
> 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90067
>
> T (310) 553-2600
>
> F (310) 553-2601
>
> *By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>
>
>
> **For a quicker response, email me at holly@roarklawoffices.com.
>
> I only use gmail for my listservs, and am likely to miss private emails
>
> directed to my gmail account.**
>
>
>
>
>
Apparently, I have been out of the loop on 13s for a while. Holly RoarkCertified Bankruptcy Specialist*and Sports Lawyer
holly@roarklawoffices.com**primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600
F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal
Specialization
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

As the losing party (along with Lou Esbin) in Smith v. Rojas where the BAP found that such debt must be counted against the unsecured debt cap, I'm not sure why Bason would rule otherwise
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 20, 2014, at 2:30 PM, "Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
Dear Holly,
Given the Supreme Courts holding in Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324 (1993), i.e., that a partially secured mortgage on a debtors primary residence cannot be bifurcated into secured and unsecured parts for 506(a) purposes, I do not see why Judge Bason would bifurcate it for y between the two Code subsections.
All the best,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Attorney at Law
Certified Bankruptcy Law 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/
Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528: 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.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I don't believe so
On Sep 20, 2014 1:08 PM, "Holly Roark hollyroark22@gmail.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
> Does Judge Bason consider an unsecured portion of a mortgage as part of
> the unsecured debts for purposes of 109(e)?
>
>
>
> Holly Roark
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
> *and Sports Lawyer*
> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
> www.roarklawoffices.com
> Central District of California
> Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
> 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
> Los Angeles, CA 90067
> T (310) 553-2600
> F (310) 553-2601
>
> *By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>
>
> **For a quicker response, email me at holly@roarklawoffices.com.
> I only use gmail for my listservs, and am likely to miss private emails
> directed to my gmail account.**
>
>
>
I don't believe so
On Sep 20, 2014 1:08 PM, "Holly Roark hollyroark22@gmail.com [cdcbaa]" <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Does Judge Bason consider an unsecured portion of a mortgage as part of the unsecured debts for purposes of 109(e)?Holly RoarkCertified Bankruptcy Specialist*and Sports Lawyer
holly@roarklawoffices.com**primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Does Judge Bason consider an unsecured portion of a mortgage as part of the
unsecured debts for purposes of 109(e)?
Holly Roark
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
*and Sports Lawyer*
holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600
F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
**For a quicker response, email me at holly@roarklawoffices.com.
I only use gmail for my listservs, and am likely to miss private emails
directed to my gmail account.**
Does Judge Bason consider an unsecured portion of a mortgage as part of the unsecured debts for purposes of 109(e)?Holly RoarkCertified Bankruptcy Specialist*and Sports Lawyer
holly@roarklawoffices.com**primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600
F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal
Specialization
The post was migrated from Yahoo.