Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Good job
Dennis McGoldrick
350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B
Torrance, CA 90503
On Jan 30, 2010, at 7:54 AM, R Grace Rodriguez wrote:
Danielson out in Riverside offered to let my clients keep the trailer if they increased their plan payment to the unsecured creditors by the same amount of the payment for the trailer. I thought that was a fair exchange. squeeze a little out of food and transport costs on J to make it work possibly.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:07 PM, shawnswhite wrote:
The luxory vehicle in question is a six year old trailer worth 10k, loan is 15k. The monthly payment is $188.00. We are planning on a cramdown.
Their plan payment of $1200 pays off their secured debt (mortgage arrearage) and approx .5% of their unsecured.
The trailer is really important to them as the debtors really enjoy camping and it will be their only recreation for the duration of the plan.
Because the payment to the unsecured creditors is so low the Trustee indicated that she would object to a plan that includes the debtors keeping the trailer because it is a "luxory item".
What is the current state of the law on this? Any advice is appreciated.
Shawn White
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (323) 304-5496
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
Good jobDennis McGoldrick350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207BTorrance, CA 90503On Jan 30, 2010, at 7:54 AM, R Grace Rodriguez <rgracelaw@gmail.com> wrote:

Danielson out in Riverside offered to let my clients keep the trailer if they increased their plan payment to the unsecured creditors by the same amount of the payment for the trailer. I thought that was a fair exchange. squeeze a little out of food and transport costs on J to make it work possibly.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:07 PM, shawnswhite <shawn@cabankrupt.com> wrote:

The luxory vehicle in question is a six year old trailer worth 10k, loan is 15k. The monthly payment is $188.00. We are planning on a cramdown.
Their plan payment of $1200 pays off their secured debt (mortgage arrearage) and approx .5% of their unsecured.
The trailer is really important to them as the debtors really enjoy camping and it will be their only recreation for the duration of the plan.
Because the payment to the unsecured creditors is so low the Trustee indicated that she would object to a plan that includes the debtors keeping the trailer because it is a "luxory item".
What is the current state of the law on this? Any advice is appreciated.
Shawn White
-- R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.OFF: (818) 734-7223CEL: (323) 304-5496NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Danielson out in Riverside offered to let my clients keep the trailer if
they increased their plan payment to the unsecured creditors by the same
amount of the payment for the trailer. I thought that was a fair exchange.
squeeze a little out of food and transport costs on J to make it work
possibly.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:07 PM, shawnswhite wrote:
>
>
> The luxory vehicle in question is a six year old trailer worth 10k, loan is
> 15k. The monthly payment is $188.00. We are planning on a cramdown.
>
> Their plan payment of $1200 pays off their secured debt (mortgage
> arrearage) and approx .5% of their unsecured.
>
> The trailer is really important to them as the debtors really enjoy camping
> and it will be their only recreation for the duration of the plan.
>
> Because the payment to the unsecured creditors is so low the Trustee
> indicated that she would object to a plan that includes the debtors keeping
> the trailer because it is a "luxory item".
>
> What is the current state of the law on this? Any advice is appreciated.
>
> Shawn White
>
>
>
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (323) 304-5496
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice
for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If
you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute,
store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete
this e-mail from your system.
Danielson out in Riverside offered to let my clients keep the trailer if they increased their plan payment to the unsecured creditors by the same amount of the payment for the trailer. I thought that was a fair exchange. ssibly.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:07 PM, shawnswhite <shawn@cabankrupt.com> wrote:
The luxory vehicle in question is a six year old trailer worth 10k, loan is 15k. The monthly payment is $188.00. We are planning on a cramdown.
Their plan payment of $1200 pays off their secured debt (mortgage arrearage) and approx .5% of their unsecured.
The trailer is really important to them as the debtors really enjoy camping and it will be their only recreation for the duration of the plan.
Because the payment to the unsecured creditors is so low the Trustee indicated that she would object to a plan that includes the debtors keeping the trailer because it is a "luxory item".
What is the current state of the law on this? Any advice is appreciated.
Shawn White
-- R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.OFF: (818) 734-7223CEL: (323) 304-5496NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

A tent cost $69 at big five.
Dennis McGoldrick
350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B
Torrance, CA 90503
On Jan 27, 2010, at 12:07 PM, "shawnswhite" wrote:
The luxory vehicle in question is a six year old trailer worth 10k, loan is 15k. The monthly payment is $188.00. We are planning on a cramdown.
Their plan payment of $1200 pays off their secured debt (mortgage arrearage) and approx .5% of their unsecured.
The trailer is really important to them as the debtors really enjoy camping and it will be their only recreation for the duration of the plan.
Because the payment to the unsecured creditors is so low the Trustee indicated that she would object to a plan that includes the debtors keeping the trailer because it is a "luxory item".
What is the current state of the law on this? Any advice is appreciated.
Shawn White
A tent cost $69 at big five.Dennis McGoldrick350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207BTorrance, CA 90503On Jan 27, 2010, at 12:07 PM, "shawnswhite" <shawn@cabankrupt.com> wrote:

The luxory vehicle in question is a six year old trailer worth 10k, loan is 15k. The monthly payment is $188.00. We are planning on a cramdown.
Their plan payment of $1200 pays off their secured debt (mortgage arrearage) and approx .5% of their unsecured.
The trailer is really important to them as the debtors really enjoy camping and it will be their only recreation for the duration of the plan.
Because the payment to the unsecured creditors is so low the Trustee indicated that she would object to a plan that includes the debtors keeping the trailer because it is a "luxory item".
What is the current state of the law on this? Any advice is appreciated.
Shawn White

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

The luxory vehicle in question is a six year old trailer worth 10k, loan is 15k. The monthly payment is $188.00. We are planning on a cramdown.
Their plan payment of $1200 pays off their secured debt (mortgage arrearage) and approx .5% of their unsecured.
The trailer is really important to them as the debtors really enjoy camping and it will be their only recreation for the duration of the plan.
Because the payment to the unsecured creditors is so low the Trustee indicated that she would object to a plan that includes the debtors keeping the trailer because it is a "luxory item".
What is the current state of the law on this? Any advice is appreciated.
Shawn White

The post was migrated from Yahoo.