109(e) Limits, Lam Motions, and the Smith Decision
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:08 pm
charset="windows-1251"
treat as unsecured.
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.
Donny Brand
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 12:06 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] 109(e) Limits, Lam Motions, and the Smith Decision
Right. My mistake.
I am still confused as to whether a wholly undersecured deed of trust is
considered secured debt, or unsecured debt, for purposes of 109(e) limits.
If it is considered a secured debt and then you sucesfully strip it in a
lam motion is it still considered secured for 109(e) purposes?
Brand & Spellman PC
3836 E. Anaheim St.
Long Beach, CA 90804
562-438-7500
888-99-BKRPT (888-992-5778)
www.brandspellman.com
This message originates from the law firm of Brand & Spellman PC and may
contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for
the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient and have
received this message in error, please notify us at
info@brandspellman.com and delete this email
from your system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other
use of this email or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.