Page 1 of 1

I did not understand the MCLE on 6/19 re Lanning -

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:53 pm
by Yahoo Bot

Yes, thatinterpretation that appearsthe more workable of the two alternatives.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Blvd, Suite 203, Culver City, CA 90230-4647
Telephone: (310)391-2400 * (800)307-3328 * Fax: (310)391-2462
A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Personal Financial Law Center II - Costa Mesa, CA
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL OR BY TELEPHONE. THANK YOU.
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, June 21, 2010 9:45:46 AM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] I did not understand the MCLE on 6/19 re Lanning -
So, rather than line 59 being devoted solely to the unsecureds, the PDI (whether on line 59 or I & J) will be the Plan Payment x Commitment Period, and the unsecureds get whatever is left over after priority debt and secureds? This is the same approach as pre-BAPCPA, correct?
Holly Roark
CDCA
holly@roarklawoffic es.com
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:10 AM, P L wrote:
>Its very confusing, I"ve thought more about it since Saturday. Please note that I had not planned on presenting and was filling in at the last minutefor Jim King. Further, Ihad been under anethesia on Fridayfor a medical procedure and was not at 100%, so I apologize if I made thingsmore confusing.
>
>Hereis the analysis in a nut shell:
>
>The confirmation test performed (upon objection byCh13 T or unsecured creditor) under 1325(b)(1) is whether the proposed plan provides for debtor to makeACP of PDI to be applied to make payments to unsecured creditors.
>
>After Lanning, I believe that theonly logical interpretation of "to be applied" under 1325(b)(1) would be that the goal of the Means Test is to cause PDI to be"applied" through the traditional process of reducing Plan Base (ACP * PDI)by administrative, secured and priority creditors, to derivce the residual amount for [general] unsecured creditors.>
>An alternate interpretation would be that the PDI defined in Lanning is payable to to [general] unsecured creditors, given that the formula reduces gross income by administrative, secured and priority plan uses. This requies filing the champaign pyramid from the bottom up.
>
>While the later alternative interpretation would leave Kagenveama alive in certain situtaions, its use would more often be detrimental to debtors since the Form B22C Means Test does not provide for all plan uses, such as debtors counsel's attorneys fees. Therefore, I am advoctating use of the former interpretation.
>Peter M. Lively, JD/MBA
>Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
>11268 Washington Blvd, Suite 203, Culver City, CA 90230-4647
>Telephone: (310)391-2400 * (800)307-3328 * Fax: (310)391-2462
>A-Bankruptcy- Attorney. com
>Personal Financial Law Center II - Costa Mesa, CA
>
>
>THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL OR BY TELEPHONE. THANK YOU.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
>Sent: Sun, June 20, 2010 11:34:03 AM
>Subject: [cdcbaa] I did not understand the MCLE on 6/19 re Lanning -
>
>
>So is there a minimum that needs to be devoted to the unsecureds? Do we adjust line 59 based on I & J? Does the adjusted line 59 go to the unsecureds x 60? My head is spinning with this. Can someone please explain it in fifth grader terms? Thanks!
>
>--
>Holly Roark
>holly@roarklawoffic es.com
>
>www.roarklawoffices .com
>Central District of California
>Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>
>
Holly Roark
holly@roarklawoffic es.com
www.roarklawoffices .com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
Yes, that interpretation that appears the more workable of the two alternatives. Peter M. Lively, JD/MBALaw Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I11268 Washington Blvd, Suite 203, Culver City, CA 90230-4647Telephone: (310)391-2400 * (800)307-3328 * Fax: (310)391-2462 A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.comPersonal Financial Law Center II - Costa Mesa, CA
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL OR BY TELEPHONE. THANK YOU.
From: Holly Roark <hollyroark22@gmail.com>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Mon, June 21, 2010 9:45:46 AMSubject: Re: [cdcbaa] I did not understand the MCLE on 6/19 re Lanning -
So, rather than line 59 being devoted solely to the unsecureds, the PDI (whether on line 59 or I & J) will be the Plan Payment x Commitment Period, and the unsecureds get whatever is left over after priority debt and secureds? This is the same approach as pre-BAPCPA, correct?

