Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Nothing more than thepro-ratashare of Class 5.
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center* Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 6:20:34 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] chapter 20 questioons- Winitsky case?
Did they have to pay anything to the creditor to get the stipulation?
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:18 PM, P L wrote:
>I have oneclient who achieved thisby stipulation in aVZ case.
>
>Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>The Personal Financial Law Center* Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 5:51:22 PM
>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] chapter 20 questioons- Winitsky case?
>
>
>Which Judge decided this case? Do you have a citation?
>
>
>On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:18 PM, miyun lim wrote:
>
>
>>Listmates,
>>
>>In light of the memorandum decisions on Winitzky case, does anyone have a>>success in LA division in a similar lien-stripping case in ch13 soon after ch7?
>>It appears that, in Winitsky case, the debtor wanted to the lien-stripping
>>effective immediately on ch13 plan confirmation. If the motion is asking for the
>>lien-stripping to be effective upon completion of the plan, ie after 60 months,
>>will this be deviating from the Winitsky case?...any opinions on these?
>>
>>Teri Lim, Esq.
>>Law Offices of Miyun Teri Lim
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>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 intendedrecipient, 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.
Nothing more than the pro-rata share of Class 5.
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
From: Kirk Brennan <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Mon, April 11, 2011 6:20:34 PMSubject: Re: [cdcbaa] chapter 20 questioons- Winitsky case?
Did they have to pay anything to the creditor to get the stipulation?
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:18 PM, P L <
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Did they have to pay anything to the creditor to get the stipulation?
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:18 PM, P L wrote:
>
>
> I have one client who achieved this by stipulation in a VZ case.
>
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>
> *The Personal Financial Law Center * *Culver City & Costa Mesa *
> 800-307-DEBT
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Kirk Brennan
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Mon, April 11, 2011 5:51:22 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] chapter 20 questioons- Winitsky case?
>
>
>
> Which Judge decided this case? Do you have a citation?
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:18 PM, miyun lim wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Listmates,
>>
>> In light of the memorandum decisions on Winitzky case, does anyone have a
>> success in LA division in a similar lien-stripping case in ch13 soon after
>> ch7? It appears that, in Winitsky case, the debtor wanted to the
>> lien-stripping effective immediately on ch13 plan confirmation. If the
>> motion is asking for the lien-stripping to be effective upon completion of
>> the plan, ie after 60 months, will this be deviating from the Winitsky
>> case?...any opinions on these?
>>
>> Teri Lim, Esq.
>> *Law Offices of Miyun Teri Lim*
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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.
Did they have to pay anything to the creditor to get the stipulation? On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:18 PM, P L <petermlively2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have oneclient who achieved thisby stipulation in aVZ case.
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center* Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I have oneclient who achieved thisby stipulation in aVZ case.
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center* Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 5:51:22 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] chapter 20 questioons- Winitsky case?
Which Judge decided this case? Do you have a citation?
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:18 PM, miyun lim wrote:
>Listmates,
>
>In light of the memorandum decisions on Winitzky case, does anyone have a>success in LA division in a similar lien-stripping case in ch13 soon after ch7?
>It appears that, in Winitsky case, the debtor wanted to the lien-stripping>effective immediately on ch13 plan confirmation. If the motion is asking for the
>lien-stripping to be effective upon completion of the plan, ie after 60 months,
>will this be deviating from the Winitsky case?...any opinions on these?
>
>Teri Lim, Esq.
>Law Offices of Miyun Teri Lim
>
>
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 intendedrecipient, 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.
I have one client who achieved this by stipulation in a VZ case.
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
From: Kirk Brennan <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Mon, April 11, 2011 5:51:22 PMSubject: Re: [cdcbaa] chapter 20 questioons- Winitsky case?
Which Judge decided this case? Do you have a citation?
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:18 PM, miyun lim <terilim@yahoo.com> wrote:

Listmates, In light of the memorandum decisions on Winitzky case, does anyone have a success in LA division in a similar lien-stripping case in ch13 soon after ch7? It appears that, in Winitsky case, the debtor wanted to the lien-stripping effective immediately on ch13 plan confirmation. If the motion is asking for the lien-stripping to be effective upon completion of the plan, ie after 60 months, will this be deviating from the Winitsky case?...any opinions on these?
Teri Lim, Esq. Law Offices of Miyun Teri Lim
-- 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.

Found it. Are attorneys still trying to file lien strips in chapter 20s in
the CDCA or are they treating Winitzky as binding precedent with other
judges in the CDCA?
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
> Which Judge decided this case? Do you have a citation?
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:18 PM, miyun lim wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Listmates,
>>
>> In light of the memorandum decisions on Winitzky case, does anyone have a
>> success in LA division in a similar lien-stripping case in ch13 soon after
>> ch7? It appears that, in Winitsky case, the debtor wanted to the
>> lien-stripping effective immediately on ch13 plan confirmation. If the
>> motion is asking for the lien-stripping to be effective upon completion of
>> the plan, ie after 60 months, will this be deviating from the Winitsky
>> case?...any opinions on these?
>>
>> Teri Lim, Esq.
>> *Law Offices of Miyun Teri Lim*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
Found it. Are attorneys still trying to file lien strips in chapter 20s in the CDCA or are they treating Winitzky as binding precedent with other judges in the CDCA?On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Kirk Brennan <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
Which Judge decided this case? Do you have a citation?
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:18 PM, miyun lim <terilim@yahoo.com> wrote:
Listmates, In light of the memorandum decisions on Winitzky case, does anyone have a success in LA division in a similar lien-stripping case in ch13 soon after ch7? It appears that, in Winitsky case, the debtor wanted to the lien-stripping effective immediately on ch13 plan confirmation. If the motion is asking for the lien-stripping to be effective upon completion of the plan, ie after 60 months, will this be deviating from the Winitsky case?...any opinions on these?
ices of Miyun Teri Lim
-- Kirk Brennan, esq.California Law Office, P.C.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Which Judge decided this case? Do you have a citation?
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:18 PM, miyun lim wrote:
>
>
> Listmates,
>
> In light of the memorandum decisions on Winitzky case, does anyone have a
> success in LA division in a similar lien-stripping case in ch13 soon after
> ch7? It appears that, in Winitsky case, the debtor wanted to the
> lien-stripping effective immediately on ch13 plan confirmation. If the
> motion is asking for the lien-stripping to be effective upon completion of
> the plan, ie after 60 months, will this be deviating from the Winitsky
> case?...any opinions on these?
>
> Teri Lim, Esq.
> *Law Offices of Miyun Teri Lim*
>
>
>
>
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.
Which Judge decided this case? Do you have a citation?
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Listmates,
In light of the memorandum decisions on Winitzky case, does anyone have a success in LA division in a similar lien-stripping case in ch13 soon after ch7? It appears that, in Winitsky case, the debtor wanted to the lien-stripping effective immediately on ch13 plan confirmation. If the motion is asking for the lien-stripping to be effective upon completion of the plan, ie after 60 months, will this be deviating from the Winitsky case?...any opinions on these?
Law Offices of Miyun Teri Lim
Listmates, In light of the memorandum decisions on Winitzky case, does anyone have a success in LA division in a similar lien-stripping case in ch13 soon after ch7? It appears that, in Winitsky case, the debtor wanted to the lien-stripping effective immediately on ch13 plan confirmation. If the motion is asking for the lien-stripping to be effective upon completion of the plan, ie after 60 months, will this be deviating from the Winitsky case?...any opinions on these? Teri Lim, Esq. Law Offices of Miyun Teri Lim

The post was migrated from Yahoo.