Page 1 of 1

109(e) Limits, Lam Motions, and the Smith Decision

Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:08 pm
by Yahoo Bot

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.

109(e) Limits, Lam Motions, and the Smith Decision

Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:06 pm
by Yahoo Bot

charset="windows-1251"
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.

109(e) Limits, Lam Motions, and the Smith Decision

Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:58 am
by Yahoo Bot

charset="windows-1251"
Donny:
Partially undersecured deeds of trust cannot be stripped via Lam.
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 11:54 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] 109(e) Limits, Lam Motions, and the Smith Decision
Given the Smith decision, if a partially undersecured deed of trust is
successfully stripped in a Lam motion, is it still considered secured debt
for 109(e) limit purposes because it was scheduled as secured?
Donny Brand
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.
charset="windows-1251"
Message
Donny:

Partially undersecured
deeds of trust cannot be stripped via Lam.


David A.
Tilem
Certified Bankruptcy
Specialist*
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

109(e) Limits, Lam Motions, and the Smith Decision

Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:54 am
by Yahoo Bot

Given the Smith decision, if a partially undersecured deed of trust is
successfully stripped in a Lam motion, is it still considered secured debt
for 109(e) limit purposes because it was scheduled as secured?
Donny Brand
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.
Given the Smith decision, if a partially undersecured deed
of trust is successfully stripped in a Lam motion, is it still considered
secured debt for 109(e) limit purposes because it was scheduled as secured?

Donny Brand
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.