Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Read the judge in re kimmel
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:15 PM, "Mark J. Markus" wrote:
> Thanks. I think the issue is whether it is in fact community property, or joint tenancy.
>
> And I'm just concerned about the Judge's reaction when he sees the name of a non-debtor as the judgment debtor on the lien to be removed.
>
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>
> On 11/19/2011 12:05 PM, Dennis McGoldrick wrote:
>>
>> Since all of the community property came into the first estate, I would reopen 1st case and move to remove all lines.
>>
>> If judgment entered against 2nd debtor after 1st debtor's case closed, reopen 2nd case an remove the subsequent lien.
>>
>> removeal of liiens is just a math problem, and since they both used the 703's, should not be an issue.
>>
>> d
>>
>>
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 1:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] tricky 522f question
>>
>>
>> They each listed a fee simple interest as joint tenants.
>>
>> W filed on the date H received his discharge, so H's case was still open.
>>
>> *************************
>> Mark J. Markus
>> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
>> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
>> ________________________________________________
>> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
>> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>>
>> On 11/18/2011 1:10 PM, pat@fitzgreenlaw.com wrote:
>>>
>>> When W filed, was H's case still open? Did each list a 1/2 interest in the the property on their respective petitions?
>>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>>> Sender: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:45:43 -0800
>>> To:
>>> ReplyTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>> Subject: [cdcbaa] tricky 522f question
>>>
>>>
>>> Have a sticky one for anyone who can help.
>>>
>>> H & W own real property as Joint Tenants. Each has several judgments against them that are liens against the property.
>>>
>>> H filed a Chapter 7 case in 2010 (without doing a 522f motion) and W filed a separate Ch. 7 case in 2011 (without doing a 522f motion).
>>>
>>> Each took a homestead exemption using CCP 703.140(b)(1) in their respective cases. I've now been hired to reopen their cases and avoid the liens.
>>>
>>> There's no issue as to the numerical avoidability, as there is no equity at all above the liens. The question involves whether all the liens impair an exemption of the respective debtors.
>>>
>>> More specifically, if I avoid the liens whose judgments are against only the husband in the husbands case, can I avoid the other liens that are from judgments against the wife in her separate case? The reason for this dilemma is that CCP 703.140(a)(2) seems to state that unless both spouses waive in writing the right to claim exemptions OTHER than under subsection (b) (which I assume means the 704 series), then they CANNOT use the 703 series. I've never been completely clear on what this means. Does that mean in the absence of the waiver, the other spouse CAN use the 704 series, or can't use any exemption?
>>>
>>> So my questions for the group are: Can the husband avoid ALL the judicial liens against the property, whether the underlying judgment is against him or his wife, in his bankruptcy case as having impaired the exemption to which he was entitled? Or can the wife separately avoid the liens whose judgments were in her name despite the lack of the waiver? etc....
>>>
>>> My head hurts
>>>
>>> *************************
>>> Mark J. Markus
>>> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>>> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>>> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>>> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
>>> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
>>> ________________________________________________
>>> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
>>> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Read the judge in re kimmelSent from my iPhoneOn Nov 19, 2011, at 12:15 PM, "Mark J. Markus" <bklawr@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thanks. I think the issue is whether
it is in fact community property, or joint tenancy.

And I'm just concerned about the Judge's reaction when he sees the
name of a non-debtor as the judgment debtor on the lien to be
removed.



*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what
this means at

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

As mentioned before, each case listed the same thing: "Fee simple"
for the entire amount of the value of the property, with the
designation "J" for joint in the debtor's interest portion. Both
took $22,075 exemption under 703.140(b)(1)
The lien in question pre-dates both cases.
If I'm understanding this, it sounds like what I need to do here is
take the position it is community property,and seek to avoid in the
husband's case, because that's the only way to get this lien
removed. Wife was not entitled to the exemption in her bankruptcy
case (I think). The creditor isn't going to object (it's AMEX), but
I'm concerned about the Judge raising an issue.
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
means at

