Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

I have a chapter 7 client which received his discharge in July of this
year. On the Statement of Intention we checked that the property would be
retained, but did not indicate whether the debt would be reaffirmed. But my
understanding on Mobile Homes is that if you Reaffirm and they repossess the
home that the debtor continues to be liable for the debt. This is why we
sign a reaffirmation agreement and send it to them (Which is what I did) but
I the attorney did not sign it and they did not file it or bring a motion.
So what now? Motion to ReOpen and do the reaffirmation? Bring motion for
violation of stay? By the way he is current on payments. BUT NOW they are
not crediting his account with the payments so that they can say he is
behind and repo. This is crap. ARGH.
Thoughts anyone?
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (323) 304-5496
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.
I have a chapter 7 client which received his discharge in July of this year. On the Statement of Intention we checked that the property would be retained, but did not indicate whether the debt would be reaffirmed. But my understanding on Mobile Homes is that if you Reaffirm and they repossess the home that the debtor continues to be liable for the debt. This is why we sign a reaffirmation agreement and send it to them (Which is what I did) but I the attorney did not sign it and they did not file it or bring a motion.
So what now? Motion to ReOpen and do the reaffirmation? Bring motion for violation of stay? By the way he is current on payments. BUT NOW they are not crediting his account with the payments so that they can say he is behind and repo. This is crap. ARGH.
Thoughts anyone?-- R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.OFF: (818) 734-7223CEL: (323) 304-5496NO 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.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Eva:
Excellent post! An example for us all.
David A. Tilem
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
* Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
Specialization.
Eva L. Taylor
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 5:36 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Cc: R Grace Rodriguez
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: Mobile Home in Rented Park Question
Hi Grace,
See Reinhart v. Vanderbilt Mortgage & Finance Inc. 563 F.3d 558 (6th Cir.
April 29, 2009)
They held that because Ohio law is clear in that debtors mobile home is not
real property, the Bankruptcy Court correctly held that it could modify the
creditors secured claim on the mobile home under Sec. 1322(b)(2) despite
the creditors secured interest on both the mobile home and the property
beneath it.
I was going to shepardize this case but havent had time. Maybe there is
something in the 9th cir that is similar. Also, in CA the mobile home can be
registered with the dmv (and have a VIN number) OR it can be treated as real
property (deed of trust, etc). It depends on the mobile home. I am modifying
the interest from 15% to 5% in a case of a mobile home registered with the
dmvsaying Till rate applies as it is a vehicle and saying 1322 does not as
it is not real property under CA law.
Let me know if you find anything else, Im interested in this topic.
Eva L. Taylor, Esq.
Borowitz & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Ave.,Ste. 250
West Covina, CA 91791
ph: 626-332-8600
fax: 626-332-8644
etaylor@blclaw. com
_____

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Hi Grace,
See Reinhart v. Vanderbilt Mortgage & Finance Inc. 563 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. April 29, 2009)
They held that because Ohio law is clear in that debtors' mobile home is not real property, the Bankruptcy Court correctly held that it could modify the creditor's secured claim on the mobile home under Sec. 1322(b)(2) despite the creditor's secured interest on both the mobile home and the property beneath it.
I was going to shepardize this case but haven't had time. Maybe there is something in the 9th cir that is similar. Also, in CA the mobile home can be registered with the dmv (and have a VIN number) OR it can be treated as real property (deed of trust, etc). It depends on the mobile home. I am modifying the interest from 15% to 5% in a case of a mobile home registered with the dmv-saying Till rate applies as it is a vehicle and saying 1322 does not as it is not real property under CA law.
Let me know if you find anything else, I'm interested in this topic.
Eva L. Taylor, Esq.
Borowitz & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Ave.,Ste. 250
West Covina, CA 91791
ph: 626-332-8600
fax: 626-332-8644
etaylor@blclaw.com
________________________________

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I also found this case, which said that you value the mobile home at
REPLACEMENT COST, and not IN-PLACE Value which was decided in 2007, so I
guess you can. . . Yes? any naysayers?
United States Bankruptcy Court,N.D. California.In re Casey & Barbara YOUNG,
Debtors.
No. 04-54764-ASW.
April 17, 2007.
*Background:* Debtors filed motion to modify their confirmed Chapter 13
plan.
*Holding:* The Bankruptcy Court, Arthur S.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Dear Group:
I have a client who owns a double wide mobile home (1,500 square feet) in a
mobile home park. They owe $160,000 on the home. Arguably the home's value
is approximately $60,000 due to age, wear and tear. I understand that the
mobile home can be treated like an automobile and crammed down to Fair
Market Value. This would reduce their payment to about 1/3 of what they pay
now. But I'm wondering how the 2005 Amendments and rules against cramming
down mortgages on principal place of residence interplay? Does anyone know
a Case or Code I can read?
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (323) 304-5496
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.
Dear Group:I have a client who owns a double wide mobile home (1,500 square feet) in a mobile home park. They owe $160,000 on the home. Arguably the home's value is approximately $60,000 due to age, wear and tear. I understand that the mobile home can be treated like an automobile and crammed down to Fair Market Value. This would reduce their payment to about 1/3 of what they pay now. But I'm wondering how the 2005 Amendments and rules against cramming down mortgages on principal place of residence interplay? Does anyone know a Case or Code I can read?
-- R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.OFF: (818) 734-7223CEL: (323) 304-5496NO 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.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.