Holly Roark
CDCA
holly@roarklawoffic es.com
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:10 AM, P L <
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I did not understand the MCLE on 6/19 re Lanning -

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:45 am
by Yahoo Bot

So, rather than line 59 being devoted solely to the unsecureds, the PDI
(whether on line 59 or I & J) will be the Plan Payment x Commitment Period,
and the unsecureds get whatever is left over after priority debt and
secureds? This is the same approach as pre-BAPCPA, correct?
Holly Roark
CDCA
holly@roarklawoffices.com
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:10 AM, P L wrote:
>
>
> Its very confusing, I"ve thought more about it since Saturday. Please
> note that I had not planned on presenting and was filling in at the last
> minute for Jim King. Further, I had been under anethesia on Friday for a
> medical procedure and was not at 100%, so I apologize if I made things more
> confusing.
>
> Here is the analysis in a nut shell:
>
> The confirmation test performed (upon objection by Ch13 T or unsecured
> creditor) under 1325(b)(1) is whether the proposed plan provides for debtor
> to make ACP of PDI *to be applied* to make payments to unsecured
> creditors.
>
> After Lanning, I believe that the only logical interpretation of "to be
> applied" under 1325(b)(1) would be that the goal of the Means Test is to
> cause PDI to be "applied" through the traditional process of reducing Plan
> Base (ACP * PDI) by administrative, secured and priority creditors, to
> derivce the residual amount for [general] unsecured creditors. This is the
> champagne pyramid top down approach.
>
> An alternate interpretation would be that the PDI defined in Lanning is
> payable to to [general] unsecured creditors, given that the formula reduces
> gross income by administrative, secured and priority plan uses. This
> requies filing the champaign pyramid from the bottom up.
>
> While the later alternative interpretation would leave Kagenveama alive in
> certain situtaions, its use would more often be detrimental to debtors since
> the Form B22C Means Test does not provide for all plan uses, such as debtors
> counsel's attorneys fees. Therefore, I am advoctating use of the former
> interpretation.
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD/MBA
> Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
> 11268 Washington Blvd, Suite 203, Culver City, CA 90230-4647
> Telephone: (310)391-2400 * (800)307-3328 * Fax: (310)391-2462
> A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
> Personal Financial Law Center II - Costa Mesa, CA
>
>
> THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO
> WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,
> CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER
> OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT
> RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE
> HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS
> COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS
> COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL OR BY
> TELEPHONE. THANK YOU.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Holly Roark
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Sun, June 20, 2010 11:34:03 AM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] I did not understand the MCLE on 6/19 re Lanning -
>
>
>
> So is there a minimum that needs to be devoted to the unsecureds? Do we
> adjust line 59 based on I & J? Does the adjusted line 59 go to the
> unsecureds x 60? My head is spinning with this. Can someone please explain
> it in fifth grader terms? Thanks!
>
> --
> Holly Roark
> holly@roarklawoffic es.com
>
> www.roarklawoffices .com
> Central District of California
> Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>
>
>
>
Holly Roark
holly@roarklawoffices.com
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
So, rather than line 59 being devoted solely to the unsecureds, the PDI (whether on line 59 or I & J) will be the Plan Payment x Commitment Period, and the unsecureds get whatever is left over after priority debt and secureds? This is the same approach as pre-BAPCPA, correct?
Holly Roark
CDCA
holly@roarklawoffices.com
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:10 AM, P L
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I did not understand the MCLE on 6/19 re Lanning -