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I read Summers and it has the sentence "This case requires us to determine whether the requirements of California's transmutation statute, Cal. Fam.Code 852(a), must be met when realty is transferred from a third party to spouses as joint tenants."
I remember that Tenancy By the Entireties (TBE) came along after about 2000 and has been catching on slowly since then. It may make a difference:
(1) if the property was acquired from 3rd party by JT.
(2) couple did a transmutation into JT
(3) couple acquired by TBE or
(4) couple did a transmutation into TBE.
(3) and (4) might seem to be more indicative of an intent to keep as Community Property.
A lot of people call a TBE a JT and it might make a difference.
Just an observation, and probably a non-dispositive one at that..
www.patentax.com
>
> Thanks. So if joint tenants, then lien against wife's interest in property cannot be avoided in husbands bk, right?
>
> Sent from my iPhone 4s
>
> On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:58 PM, "t_mannis" wrote:
>
> > Hanf. vs. Summers (In re Summers) 332 F.3d 1240 (9th Circuit 2003)
> >
> > While Family Code Section 2581 talks about the presumption of community property, it talks about for the purposes of dissolution or legal separation. In re Summers said that in the bankruptcy context, it is the deed that is determinative - if language in the deed says joint tenancy, asset is not community property.
> >
> > Todd Mannis, Esq.
> >
> > --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, "Mark J. Markus" wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks. I think the issue is whether it is in fact community
> >> property, or joint tenancy.
> >>
> >> And I'm just concerned about the Judge's reaction when he sees the
> >> name of a non-debtor as the judgment debtor on the lien to be removed.
> >>
> >> *************************
> >> Mark J. Markus
> >> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> >> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> >> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> >> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> >> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> >> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
> >> means at
> >> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
> >> ________________________________________________
> >> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> >> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
> >> intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
> >> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
> >> the contents of this message is prohibited.
> >> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> >> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
> >> in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
> >> written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
> >> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
> >> promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
> >> transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
> >>
> >> On 11/19/2011 12:05 PM, Dennis McGoldrick wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Since all of the community property came into the first estate, I
> >>> would reopen 1st case and move to remove all lines.
> >>> If judgment entered against 2nd debtor after 1st debtor's case
> >>> closed, reopen 2nd case an remove the subsequent lien.
> >>> removeal of liiens is just a math problem, and since they both
> >>> used the 703's, should not be an issue.
> >>> d
> >>>
> >>> *From:* Mark J. Markus
> >>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> >>> *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2011 1:15 PM
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] tricky 522f question
> >>>
> >>> They each listed a fee simple interest as joint tenants.
> >>>
> >>> W filed on the date H received his discharge, so H's case was
> >>> still open.
> >>>
> >>> *************************
> >>> Mark J. Markus
> >>> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> >>> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> >>> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> >>> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> >>> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> >>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
> >>> means at
> >>> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
> >>> ________________________________________________
> >>> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> >>> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information
> >>> is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
> >>> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
> >>> the contents of this message is prohibited.
> >>> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> >>> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
> >>> contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not
> >>> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
> >>> purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code
> >>> or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
> >>> transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
> >>>
> >>> On 11/18/2011 1:10 PM, pat@
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> When W filed, was H's case still open? Did each list a 1/2
> >>>> interest in the the property on their respective petitions?
> >>>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> >>>>
> >>>> *Sender: *cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> >>>> *Date: *Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:45:43 -0800
> >>>> *To: *
> >>>> *ReplyTo: *cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> >>>> *Subject: *[cdcbaa] tricky 522f question
> >>>>
> >>>> Have a sticky one for anyone who can help.
> >>>>
> >>>> H & W own real property as Joint Tenants. Each has several
> >>>> judgments against them that are liens against the property.
> >>>>
> >>>> H filed a Chapter 7 case in 2010 (without doing a 522f motion)
> >>>> and W filed a separate Ch. 7 case in 2011 (without doing a 522f
> >>>> motion).
> >>>>
> >>>> Each took a homestead exemption using CCP 703.140(b)(1) in their
> >>>> respective cases. I've now been hired to reopen their cases and
> >>>> avoid the liens.
> >>>>
> >>>> There's no issue as to the numerical avoidability, as there is no
> >>>> equity at all above the liens. The question involves whether all
> >>>> the liens impair an exemption of the respective debtors.
> >>>>
> >>>> More specifically, if I avoid the liens whose judgments are
> >>>> against only the husband in the husbands case, can I avoid the
> >>>> other liens that are from judgments against the wife in her
> >>>> separate case? The reason for this dilemma is that CCP
> >>>> 703.140(a)(2) seems to state that unless both spouses waive in
> >>>> writing the right to claim exemptions OTHER than under subsection
> >>>> (b) (which I assume means the 704 series), then they CANNOT use
> >>>> the 703 series. I've never been completely clear on what this
> >>>> means. Does that mean in the absence of the waiver, the other
> >>>> spouse CAN use the 704 series, or can't use any exemption?
> >>>>
> >>>> So my questions for the group are: Can the husband avoid ALL the
> >>>> judicial liens against the property, whether the underlying
> >>>> judgment is against him or his wife, in _his_ bankruptcy case as
> >>>> having impaired the exemption to which he was entitled? Or can
> >>>> the wife separately avoid the liens whose judgments were in her
> >>>> name despite the lack of the waiver? etc....
> >>>>
> >>>> My head hurts
> >>>>
> >>>> *************************
> >>>> Mark J. Markus
