.jpg)
Avoiding lien under 522f where property acquired afte=
As much as I might wish for a different conclusion, my thought is that theproperty was acquired knowing that the lien would attach. Wouldn't this
antedate any subsequent claim for exemption? Or, should it matter, since we
choose homestead exemptions all the time in our cases and avoid judicial liens
that attached prior to the filing. I guess what I'm thinking is that it seems
that the courts are making a policy statement when the incohate lien predates
the acquisition of the property, because, otherwise, it really should not make a
difference as to the mechanism for avoidance
Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 640
Woodland Hills, California 91364-2226
Telephone: (818) 226-1205
Facsimile : (818) 226-1213
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND
CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY
BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN
AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY
NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW,DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY.
THANK YOU.
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, November 30, 2011 9:08:05 AM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Avoiding lien under 522f where property acquired after
lien: Farrey v. Sanderfoot
You misread the facts Jim. The lien was recorded. Then debtor purchased
the real estate. Then debtor filed Chapter 7. Each one several years
apart.
*************************
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 penaltiesunder the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in
this communication.
On 11/30/2011 7:28 AM, James T. King wrote:
How is the creditor going to collect on a discharged debt? Howcan a lien on a discharged debt affix to after acquired property
without violating the discharge provisions of the Discharge order
>Fresh Start come to mind?
>
>From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On >Behalf Of Mark J. Markus
>Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:09 PM
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [cdcbaa] Avoiding lien under 522f where property>acquired after lien: Farrey v. Sanderfoot
>
>
>Judgment Debtor acquires real estate several years after the
>judgment is recorded. Debtor files a Chapter 7 case and
>wished to avoid the lien under 522(f) and the mathematical
>test would allow it.
>
>In re Pederson, 230 BR 158 (9th Cir BAP 1999). following>Farrey vs. Sanderfoot , 500 U.S. 291 (1991), held that the
>lien "fixes" to the debtor's interest in the property
>simultaneously with the purchase of the property and therefore
>debtor did not own the property BEFORE the lien affixed and,
>therefore, it cannot be avoided.
>
>There is a New Mexico case (In re Pacheco, 342 BR 352 (Bankr.
>N.M. 2006)) which holds the opposite, distinguishing both
>Farrey and Pederson, and following the recommendation set
>forth in Colliers that the temporal fixing of the lien is
>irrelevant and the lien should be avoidable (assuming the
>mathematics otherwise allow it).
>
>Has anyone had any success avoiding a lien under these facts
>in our district?
>
>
>Thanks all...
>
>
>*************************
>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.