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:10 am
by Yahoo Bot

Its very confusing, I"ve thought more about it since Saturday. Please note that I had not planned on presenting and was filling in at the last minutefor Jim King. Further, Ihad been under anethesia on Fridayfor a medical procedure and was not at 100%, so I apologize if I made thingsmore confusing.
Hereis the analysis in a nut shell:
The confirmation test performed (upon objection byCh13 T or unsecured creditor) under 1325(b)(1) is whether the proposed plan provides for debtor to makeACP of PDI to be applied to make payments to unsecured creditors.
After Lanning, I believe that theonly logical interpretation of "to be applied" under 1325(b)(1) would be that the goal of the Means Test is to cause PDI to be"applied" through the traditional process of reducing Plan Base (ACP * PDI)by administrative, secured and priority creditors, to derivce the residual amount for [general] unsecured creditors.
An alternate interpretation would be that the PDI defined in Lanning is payable to to [general] unsecured creditors, given that the formula reduces gross income by administrative, secured and priority plan uses. This requies filing the champaign pyramid from the bottom up.
While the later alternative interpretation would leave Kagenveama alive in certain situtaions, its use would more often be detrimental to debtors since the Form B22C Means Test does not provide for all plan uses, such as debtors counsel's attorneys fees. Therefore, I am advoctating use of the former interpretation.
Peter M. Lively, JD/MBA
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Blvd, Suite 203, Culver City, CA 90230-4647
Telephone: (310)391-2400 * (800)307-3328 * Fax: (310)391-2462
A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Personal Financial Law Center II - Costa Mesa, CA
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL OR BY TELEPHONE. THANK YOU.
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, June 20, 2010 11:34:03 AM
Subject: [cdcbaa] I did not understand the MCLE on 6/19 re Lanning -
So is there a minimum that needs to be devoted to the unsecureds? Do we adjust line 59 based on I & J? Does the adjusted line 59 go to the unsecureds x 60? My head is spinning with this. Can someone please explain it in fifth grader terms? Thanks!
Holly Roark
holly@roarklawoffic es.com
www.roarklawoffices .com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
Its very confusing, I"ve thought more about it since Saturday. Please note that I had not planned on presenting and was filling in at the last minute for Jim King. Further, I had been under anethesia on Friday for a medical procedure and was not at 100%, so I apologize if I made things more confusing.

Here is the analysis in a nut shell:

The confirmation test performed (upon objection by Ch13 T or unsecured creditor) under 1325(b)(1) is whether the proposed plan provides for debtor to make ACP of PDI to be applied to make payments to unsecured creditors.

After Lanning, I believe that the only logical interpretation of "to be applied" under 1325(b)(1) would be that the goal of the Means Test is to cause PDI to be "applied" through the traditional process of reducing Plan Base (ACP * PDI) by administrative, secured and priority creditors, to derivce the residual amount for [general] unsecured creditors. This is the champagne pyramid top down approach.

An alternate interpretation would be that the PDI defined in Lanning is payable to to [general] unsecured creditors, given that the formula reduces gross income by administrative, secured and priority plan uses. This requies filing the champaign pyramid from the bottom up.

While the later alternative interpretation would leave Kagenveama alive in certain situtaions, its use would more often be detrimental to debtors since the Form B22C Means Test does not provide for all plan uses, such as debtors counsel's attorneys fees. Therefore, I am advoctating use of the former interpretation.
Peter M. Lively, JD/MBALaw Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I11268 Washington Blvd, Suite 203, Culver City, CA 90230-4647Telephone: (310)391-2400 * (800)307-3328 * Fax: (310)391-2462 A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.comPersonal Financial Law Center II - Costa Mesa, CA
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL OR BY TELEPHONE. THANK YOU.
From: Holly Roark <hollyroark22@gmail.com>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Sun, June 20, 2010 11:34:03 AMSubject: [cdcbaa] I did not understand the MCLE on 6/19 re Lanning -
So is there a minimum that needs to be devoted to the unsecureds? Do we adjust line 59 based on I & J? Does the adjusted line 59 go to the unsecureds x 60? My head is spinning with this. Can someone please explain it in fifth grader terms? Thanks!-- Holly Roark
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I did not understand the MCLE on 6/19 re Lanning -

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:34 am
by Yahoo Bot

So is there a minimum that needs to be devoted to the unsecureds? Do we
adjust line 59 based on I & J? Does the adjusted line 59 go to the
unsecureds x 60? My head is spinning with this. Can someone please explain
it in fifth grader terms? Thanks!
Holly Roark
holly@roarklawoffices.com
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
So is there a minimum that needs to be devoted to the unsecureds? Do we adjust line 59 based on I & J? Does the adjusted line 59 go to the unsecureds x 60? My head is spinning with this. Can someone please explain it in fifth grader terms? Thanks!
-- Holly Roarkholly@roarklawoffices.comwww.roarklawoffices.comCentral District of CaliforniaConsumer Bankruptcy Attorney

The post was migrated from Yahoo.