> >>>> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> >>>> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> >>>> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> >>>> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> >>>> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> >>>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what
> >>>> this means at
> >>>> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
> >>>> ________________________________________________
> >>>> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> >>>> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information
> >>>> is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
> >>>> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
> >>>> the contents of this message is prohibited.
> >>>> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> >>>> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
> >>>> contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not
> >>>> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
> >>>> purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code
> >>>> or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
> >>>> transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Thanks. So if joint tenants, then lien against wife's interest in property cannot be avoided in husbands bk, right?
Sent from my iPhone 4s
On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:58 PM, "t_mannis" wrote:
> Hanf. vs. Summers (In re Summers) 332 F.3d 1240 (9th Circuit 2003)
>
> While Family Code Section 2581 talks about the presumption of community property, it talks about for the purposes of dissolution or legal separation. In re Summers said that in the bankruptcy context, it is the deed that is determinative - if language in the deed says joint tenancy, asset is not community property.
>
> Todd Mannis, Esq.
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, "Mark J. Markus" wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. I think the issue is whether it is in fact community
>> property, or joint tenancy.
>>
>> And I'm just concerned about the Judge's reaction when he sees the
>> name of a non-debtor as the judgment debtor on the lien to be removed.
>>
>> *************************
>> Mark J. Markus
>> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
>> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
>> means at
>> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
>> ________________________________________________
>> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
>> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
>> intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
>> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
>> the contents of this message is prohibited.
>> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
>> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
>> in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
>> written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
>> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
>> promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
>> transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>>
>> On 11/19/2011 12:05 PM, Dennis McGoldrick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Since all of the community property came into the first estate, I
>>> would reopen 1st case and move to remove all lines.
>>> If judgment entered against 2nd debtor after 1st debtor's case
>>> closed, reopen 2nd case an remove the subsequent lien.
>>> removeal of liiens is just a math problem, and since they both
>>> used the 703's, should not be an issue.
>>> d
>>>
>>> *From:* Mark J. Markus
>>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>> *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2011 1:15 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] tricky 522f question
>>>
>>> They each listed a fee simple interest as joint tenants.
>>>
>>> W filed on the date H received his discharge, so H's case was
>>> still open.
>>>
>>> *************************
>>> Mark J. Markus
>>> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>>> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>>> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>>> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
>>> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
>>> means at
>>> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
>>> ________________________________________________
>>> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
>>> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information
>>> is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
>>> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
>>> the contents of this message is prohibited.
>>> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
>>> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
>>> contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not
>>> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
>>> purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code
>>> or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
>>> transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>>>
>>> On 11/18/2011 1:10 PM, pat@...
>>> wrote:
>>>> When W filed, was H's case still open? Did each list a 1/2
>>>> interest in the the property on their respective petitions?
>>>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>>>>
>>>> *Sender: *cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>>> *Date: *Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:45:43 -0800
>>>> *To: *
>>>> *ReplyTo: *cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>>> *Subject: *[cdcbaa] tricky 522f question
>>>>
>>>> Have a sticky one for anyone who can help.
>>>>
>>>> H & W own real property as Joint Tenants. Each has several
>>>> judgments against them that are liens against the property.
>>>>
>>>> H filed a Chapter 7 case in 2010 (without doing a 522f motion)
>>>> and W filed a separate Ch. 7 case in 2011 (without doing a 522f
>>>> motion).
>>>>
>>>> Each took a homestead exemption using CCP 703.140(b)(1) in their
>>>> respective cases. I've now been hired to reopen their cases and
>>>> avoid the liens.
>>>>
>>>> There's no issue as to the numerical avoidability, as there is no
>>>> equity at all above the liens. The question involves whether all
>>>> the liens impair an exemption of the respective debtors.
>>>>
>>>> More specifically, if I avoid the liens whose judgments are
>>>> against only the husband in the husbands case, can I avoid the
>>>> other liens that are from judgments against the wife in her
>>>> separate case? The reason for this dilemma is that CCP
>>>> 703.140(a)(2) seems to state that unless both spouses waive in
>>>> writing the right to claim exemptions OTHER than under subsection
>>>> (b) (which I assume means the 704 series), then they CANNOT use
>>>> the 703 series. I've never been completely clear on what this
>>>> means. Does that mean in the absence of the waiver, the other
>>>> spouse CAN use the 704 series, or can't use any exemption?
>>>>
>>>> So my questions for the group are: Can the husband avoid ALL the
>>>> judicial liens against the property, whether the underlying
>>>> judgment is against him or his wife, in _his_ bankruptcy case as
>>>> having impaired the exemption to which he was entitled? Or can
>>>> the wife separately avoid the liens whose judgments were in her
>>>> name despite the lack of the waiver? etc....
>>>>
>>>> My head hurts
>>>>
>>>> *************************
>>>> Mark J. Markus
>>>> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>>>> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>>>> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>>>> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
>>>> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>>>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what
>>>> this means at
