Page 1 of 1

Zurzulo and the Ch 13 Addendum

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:42 pm
by Yahoo Bot

Erik:
Sorry, I left the important part out. Yes he overruled and approved the
plan with the addendum.
We should do a program on this issue. Ck with our CLE chair. :-)
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

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Zurzulo and the Ch 13 Addendum

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:34 pm
by Yahoo Bot

We have argued this issue in front of Judge Jury, Judge Mund and Judge
Thompson. Judge Jury ruled in our favor (she wrote the addendum). Judge
Thompson and Judge Mund have taken our briefs under submission and will
be giving us a written decision. Tom Ure had this issue before Judge
Ahart last week. Although, he did not file a response to the objection
from the mortgage creditor, Judge Ahart overruled the objection without
explanation. We will be arguing this issue before Judge Peter Carroll
this week and before Judge Kaufman next week. It has been before Judge
Ellen Carroll but not with our firm. I know she continued the matter for
further briefing but never heard whether she ruled in favor of the
addendum or not. We have prepared a lengthy brief on the subject.
Nancy Clark
Borowitz, Lozano & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If
you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver
this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message
and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately
if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages
of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this
message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be
understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury
Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly
indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication was
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose
of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter
addressed herein.
________________________________

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Zurzulo and the Ch 13 Addendum

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:36 am
by Yahoo Bot

One question comes to mind.
1) Did he overrule the objection?
If not what did he rule.
This is not the first time I have heard of debtor's counsel willing to
throw out the addendum when faced with an objection. We all need to
know that the Addendum protects your client. By agreeing to strike it
you are sacraficing your clients rights. If you don't know why the
addendum is important then call me to discuss it.
There is no way that we should be willing to strike the addendum simply
to get the case confirmed. I have briefed this issue and won on it. If
someone gets an objection to the addendum contact me for the brief.
This is not an insignificant issue.
M. Erik Clark
Borowitz, Lozano & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
www.blclaw.com
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Board Certified in Consumer Bankruptcy
American Board of Certification
________________________________

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Zurzulo and the Ch 13 Addendum

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:22 am
by Yahoo Bot

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.