=
Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 9:20 pm
Reply-To: Chris Gautschi
X-Original-Return-Path: Chris Gautschi
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: groups-system
Don't most clients come up with a fake prenup backdated? As of course a big surprise to us. You have to take care of all this stuff before agreeing to file for them. Ethically. Sometimes you have to refer them to someone else.
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 30, 2016, at 8:54 PM, Patrick Green pat@fitzgreenlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> Peter:
>
> I agree. I left out the crucial point that we were analyzing a case where the couples had a premup. If it is valid and correctly written, then the analysis I went through applies. In essence, with the right prenup, the analysis is the same as a common law state.
>
> PG
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE above average phone.
>
>
> -------- Original message -----.com>
> Date: 05/30/2016 8:20 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Means Test
>
>
> Remember the Code is written for states with and without community property laws, income to the debtor in a community property state is income to both spouses. The Means Test backs out the amount the non-debtor-spoues uses for purposes other than the household - presumably debt service and perhaps more uses.
>
> Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos.
>
> On May 30, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Patrick Green pat@fitzgreenlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>>
>> John:
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a discussion that the Marks (Markus and Jesse) and I have been having.
>>
>>
>>
>> 101(10A) definition of CMI uses the phrase income the debtor receives (or in a joint case the debtor and the debtors spouse receive) in both paragraph A and B. Thus CMI in its definition does not include the debtors spouse in a case not filed jointly.
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem arises because 707(b)(7)(B) says that in a case that is not a joint case, CMI of the debtor spouse shall not be considered for purposes of subparagraph A if the debtor and the debtor spouse are separated under applicable bankruptcy law or the debtor and the debtor spouse are living separate and apart other than for the purpose of evading paragraph a and the debtor files a statement under penalty of perjury saying as much.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thus 707(b)(7)(B) contradicts 101(10A). Both provisions were enacted at the same time and they must be reconciled. Canons of statutory construction require that that any interpretation must give meaning to both sections and not negate any part of either section.
>>
>>
>>
>> If 707(b)(7)(B) trumps 101(10A), then the plain language of 101(10A) income the debtor receives (or in a joint case the debtor and the debtor spouse receive) is judicially written out of the statute and has no meaning. This violates the canons of statutory construction, so that interpretation cannot valid. However, if one reads 707(b)(7)(B) to be a safe harbor for when a non-filing spouse's income cannot be included when only one spouse is filing, then it can coexist with 101(10A). From that follows that the nonfiling spouse's income that is used for household purposes must be included in CMI, but other income is not included. In other words we treat the nonfiling spouse as a roommate. In that way both 101(10A) and 707(b)(7)(B) can be reconciled without making the language in either of them superfluous.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>
>>
>> Patrick T. Green
>>
>> Attorney at Law
>>
>> Fitzgerald & Green, Attorneys at Law
>>
>> 1010 E. Union St. Suite 206
>>
>> Pasadena, CA 91106
>>
>> Tel: (626) 449-8433
>>
>> Fax: (626) 449-0565
>>
>> pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
o:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 7:38 PM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Means Test
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks. That's what I thought but CMI seems to say you don't have to include the non-filing spouse. It seems pretty likely that all of the non-filing spouses income is "regular contributions" but still.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm trying to finish the Third Edition of my Summary of Bankruptcy Law. I need volunteers to review it and give me comments.
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought you were supposed to be doing a concert tonight?
>>
>>
>
>
petermlively2000@yahoo.com [cdcbaa]" <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 05/30/2016 8:20 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Means Test
Remember the Code is written for states with and without community property laws, income to the debtor in a community property state is income to both spouses. The Means Test backs out the amount the non-debtor-spoues uses for purposes other than the
household - presumably debt service and perhaps more uses.
Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos.
On May 30, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Patrick Green
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
X-Original-Return-Path: Chris Gautschi
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: groups-system
Don't most clients come up with a fake prenup backdated? As of course a big surprise to us. You have to take care of all this stuff before agreeing to file for them. Ethically. Sometimes you have to refer them to someone else.
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 30, 2016, at 8:54 PM, Patrick Green pat@fitzgreenlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> Peter:
>
> I agree. I left out the crucial point that we were analyzing a case where the couples had a premup. If it is valid and correctly written, then the analysis I went through applies. In essence, with the right prenup, the analysis is the same as a common law state.
>
> PG
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE above average phone.
>
>
> -------- Original message -----.com>
> Date: 05/30/2016 8:20 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Means Test
>
>
> Remember the Code is written for states with and without community property laws, income to the debtor in a community property state is income to both spouses. The Means Test backs out the amount the non-debtor-spoues uses for purposes other than the household - presumably debt service and perhaps more uses.
>
> Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos.
>
> On May 30, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Patrick Green pat@fitzgreenlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>>
>> John:
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a discussion that the Marks (Markus and Jesse) and I have been having.
>>
>>
>>
>> 101(10A) definition of CMI uses the phrase income the debtor receives (or in a joint case the debtor and the debtors spouse receive) in both paragraph A and B. Thus CMI in its definition does not include the debtors spouse in a case not filed jointly.
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem arises because 707(b)(7)(B) says that in a case that is not a joint case, CMI of the debtor spouse shall not be considered for purposes of subparagraph A if the debtor and the debtor spouse are separated under applicable bankruptcy law or the debtor and the debtor spouse are living separate and apart other than for the purpose of evading paragraph a and the debtor files a statement under penalty of perjury saying as much.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thus 707(b)(7)(B) contradicts 101(10A). Both provisions were enacted at the same time and they must be reconciled. Canons of statutory construction require that that any interpretation must give meaning to both sections and not negate any part of either section.
>>
>>
>>
>> If 707(b)(7)(B) trumps 101(10A), then the plain language of 101(10A) income the debtor receives (or in a joint case the debtor and the debtor spouse receive) is judicially written out of the statute and has no meaning. This violates the canons of statutory construction, so that interpretation cannot valid. However, if one reads 707(b)(7)(B) to be a safe harbor for when a non-filing spouse's income cannot be included when only one spouse is filing, then it can coexist with 101(10A). From that follows that the nonfiling spouse's income that is used for household purposes must be included in CMI, but other income is not included. In other words we treat the nonfiling spouse as a roommate. In that way both 101(10A) and 707(b)(7)(B) can be reconciled without making the language in either of them superfluous.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>
>>
>> Patrick T. Green
>>
>> Attorney at Law
>>
>> Fitzgerald & Green, Attorneys at Law
>>
>> 1010 E. Union St. Suite 206
>>
>> Pasadena, CA 91106
>>
>> Tel: (626) 449-8433
>>
>> Fax: (626) 449-0565
>>
>> pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
o:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 7:38 PM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Means Test
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks. That's what I thought but CMI seems to say you don't have to include the non-filing spouse. It seems pretty likely that all of the non-filing spouses income is "regular contributions" but still.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm trying to finish the Third Edition of my Summary of Bankruptcy Law. I need volunteers to review it and give me comments.
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought you were supposed to be doing a concert tonight?
>>
>>
>
>
petermlively2000@yahoo.com [cdcbaa]" <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 05/30/2016 8:20 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Means Test
Remember the Code is written for states with and without community property laws, income to the debtor in a community property state is income to both spouses. The Means Test backs out the amount the non-debtor-spoues uses for purposes other than the
household - presumably debt service and perhaps more uses.
Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos.
On May 30, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Patrick Green
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.