>>>> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
>>>> ________________________________________________
>>>> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
>>>> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information
>>>> is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
>>>> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
>>>> the contents of this message is prohibited.
>>>> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
>>>> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
>>>> contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not
>>>> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
>>>> purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code
>>>> or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
>>>> transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Hanf. vs. Summers (In re Summers) 332 F.3d 1240 (9th Circuit 2003)
While Family Code Section 2581 talks about the presumption of community property, it talks about for the purposes of dissolution or legal separation. In re Summers said that in the bankruptcy context, it is the deed that is determinative - if language in the deed says joint tenancy, asset is not community property.
Todd Mannis, Esq.
>
> Thanks. I think the issue is whether it is in fact community
> property, or joint tenancy.
>
> And I'm just concerned about the Judge's reaction when he sees the
> name of a non-debtor as the judgment debtor on the lien to be removed.
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
> means at
> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
> intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
> the contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
> in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
> written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
> promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
> transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>
> On 11/19/2011 12:05 PM, Dennis McGoldrick wrote:
> >
> >
> > Since all of the community property came into the first estate, I
> > would reopen 1st case and move to remove all lines.
> > If judgment entered against 2nd debtor after 1st debtor's case
> > closed, reopen 2nd case an remove the subsequent lien.
> > removeal of liiens is just a math problem, and since they both
> > used the 703's, should not be an issue.
> > d
> >
> > *From:* Mark J. Markus
> > *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> > *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2011 1:15 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] tricky 522f question
> >
> > They each listed a fee simple interest as joint tenants.
> >
> > W filed on the date H received his discharge, so H's case was
> > still open.
> >
> > *************************
> > Mark J. Markus
> > Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> > 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> > Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> > (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> > web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> > This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
> > means at
> > http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
> > ________________________________________________
> > NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> > office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information
> > is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
> > addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
> > the contents of this message is prohibited.
> > IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> > imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
> > contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not
> > intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
> > purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code
> > or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
> > transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
> >
> > On 11/18/2011 1:10 PM, pat@...
> > wrote:
> >> When W filed, was H's case still open? Did each list a 1/2
> >> interest in the the property on their respective petitions?
> >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> >>
> >> *Sender: *cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> >> *Date: *Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:45:43 -0800
> >> *To: *
> >> *ReplyTo: *cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> >> *Subject: *[cdcbaa] tricky 522f question
> >>
> >> Have a sticky one for anyone who can help.
> >>
> >> H & W own real property as Joint Tenants. Each has several
> >> judgments against them that are liens against the property.
> >>
> >> H filed a Chapter 7 case in 2010 (without doing a 522f motion)
> >> and W filed a separate Ch. 7 case in 2011 (without doing a 522f
> >> motion).
> >>
> >> Each took a homestead exemption using CCP 703.140(b)(1) in their
> >> respective cases. I've now been hired to reopen their cases and
> >> avoid the liens.
> >>
> >> There's no issue as to the numerical avoidability, as there is no
> >> equity at all above the liens. The question involves whether all
> >> the liens impair an exemption of the respective debtors.
> >>
> >> More specifically, if I avoid the liens whose judgments are
> >> against only the husband in the husbands case, can I avoid the
> >> other liens that are from judgments against the wife in her
> >> separate case? The reason for this dilemma is that CCP
> >> 703.140(a)(2) seems to state that unless both spouses waive in
> >> writing the right to claim exemptions OTHER than under subsection
> >> (b) (which I assume means the 704 series), then they CANNOT use
> >> the 703 series. I've never been completely clear on what this
> >> means. Does that mean in the absence of the waiver, the other
> >> spouse CAN use the 704 series, or can't use any exemption?
> >>
> >> So my questions for the group are: Can the husband avoid ALL the
> >> judicial liens against the property, whether the underlying
> >> judgment is against him or his wife, in _his_ bankruptcy case as
> >> having impaired the exemption to which he was entitled? Or can
> >> the wife separately avoid the liens whose judgments were in her
> >> name despite the lack of the waiver? etc....
> >>
> >> My head hurts
> >>
> >> *************************
> >> Mark J. Markus
> >> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> >> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> >> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> >> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> >> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> >> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what
> >> this means at
> >> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
> >> ________________________________________________
> >> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> >> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information
> >> is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
> >> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
> >> the contents of this message is prohibited.
> >> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> >> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
> >> contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not
> >> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
> >> purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code
> >> or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
> >> transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Thanks. I think the issue is whether it is in fact community
property, or joint tenancy.
And I'm just concerned about the Judge's reaction when he sees the
name of a non-debtor as the judgment debtor on the lien to be removed.
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
means at

