Page 1 of 2

Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:25 pm
by Yahoo Bot

charset="windows-1251"
The IRS agrees. The reason the IRS agrees is because the substantive law is as stated below. The discharge changes the debt from recourse to nonrecourse. Consider the effect of that after an abandonment of real property subject to a pre-petition recourse trust deed and a foreclosure post-abandonment.
Elmer Dean Martin III
P. O. Box 4670
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
909 861 6700
elmer@bankruptcytax.net

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:26 pm
by Yahoo Bot

charset="windows-1251"
Generally agree with Kay's approach with one hyper technical clarification.
Discharge does not eliminate debt. It enjoins collection of debt as would a
statute of limitations. There are rare occasions and circumstances where a
discharged debt still has value. Example: Creditor has claim against
debtor. Debtor files C7 and gets creditor's claim discharged. In a strange
twist of fate, they get into a car accident - creditor is at fault and
debtor now has claim against creditor for negligence. Creditor may use
discharged debt as offset. Debt is NEVER eliminated. As further evidence,
see Sect. 524(a), (e), (f).
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.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:52 pm
by Yahoo Bot

021609
Re: Timin of Ch 7 vs 13 and lien stripping
To all:
Since the US Supreme Court has repeatedly said, starting in Dewsnup
v. Timm, and in several cases thereafter, that "liens ride through"
in chapter 7, my view is a Chapter 7 discharge eliminates the
debtor's "in personam" liability on a debt secured by a lien, but
does NOT elminate the debt, and does not eliminate the creditor's
right to seek to collect that debt by proceeding "in rem" against the
property the creditor has a lien on.
All the discharge does, for a secured debt, is eliminate the
creditor's right to sue the debtor (aka proceed in personam against
the debtor) to seek to collect the debt.
So the notion that the lien is gone because the debt is gone, while a
correct statement of CA law, is NOT applicable, because the debt is
NOT gone, all that is gone, due to the Ch 7 discharge, is the right
of the creditor to proceed to enforce the debt by "in personam"action
against the debtor.
And unless a Ch 11 or 13 plan provides a lien will be eliminated, the
result in Ch 11 or 13 is no different from the result in Ch 7.
KPMarch
The Bankruptcy Law Firm, PC
kmarch@BKYLAWFIRM.com
www.BKYLAWFIRM.com
phone: 310-559-9224
fax 310-559-9133
>
> An excellently presented chapter 7 then 13 is before Judge Tighe
and currently continued for her to discuss with the other Judges
about how to treat this situation. Shai Oved presented this case and
his plan language is very compelling.
>
> Jim King
>
>
>
Behalf Of stephen burton
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:41 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping
>
>
>
> Why not take the position the secondary lien rides through the
chapter 7 bankruptcy, albeit the monetary debt is discharged, but the
lien is not extinquished (despite the California State law to the
contrary), then file the chapter 13 case, lien strip using Lamm, and
use the chapter 13 plan to pay some fractional portion of the thus
stripped secondary lien in the chapter 13? You would not need any
other monetary obligations to pay, so no improper purpose arguments
if the only thing that remains you is the wholly unsecured secondary
lien?
>
>
>
> Also, how do we reconcile the notion that both debt and lien are
extinquished in the chapter 7 with the holding in Dewsnup. I always
thought Dewnsup is the reason we cannot lien strip in a chapter 7?
If the lien is extinquished in chapter 7 under California law then is
Dewsnup distinquishable?
>
>
>
> Steve Burton, Attorney at Law
>
> 15260 Ventura
>
> --- On Wed, 1/28/09, David A. Tilem wrote:
>
>
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien
stripping
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 9:38 AM
>
> Trying to summarize Lou's argument, not make one of my own.
See Lou's earlier posts on this subject.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of
Certification
>
> -----Original Message-----
com] On Behalf Of Dennis McGoldrick
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:34 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien
stripping
>
> David:
>
>
>
> Can you please post a cite to the applicable CA law and/or cases?
>
>
>
> thanks,
>
>
>
> dennis
> --- On Tue, 1/27/09, David A. Tilem
wrote:
>
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien
stripping
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 9:45 AM
>
> Just to put the finishing touch on it, the reason is because
the lien strip is actually a product of CA law, not bankruptcy law.
The lien must go (under CA law) if the underlying debt is
extinguished (due to a Bk discharge). One should be able to use CA
Courts to achieve this result.
>
>
>
> .
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping

Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:45 am
by Yahoo Bot

An excellently presented chapter 7 then 13 is before Judge Tighe and currently continued for her to discuss with the other Judges about how to treat this situation. Shai Oved presented this case and his plan language is very compelling.
Jim King

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping

Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:40 pm
by Yahoo Bot

Why not take the position the secondary lien rides through the chapter 7 bankruptcy, albeit the monetary debt isdischarged,but the lien is notle the chapter 13 case, lien strip using Lamm, and use the chapter 13 plan to pay some fractional portion of the thus stripped secondary lien in the chapter 13? You would not need any other monetary obligations to pay, so no improper purpose arguments if the onlything that remainsyou is the wholly unsecured secondary lien?
Also, how do we reconcile the notion that both debt and lien are extinquished in the chapter 7 with the holding in Dewsnup. I always thought Dewnsup is the reason we cannot lien strip in a chapter 7? If the lien is extinquished in chapter 7 under California law then is Dewsnup distinquishable?
Steve Burton, Attorney at Law
15260 Ventura

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:38 am
by Yahoo Bot

Trying to summarize Lou's argument, not make one of my own. See Lou's
earlier posts on this subject.
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.
Dennis McGoldrick
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:34 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping
David:
Can you please post a cite to the applicable CA law and/or cases?
thanks,
dennis

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:34 am
by Yahoo Bot

David:
Can you please post a cite to the applicable CA law and/or cases?
thanks,
dennis

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:45 am
by Yahoo Bot

charset="windows-1255"
Just to put the finishing touch on it, the reason is because the lien strip
is actually a product of CA law, not bankruptcy law. The lien must go
(under CA law) if the underlying debt is extinguished (due to a Bk
discharge). One should be able to use CA Courts to achieve this result.
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.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:28 pm
by Yahoo Bot

