drafting a ch 11 plan when challenging standing of
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:42 pm
You wouldn't put the (objected to) 1st DOT in its own class?
Also, how do you handle the second DOT? Assume the 2nd DOT would be
totally unsecured if the 1st DOT lender is ruled to have standing. On the
one hand, if the objection to the 1st DOT is successful, that presumably
puts the 2nd DOT into potentially having equity to go after. On the other
hand, if the 1st DOT objection is successful, there is still a cloud on the
title.
Very confusing.
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Dennis wrote:
> **
>
>
> Once you object, claim is not automatically allowed, so list as unsecured.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 5, 2012, at 6:44 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
>
>
>
> Working on drafting the ch 11 plan and disco statement in a case where I
> have filed an objection to the proof of claim of the mortgage company and
> filed an adversary proceeding against them for quiet title and declaratory
> relief.
> I'm not sure how to classify the mortgage lender in the plan in light of
> our challenge to their standing. Impaired secured claim? That risks an
> admission that they are creditors.
> Any suggestions? I'm coming up on a deadline to file the plan, so I can't
> wait for the adversary to run its course.
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> calibankrutpcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>
>
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
calibankrutpcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
You wouldn't put the (objected to) 1st DOT in its own class?Also, how do you handle the second DOT? Assume the 2nd DOT would be totally unsecured if the 1st DOT lender is ruled to have standing. On the one hand, if the objection to the 1st DOT is successful, that presumably puts the 2nd DOT into potentially having equity to go after. On the other hand, if the 1st DOT objection is successful, there is still a cloud on the title.
Very confusing.On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Dennis <easky1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Once you object, claim is not automatically allowed, so list as unsecured.Sent from my iPhoneOn Jan 5, 2012, at 6:44 PM, Kirk Brennan <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
Working on drafting the ch 11 plan and disco statement in a case where I
have filed an objection to the proof of claim of the mortgage company
and filed an adversary proceeding against them for quiet title and
declaratory relief.
I'm not sure how to classify the mortgage lender in the plan in light of
our challenge to their standing. Impaired secured claim? That risksan admission that they are creditors.Any suggestions? I'm coming up on a deadline to file the plan, so I can't wait for the adversary to run its course.-- Kirk Brennan, esq.California Law Office, P.C.
calibankrutpcysite.comCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
-- Kirk Brennan, esq.California Law Office, P.C.calibankrutpcysite.comCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.