Page 1 of 1

Fwd: FYI: Judge Bason dismissed cases today.....

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:29 am
by Yahoo Bot

I suspect Judge Bason doesn't know about the binding effect of 1327.
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
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
I suspect Judge Bason doesn't know about the binding effect of 1327.-- Giovanni Orantes, Esq. Orantes Law Firm, P.C.3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980Los Angeles, CA 90010Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776e-mail: go@gobklaw.comwebsite: www.gobklaw.comWE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Fwd: FYI: Judge Bason dismissed cases today.....

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:38 pm
by Yahoo Bot

Absolutely. Plan
confirmation effectuates a new contract between the debtor and at least the
general unsecured creditors. Once that happens, these creditors only have
a remedy if debtor breaches the plan. All prior collection rights under
breach of prepetition contracts are replaced by the plan.
The presumption of plan infeasibility
merely due to relief from stay, on these facts, ignores 1327 or presumes that
these creditors will make a run on the estates assets (primarily debtors
income) and prevent her from being able to make the payments due through plan
confirmation.
It is possible the judge
was trying to get the debtor started in a new case where the attorney would
bring the proper motion to extend stay and bypass risks.
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center
A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Culver City (310) 391-2400
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com; Mark J. Markus
Cc: Peter Lively
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 6:22 PM
Subject: Fwd: [cdcbaa] FYI: Judge Bason dismissed cases today.....
Yes, Peter stated it much better!
But seriously, Peter, are you saying that the "binds the creditor" language of 1327(a) is effectively the equivalent of the "operates as an injunction" language of 524(a) (2) and the universally found injunction language in a Chapter 11 plan?
While, in a Chapter 7, I know that a discharge injunction applies whether or not relief from stay was granted, I think you would have a statutory construction argument about 1327 when there is no stay.
Jason
JASON WALLACH, ESQ.
Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC
4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 300
Marina del Rey CA 90292-7925
Tel:(310) 821-9000
Direct:(310) 775-8725
Fax:(310) 775-8775
Email:jwallach@gladstonemichel.com
www.gladstonemichel.com
Begin forwarded message:

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Fwd: FYI: Judge Bason dismissed cases today.....

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:22 pm
by Yahoo Bot

charsetndows-1252
Yes, Peter stated it much better!
But seriously, Peter, are you saying that the "binds the creditor" language of 1327(a) is effectively the equivalent of the "operates as an injunction" language of 524(a) (2) and the universally found injunction language in a Chapter 11 plan?
While, in a Chapter 7, I know that a discharge injunction applies whether or not relief from stay was granted, I think you would have a statutory construction argument about 1327 when there is no stay.
Jason
JASON WALLACH, ESQ.
Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC
4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 300
Marina del Rey CA 90292-7925
Tel: (310) 821-9000
Direct: (310) 775-8725
Fax: (310) 775-8775
Email: jwallach@ gladstonemichel.com
www. gladstonemichel.com
Begin forwarded message:
> Date: February 9, 2012 5:42:28 PM PST
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] FYI: Judge Bason dismissed cases today.....
> Reply-To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>
> Peter better stated my "bomb-throwing" sarcasm.
>
> *************************
> 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 http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> 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.
>
> On 2/9/2012 5:37 PM, P L wrote:
>>
>> Debtor has an argument that the confirmed plan binds the creditors despite that the stay doesn't apply between the petition date and plan confirmation. Judge could have given the debtor a run for the goal line rather than dropping the guillotine. Moving up the confirmaiton would have been more equitable.
>> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>> The Personal Financial Law Center
>> A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
>> Culver City (310) 391-2400
>>
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:10 PM
>> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] FYI: Judge Bason dismissed cases today.....
>>
>>
>> For those of us that don't consider ourselves "bomb-throwers", that principle would be stated, "In a chapter 13 case in which the stay is not extended, any plan based on assets of the estate may be infeasible."
>> Jason Wallach
>> jwallach@gladstonemichel.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So by that interpretation of law, Judges have the power to unilaterally render a plan infeasible by denying the motion for extension of the stay?
>>>
>>> *************************
>>> 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 http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
>>> ________________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> On 2/9/2012 3:46 PM, R Grace Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Akihito Koyama
>>>> Judge Bason dismissed two cases today because the attorneys had not filed motions to extend the stay stating that the cases were infeasible due to the lack of an automatic stay.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
>>>> OFF: (818) 734-7223
>>>> CEL: (818) 554-9922
>>>>
>>>> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
>>>>
>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
charsetndows-1252
Yes, Peter stated it much better!But seriously, Peter, are you saying that the "binds the creditor" language of 1327(a) is effectively the equivalent of the "operates as an injunction" language of 524(a) (2) and the universally found injunction language in a Chapter 11 plan?While, in a Chapter 7, I know that a discharge injunction applies whether or not relief from stay was granted, I think you would have a statutory construction argument about 1327 when there is no stay.Jason
-- JASON WALLACH, ESQ.Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 300Marina del Rey CA 90292-7925Tel: (310) 821-9000Direct: (310) 775-8725Fax: (310) 775-8775Email: jwallach@ gladstonemichel.comwww. gladstonemichel.com
Begin forwarded message:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.