Schwab v. Reilly wording
Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 8:57 pm
When I list a pending claim, such as a personal injury cause of action, I am concerned that if I value it too low, that may form the basis for an estoppel claim later in the State court action.
Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 640
Woodland Hills, California
91364-2203
Telephone: (818)226-1205
Email: kennethjschwartz@yahoo.com
Sent from my iPhone
On May 6, 2011, at 6:57 PM, larry@lsimonslaw.com wrote:
> Alert yes, but the debtor(s) duty is to disclose and describe sufficiently so trustee can make determination as to whether or not the asset should be administered
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> Sender: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 18:53:00 -0700
> To:
> ReplyTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Schwab v. Reilly wording
>
>
> I agree, but is it really better to make up a nominal value--like $500--and then use the wildcard to exempt "$20,000 up to 100% of FMV"? Doesn't that put the Trustee on just as much alert?
>
> *************************
> 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 5/6/2011 6:35 PM, larry@lsimonslaw.com wrote:
>>
>> If I were a trustee and saw "unknown" for a value, I would continue the hearing until I could ascertain a more accurate value
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>
>> Sender: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 18:33:31 -0700
>> To:
>> ReplyTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Schwab v. Reilly wording
>>
>>
>> In light of Schwab: Is there any downside now to listing the value of an asset as "unknown" as long as you put language in the exemption such as "100% of FMV"? I never liked putting unknown because I recall there being cases that doing so left the door open for trustees to come back later or assert an extension of time to object to exemptions or something. Is there any advantage now to putting an actual dollar amount vs. unknown for assets (such as value in a copyright) that can't really be determined with certainty?
>>
>>
>>
>> *************************
>> 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 5/5/2011 12:38 PM, James T. King wrote:
>>>
>>> I normally put the maximum available exemption. For example on a house with $20k in equity but $100k available I will put $100k.
>>>
>>> In a Workers Comp case they are never over $100,000 so I just put $100k
>>>
>>>
>>>
Of Mark J. Markus
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:31 PM
>>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>> Subject: [cdcbaa] Schwab v. Reilly wording
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just wondering what type of wording you all are using when exempting
>>> assets that are uncertain as to amount and you want to exempt 100%
>>> per the ruling in Schwab v. Reilly. Any consensus on the most
>>> accurate way?
>>>
>>> e.g. "100% of FMV"; "$5,000 up to 100% of FMV" "$5,000 up to 100%
>>> of available exemption"
>>>
>>> are these all good? Someone using something better?
>>>
>>> *************************
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
When I list a pending claim, such as a personal injury cause of action, I am concerned that if I value it too low, that may form the basis for an estoppel claim later in the State court action. Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 640Woodland Hills, California 91364-2203Telephone: (818)226-1205Email: kennethjschwartz@yahoo.comSent from my iPhoneOn May 6, 2011, at 6:57 PM, larry@lsimonslaw.com wrote:
Alert yes, but the debtor(s) duty is to disclose and describe sufficiently so trustee can make determination as to whether or not the asset should be > "Mark J. Markus" <bklawr@yahoo.com>
Sender: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 18:53:00 -0700To: <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>ReplyTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Schwab v. Reilly wording
I agree, but is it really better to make up a nominal
value--like $500--and then use the wildcard to exempt "$20,000 up
to 100% of FMV"? Doesn't that put the Trustee on just as
much alert?
*************************
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.