Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

The In Re Appelbaum decision in Hale's e-mail (actual cite is 422 B.R. 684) is interesting reading. There has been some dicsussion on the listserve about the bankruptcy judge in Arizona who has found California's bankruptcy exemption statute (CCP 703.140) invalid. The Appelbaum case is a BAP decision from last December affirming the ruling of an Oregon bankruptcy judge sustaining California's exemptions against an attack by a Chapter 7 Trustee. However there was a dissenting opinion by Judge Markell in which he states that he would strike down CCP 703.140 as violating the Supremacy Clause. That feels too close for comfort!
Does anyone know if the Oregon Trustee has appealed this to the Ninth Circuit? This sure sounds like the kind of case the Supreme Court would be interested in hearing if a petition for cert was filed? Professor Hayes?
Jim
James R. Selth
Weintraub & Selth, APC
12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300
Los Angeles, California 90025
Telephone: (310) 207-1494
Facsimile: (310) 442-0660
E-Mail: jim@wsrlaw.net
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN-E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

These are very useful! Thank you.
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Hale Andrew Antico wrote:
>
>
>
> From a bankruptcy newsletter I get:
>
> - Section 362 : *Sternberg v. Johnston*, 08-1572120: Affirmative duty
> to comply with stay includes ensuring actions do not prolong a violation of
> it.
> - Section 521: *Dumont v. Ford*, 581 F.3d 1104: In Ch7, debtors must
> redeem, surrender or reaffirm. Ride-through is dead. If creditor refuses
> to accept reaff at pre-petition terms, debtor can continue to maintain
> pre-petition without reaffirming.
> - Section 522(b): *Sticka, Trustee v. Applebaum* OR-09-1134-MkHPa
> (2009), States can make BK-only exemptions if they don't conflict with fed'
> ones
> - Section 1322: *Greenpoint Mortgage v. Herrera*, 422 B.R. 698: Optional
> plan provisions by judges in CDCa do not violate RESPA or 1322(b)(2)
> - Section 1325: *In re** Martinez* : 418 B.R. 347: "Phantom payments
> for valueless collateral" are not reasonably necessary for supt and maint.
> - Section 1328: *In re Wagg*: OR-08-1339-MoJuR: There doesn't have to
> be a judgment for damages pre-petition to except from discharge via
> 1328(a)(4)
> - Trustees: *Matter of Harris* : 590 F.3d 730: Discusses 4 elements
> for derived quasi-judicial immunity to apply
>
> Hale
>
>
>
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Phone: (888) 619-8222 x101
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA.
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.
These are very useful! Thank you.On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Hale Andrew Antico <bk.lawyer@gmail.com> wrote:

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.