Judge Zurzulo's (Z) position on the Ch 13 addendum may already be known to
some or all, but it was new to me so I will relate it here. I was in his
courtroom yesterday for the confirmation calendar. A creditor made an
objection to the Ch 13 addendum being part of the plan. Creditor was
represented by appearance counsel. Debtor's counsel (DC) had not filed a
response to the objection. Z asked DC if he wanted to time to file a
response to the objection and/or make argument. He declined and stated that
he would like to get confirmation with or without the addendum as part of
the plan. Z then stated he would rule on the objection as follows (as well
as I can remember it from my notes):
1. The mere fact that the addendum is part of a court form does not
make it conform with the code. The court must rule as to its
appropriateness on the merits.
2. The creditors brief seemed to be a canned objection addressing local
rules and court practices across the nation which are not at issue in the
case at hand.
3. The addendum requires the creditor to advise the debtor of any
additional fees and charges which accrue during the course of the case. The
creditor objects to the creation of these "duties" which are not required by
law.
4. Orders of the court which create duties are "fundamental to the
adjustment of the debtor creditor relationship in a Ch 13."
5. The duties created are probably in the contract already.
6. The duties in the addendum were created because of the widespread
practice of creditors adding fees during the pendency of the case and then
disclosing them after the discharge is entered and the case is closed. This
was often followed by foreclosure proceedings because debtor could not pay
the fees.
7. The duties seem essential to the fundamental fairness required by
the bankruptcy process.
8. They create no new claim. Even if they did, many obligations are
created in a ch 13.
I know some of our members were in the courtroom, so if anyone else was
there who remembers better or can clarify or correct, please do so.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green, Esq.
Fitzgerald & Green
Attorneys at Law
1010 E. Union Street
Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
Judge Zurzulo’s (Z) position on the Ch 13 addendum may
already be known to some or all, but it was new to me so I will relate it
here. I was in his courtroom yesterday for the confirmation
calendar. A creditor made an objection to the Ch 13 addendum being part
of the plan. Creditor was represented by appearance counsel. Debtor’s
counsel (DC) had not filed a response to the objection. Z asked DC if he
wanted to time to file a response to the objection and/or make argument.
He declined and stated that he would like to get confirmation with or without the
addendum as part of the plan. Z then stated he would rule on the
objection as follows (as well as I can remember it from my notes):
1.
The mere fact that the addendum is part of a court form
does not make it conform with the code. The court must rule as to its
appropriateness on the merits.
2.
The creditors brief seemed to be a canned objection
addressing local rules and court practices across the nation which are not at
issue in the case at hand.
3.
The addendum requires the creditor to advise the debtor
of any additional fees and charges which accrue during the course of the case. The
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
