Order and Declaration After Discharge

[Yahoo Bot]

The order is not effective if it references the wrong lienholder. Motion needs to be amended to reflect correct lienholder and properly served on Deutsche Bank.
Mark Jessee
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Shannon Doyle sdoyle@ebankruptcyassistants.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> A motion to avoid junior lien was filed and an order was entered granting the motion. The motion and the order both state the lien to be avoided is Bank of America. However the actual lienholder is, and was at the time, Deutche Bank. Bank of America was the servicer. This is clear on the POC filed in the case. Funny thing is Deutche was never served as lienholder. Bank of America was served. Order still entered. Five years later, the lienholder is still Deutche Bank but the servicer is now Select Portfolio. When submitting the Declaration and Order After Discharge, should the docs refer to avoiding the lien of Select Portfolio, transferee of Bank of America? If I reference the lienholder as Bank of America (former servicer of lienholder Deutche Bank) will that open a can of worms since Deutche was never served or property named in the motion?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Shannon A. Doyle
>
> Attorney | Virtual Bankruptcy Assistant
>
> Phone: 855-378-4080
>
> Fax: 562-249-8435
>
> Licensed in California
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.