But has anyone tried this successfully yet?
Law Offices of Louis J. Esbin
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 9:52 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping
Correct!
>
> Lou:
>
> So if I understand your reasoning (per your last line below), the
Chapter 13
> purpose is completed when all plan payments are made. Whether or
not the
> debtor gets a Chapter 13 discharge is irrelevant. In other words,
you don't
> need a discharge to strip a lien - you only need to complete the
payments
> under a confirmed plan. Chapter 20 works even though there is no
Chapter 13
> discharge due to recent Chapter 7.
> 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.
> Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of Certification
>
>
>
Behalf Of
> Law Offices of Louis J. Esbin
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 11:25 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping
>
>
>
> David,
>
> I just posted to the List Serv Files under Newsletters, the January
> 2009 Newsletter that includes my article on Motions to Value and its
> effect on lien avoidance. That is the analysis for Chapter 13, upon
> which the following analysis follows:
>
> Once the trust purpose (the note) has been extinguished with a
> discharge, under California law the lien must be avoided; however, in
> a Chapter 7 the real property is property of the estate until the
> Trustee abandons, and after that the court really has no jurisdiction
> to effectuate the state law, because the Trustee has abandoned it back
> to the Debtor. One alternative is that in a subsequent Chapter 13
> (Chapter 20), the court will determine value such that the lien does
> not "ride through" for two reasons: first, the underlying trust
> purpose was discharged in the Chapter 7, and second, the lien is
> "wholly undersecured," and therefore, there is no equity against which
> the deed of trust can "ride through" against. Remember thought that
> there must be an effective reorganization for the Chapter 13 to be
> filed in good faith. Past due payments to the first, past due
> property taxes (remember, even though client may have paid the first
> half, the whole amount was due in December, and so, according to the
> Los Angeles County Assessor the second half is also due and includable
> as a claim in the Chapter 13 and payable over time), past due income
> taxes, nondischargeable debt determined during the course of the
> Chapter 7, and reaffirmed debt are all candidates for payments over
> time in a Chapter 13. And, so, the lien may be avoided once the
> purpose for the Chapter 13 has been fully consummated - the Chapter 13
> plan completed in payments.
>
> Lou Esbin
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com,
"David A.
> Tilem" wrote:
> >
> > Why does debtor need a discharge in the subsequent C13? The underlying
> > personal obligation on the debt was discharged in the prior C7. All
> that
> > remains is to strip the lien. Is the lien strip effective upon
> discharge or
> > upon completion of the plan?
> >
> > 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.
> > Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of Certification
> >
> >
> >
> [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com] On
> Behalf Of
> > Mark JM
> > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 9:51 AM
> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
> > Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yea, that's the issue.
> >
> [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com] On
> Behalf Of
> > Dennis McGoldrick
> > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 1:37 AM
> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
> > Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping
> >
> >
> > Isn't the real problem the fact the Lam strip isn't effective
until the
> > chapter 13 discharge is issued? And wouldn''t a discharge be
> precluded in
> > the w/in 4 years chapter 13?
> >
> > We' posed the question before, but unless a judge would issue a Lam
> order,
> > effectively immediately, due to the prior 7, there would never be a 13
> > dischage and the chapter 20 would therefore be ineffective.
> >
> > dennis
> >
> > --- On Thu, 1/22/09, Mark JM wrote:
> >
> > Subject: [cdcbaa] Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping
> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Thursday, January 22, 2009, 4:51 PM
> >
> > I keep getting the same fact scenarios over and over lately for
> people who
> > have real property with underwater Deeds of Trust that could be Lam
> Motioned
> > (lien stripped) in a Chapter 13, but that do not presently have income
> > sufficient to do a Chapter 13 plan (even after eliminating the
> junior lien
> > payments).
> >
> >
> >
> > Thus, facing pressure from creditors, they may need to do a Chapter
> 7 now,
> > and do loan modifications with their secured lenders.
> >
> >
> >
> > My question is this: Can they do a Chapter 7, get a discharge, then
> file a
> > Chapter 13 case before four years have passed, and do a lien strip
> in the
> > new Chapter 13 (would be a 100% repayment plan, because there
would most
> > likely not be any unsecureds). Theyre not seeking a discharge in
> the new
> > Chapter 13, only a lien strip and ability to pay something in the new
> > Chapter 13 (perhaps).
> >
> > I think Jeff Hagen was positing this scenario to Judge Mund who
gave an
> > initial negative response to that. Has anyone tried it? Any other
> ideas?
> >
> >
> > ************ ********* ****
> >
> > 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)
> >
> > Toll Free: 1-866-576-6275
> >
> > web: http://www.bklaw. com/
> >
> > This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
> means at
> > http://bklaw. com/bankruptcy- blog/2008/ 09/debt-relief- agencies-
> > definition/)
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________
> >
> > NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> office of
> > Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended
> for the
> > use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
> > disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this
message is
> > prohibited.
> >
> > IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by
> > the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
> > communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written 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 in this
communication.
> >
>
Yahoo! Groups Links

