Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Yes, it is.
***************************************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173
(818)509-1460 (fax)
e-mail: bklawr@bklaw.com
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Is this the case where the debtor was trying to keep the luxury secured items (boat and RV, etc.)?

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset-ascii;
formatowed;
delsps
That's my case. The oust has filed a motion for reconsideration to be
heard in February
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 19, 2008, at 4:18 PM, "Hale Andrew Antico"
wrote:
> This time I'll just copy/paste rather than paraphrase -
>
> 2) REAFFIRMATION OF EXPENSIVE LOANS SECURED BY LUXURY ITEMS WAS NOT
> ABUSIVE
>
> The "totality of the circumstances" test for determining abuse under
> Section 707(b)(3) must produce a result that is consistent with
> Section 707(b)(2)'s Means Test, according to Judge Ernest M. Robles.
> Ruling in In re Jensen, No. 2:08-bk-15225 ER (Bankr. C.D. Cal.
> 11/17/08), Judge Robles found that a debtor's decision to reaffirm a
> high amount of secured debt could not in and of itself be the basis
> for a finding of abuse.
>
> Hale
>
That's my case. The oust has filed a motion for reconsideration to be heard in February Sent from my iPhoneOn Dec 19, 2008, at 4:18 PM, "Hale Andrew Antico" <bk.lawyer@gmail.com> wrote:
This time I'll just copy/paste rather than
paraphrase -
2) REAFFIRMATION OF
EXPENSIVE LOANS SECURED BY LUXURY ITEMS WAS NOT ABUSIVE
The
"totality of the circumstances" test for determining abuse under Section
707(b)(3) must produce a result that is consistent with Section 707(b)(2)'s
Means Test, according to Judge Ernest M. Robles. Ruling in In re
Jensen, No. 2:08-bk-15225 ER (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 11/17/08), Judge Robles
found that a debtor's decision to reaffirm a high amount of secured debt could
not in and of itself be the basis for a finding of
abuse.
Hale

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

This time I'll just copy/paste rather than paraphrase -
2) REAFFIRMATION OF EXPENSIVE LOANS SECURED BY LUXURY ITEMS WAS NOT ABUSIVE
The "totality of the circumstances" test for determining abuse under Section
707(b)(3) must produce a result that is consistent with Section 707(b)(2)'s
Means Test, according to Judge Ernest M. Robles. Ruling in In re Jensen, No.
2:08-bk-15225 ER (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 11/17/08), Judge Robles found that a
debtor's decision to reaffirm a high amount of secured debt could not in and
of itself be the basis for a finding of abuse.
Hale
This time I'll just copy/paste rather than
paraphrase -
2) REAFFIRMATION OF
EXPENSIVE LOANS SECURED BY LUXURY ITEMS WAS NOT ABUSIVE
The
"totality of the circumstances" test for determining abuse under Section 707(b)(3) must produce a result that is consistent with Section 707(b)(2)'s
Means Test, according to Judge Ernest M. Robles. Ruling in In re
Jensen, No. 2:08-bk-15225 ER (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 11/17/08), Judge Robles
found that a debtor's decision to reaffirm a high amount of secured debt could
not in and of itself be the basis for a finding of
abuse.
Hale

The post was migrated from Yahoo.