Excess mileage or damages on vehicle lease after discharge
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:04 pm
I've looked at this issue before over the years and seem to remember that
the damages would be discharged. Look at the annotations and citations for
Section 365 (g)(1): "rejection ... constitutes a breach of such contract or
lease ... immediately before the date of the filing of the petition" (btw,
under 365(d)(1), a lease agreement is deemed rejected if not assumed by the
Chapter 7 trustee within 60 days after the petition date).
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:54 PM, jonhayes6666 wrote:
>
>
> The claims under the lease are discharged. There is case law that says that
> (where I don't remember). Jim is right about post-petition-claims on other
> theories. "and out the door I went." George Thorogood
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, Jim Selth wrote:
> >
> > I've never had a leasing company do so, but I've warned my clients that
> if the vehicle is damaged post-petition (or perhaps an obscene amount of
> excess mileage), I think the lessor would have a viable claim for damages,
> if not under the lease agreement, then perhaps negligence, waste, or the
> classic law school tort of "trespass to chattel".
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > James R. Selth
> > Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
> > Weintraub & Selth, APC
> > 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1170
> > Los Angeles, California 90025
> > Telephone: (310) 207-1494
> > Facsimile: (310) 442-0660
> > E-Mail: jim@...
>
> >
> > *Certified by State Bar of California as Certified Legal Specialist in
> Bankruptcy Law
> >
> Of Mark J. Markus
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 2:57 PM
> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [cdcbaa] Excess mileage or damages on vehicle lease after
> discharge
> >
> >
> >
> > Has anyone seen or heard of a vehicle lease creditor come after the
> debtor for excess mileage or damage charges post discharge when the debtor
> turns in their vehicle at the end of the lease, where the lease was NOT
> assumed in a Chapter 7 case?
> >
> >
> > *************************
> > 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.
> > ___
> >
>
>
>
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
I've looked at this issue before over the yearsand seem to remember that the damages would be discharged. Look at the annotations and citationsfor Section 365 (g)(1): "rejection ... constitutes a breach of such contract or lease ... immediately before the date of the filing of the petition" (btw, under 365(d)(1), a lease agreement is deemed rejected if not assumed by the Chapter 7 trustee within 60 days after the petition date).
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:54 PM, jonhayes6666 <Jhayes@polarisnet.net> wrote:
The claims under the lease are discharged. There is case law that says that (where I don't remember). Jim is right about post-petition-claims on other theories. "and out the door I went." George Thorogood
--- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, Jim Selth <jim@...> wrote
The post was migrated from Yahoo.