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:51 pm
by Yahoo Bot

Correct!
>
> Lou:
>
> So if I understand your reasoning (per your last line below), the
Chapter 13
> purpose is completed when all plan payments are made. Whether or
not the
> debtor gets a Chapter 13 discharge is irrelevant. In other words,
you don't
> need a discharge to strip a lien - you only need to complete the
payments
> under a confirmed plan. Chapter 20 works even though there is no
Chapter 13
> discharge due to recent Chapter 7.
> 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.
> Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of Certification
>
>
>
Behalf Of
> Law Offices of Louis J. Esbin
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 11:25 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping
>
>
>
> David,
>
> I just posted to the List Serv Files under Newsletters, the January
> 2009 Newsletter that includes my article on Motions to Value and its
> effect on lien avoidance. That is the analysis for Chapter 13, upon
> which the following analysis follows:
>
> Once the trust purpose (the note) has been extinguished with a
> discharge, under California law the lien must be avoided; however, in
> a Chapter 7 the real property is property of the estate until the
> Trustee abandons, and after that the court really has no jurisdiction
> to effectuate the state law, because the Trustee has abandoned it back
> to the Debtor. One alternative is that in a subsequent Chapter 13
> (Chapter 20), the court will determine value such that the lien does
> not "ride through" for two reasons: first, the underlying trust
> purpose was discharged in the Chapter 7, and second, the lien is
> "wholly undersecured," and therefore, there is no equity against which
> the deed of trust can "ride through" against. Remember thought that
> there must be an effective reorganization for the Chapter 13 to be
> filed in good faith. Past due payments to the first, past due
> property taxes (remember, even though client may have paid the first
> half, the whole amount was due in December, and so, according to the
> Los Angeles County Assessor the second half is also due and includable
> as a claim in the Chapter 13 and payable over time), past due income
> taxes, nondischargeable debt determined during the course of the
> Chapter 7, and reaffirmed debt are all candidates for payments over
> time in a Chapter 13. And, so, the lien may be avoided once the
> purpose for the Chapter 13 has been fully consummated - the Chapter 13
> plan completed in payments.
>
> Lou Esbin
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com,
"David A.
> Tilem" wrote:
> >
> > Why does debtor need a discharge in the subsequent C13? The underlying
> > personal obligation on the debt was discharged in the prior C7. All
> that
> > remains is to strip the lien. Is the lien strip effective upon
> discharge or
> > upon completion of the plan?
> >
> > 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.
> > Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of Certification
> >
> >
> >
> [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com] On
> Behalf Of
> > Mark JM
> > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 9:51 AM
> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
> > Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yea, that's the issue.
> >
> [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com] On
> Behalf Of
> > Dennis McGoldrick
> > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 1:37 AM
> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
> > Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping
> >
> >
> > Isn't the real problem the fact the Lam strip isn't effective
until the
> > chapter 13 discharge is issued? And wouldn''t a discharge be
> precluded in
> > the w/in 4 years chapter 13?
> >
> > We' posed the question before, but unless a judge would issue a Lam
> order,
> > effectively immediately, due to the prior 7, there would never be a 13
> > dischage and the chapter 20 would therefore be ineffective.
> >
> > dennis
> >
> > --- On Thu, 1/22/09, Mark JM wrote:
> >
> > Subject: [cdcbaa] Timing of Ch. 7 vs. 13 and lien stripping
> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Thursday, January 22, 2009, 4:51 PM
> >
> > I keep getting the same fact scenarios over and over lately for
> people who
> > have real property with underwater Deeds of Trust that could be Lam
> Motioned
> > (lien stripped) in a Chapter 13, but that do not presently have income
> > sufficient to do a Chapter 13 plan (even after eliminating the
> junior lien
> > payments).
> >
> >
> >
> > Thus, facing pressure from creditors, they may need to do a Chapter
> 7 now,
> > and do loan modifications with their secured lenders.
> >
> >
> >
> > My question is this: Can they do a Chapter 7, get a discharge, then
> file a
> > Chapter 13 case before four years have passed, and do a lien strip
> in the
> > new Chapter 13 (would be a 100% repayment plan, because there
would most
> > likely not be any unsecureds). Theyre not seeking a discharge in
> the new
> > Chapter 13, only a lien strip and ability to pay something in the new
> > Chapter 13 (perhaps).
> >
> > I think Jeff Hagen was positing this scenario to Judge Mund who
gave an
> > initial negative response to that. Has anyone tried it? Any other
> ideas?
> >
> >
> > ************ ********* ****
> >
> > 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)
> >
> > Toll Free: 1-866-576-6275
> >
> > web: http://www.bklaw. com/
> >
> > This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
> means at
> > http://bklaw. com/bankruptcy- blog/2008/ 09/debt-relief- agencies-
> > definition/)
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________
> >
> > NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> office of
> > Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended
> for the
> > use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
> > disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this
message is
> > prohibited.
> >
> > IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by
> > the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
> > communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written 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 in this
communication.
> >
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.