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Since all of the community property came into the first estate, I would reopen 1st case and move to remove all lines.
If judgment entered against 2nd debtor after 1st debtor's case closed, reopen 2nd case an remove the subsequent lien.
removeal of liiens is just a math problem, and since they both used the 703's, should not be an issue.
d
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] tricky 522f question
They each listed a fee simple interest as joint tenants.
W filed on the date H received his discharge, so H's case was still open.
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

They each listed a fee simple interest as joint tenants.
W filed on the date H received his discharge, so H's case was still
open.
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
means at

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Have a sticky one for anyone who can help.
H & W own real property as Joint Tenants. Each has several
judgments against them that are liens against the property.
H filed a Chapter 7 case in 2010 (without doing a 522f motion) and W
filed a separate Ch. 7 case in 2011 (without doing a 522f motion).
Each took a homestead exemption using CCP 703.140(b)(1) in their
respective cases. I've now been hired to reopen their cases and
avoid the liens.
There's no issue as to the numerical avoidability, as there is no
equity at all above the liens. The question involves whether all
the liens impair an exemption of the respective debtors.
More specifically, if I avoid the liens whose judgments are against
only the husband in the husbands case, can I avoid the other liens
that are from judgments against the wife in her separate case? The
reason for this dilemma is that CCP 703.140(a)(2) seems to state
that unless both spouses waive in writing the right to claim
exemptions OTHER than under subsection (b) (which I assume means the
704 series), then they CANNOT use the 703 series. I've never been
completely clear on what this means. Does that mean in the absence
of the waiver, the other spouse CAN use the 704 series, or can't use
any exemption?
So my questions for the group are: Can the husband avoid ALL the
judicial liens against the property, whether the underlying judgment
is against him or his wife, in _his_ bankruptcy case as having
impaired the exemption to which he was entitled? Or can the wife
separately avoid the liens whose judgments were in her name despite
the lack of the waiver? etc....
My head hurts
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
means at

The post was migrated from Yahoo.