.jpg)
Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
Eric,
rior thread? I am very
inerested in your comments, butI find it difficult to get to them.
Peter
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center* Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, May 7, 2011 5:23:51 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
In a message dated 5/7/2011 3:44:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
sblever@leverlaw.com writes:
>No cases I know of. The research I did was over 10 years ago. But it seems to
>me that even a refinance can be to pay the purchase price. The purchase price
>never changes, and to at least that extent I dont see why the borrower should
>lose the nonrecourse protection up to the purchase price just because he or she
>refinanced it.
>From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of P L
>Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:21 PM
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
>
>Not 100% sure, but the statute seems clear where it state "aloan which was in
>fact used to pay all or part of the purchase price of thatdwelling"
>I'm curoius to know if there are cases supporting your recollection.
>
>Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>The Personal Financial Law Center* Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>
________________________________
>From:Steven B. Lever
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Fri, May 6, 2011 7:12:12 PM
>Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
>
>
>Its been a long time since I did research on CCP 580b, but my recollection is
>that in a refinance it is still considered purchase money so long as it is>financing the original loan amount. In other words, if you originally financed
>$400,000 of a $500,000 house and your only refinancing the current balance owed
>on the original financing, say the loan was paid down to $350,000 and only>$350,000 was borrowed in the refi then that still has the 580b protection.>that correct or have I muddled it?
>Steven B. Lever
>www.leverlaw.com
>From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of P L
>Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:06 PM
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
>
>Refinancetakes loan outside of anti-deficiency statute, since no longer
>purchase money.CCP 580b protection requires at least partial owner occupancy,
>so that apparently wasn't available on your facts anyway.
>Sold-outnon-purchase-moneysecondis recourse as to borrower and itcountsin
>109(e).
>
>Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>The Personal Financial Law Center* Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>
________________________________
>From:t_mannis
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Fri, May 6, 2011 6:56:26 PM
>Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
>
>
>LOL, well, of course now we have two competing theories...
>
>Just to clarify, rental properties, in California, so anti-deficiency, re-fi's,
>non-purchase. We know under the one-action rule, the first that foreclosed got
>their property, and so they're done. That leaves $300,000 second which got>nothing, and which hasn't uttered word one...yet.
>
>--- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, P L wrote:
>>
>> Settle something toget below 109(e) debt limit?>>way?
>>
>> If not purchase money in an anti-deficiency state, note is in default,
>> andcollateral is gone, thenI believethe debt isnon-contingent and
>> liquidated.
>>
>>
>> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>> The Personal Financial Law Center* Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Fri, May 6, 2011 4:43:53 PM
>> Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
>>
>>
>> In a nutshell, potential client cannot pass Means Test for a 7. OK, so let's
>>put
>>
>> him into a 13. Well, he had a couple expensive rental properties that
>> foreclosed. The second on one is $300,000 alone. Needless to say, with the
>>other
>>
>> debt that he has, that would put him over the unsecured limit almost by itself.
>>
>> However, they haven't YET come after him, or given any indication as to if and
>
>> when they will, although its clear that they could. How does that factor into
>> the debt limit equation? Practically speaking, the guy simply cannot afford to
>
>> go 11. Is he out of luck?
>>
>>
>> Todd Mannis, Esq.
>> Calabasas, CA
>>Steve-
My understanding is that a refi does eliminate 580b protection. I believe
thisanswer can beconfirmed in pending CA legislation to restore P/M protection
(owner occupied residence) to the extent the refi is comprised of the original
loan.
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
Torrance, CA 90503
(310) 792-5864; 792-5866 (fax)
MitnickLaw@aol.com
Eric,
Why do your reply emails show so much of the prior thread? I am very inerested in your comments, but I find it difficult to get to them.
Peter
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
From: "mitnicklaw@aol.com" <mitnicklaw@aol.com>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Sat, May 7, 2011 5:23:51 PMSubject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
In a message dated 5/7/2011 3:44:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sblever@leverlaw.com writes:
No cases I know of. The research I did was over 10 years ago. But it seems to me that even a refinance can be to pay the purchase price. The purchase price never changes, and to at least that extent I dont see why the borrower should lose the nonrecourse protection up to the purchase price just because he or she refinanced it.
From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of P LSent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:21 PMTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
Not 100% sure, but the statute seems clear where it state "a loan which was in fact used to pay all or part of the purchase price of that dwelling"
I'm curoius to know if there are cases supporting your recollection.
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
From: Steven B. Lever <sblever@leverlaw.com>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Fri, May 6, 2011 7:12:12 PMSubject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
Its been a long time since I did research on CCP 580b, but my recollection is that in a refinance it is still considered purchase money so long as it is financing the original loan amount. In other words, if you originally financed $400,000 of a $500,000 house and your only refinancing the current balance owed on the original financing, say the loan was paid down to $350,000 and only $350,000 was borrowed in the refi then that still has the 580b protection. Is that correct or have I muddled it?
Steven B. Lever
www.leverlaw.com
From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of P LSent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:06 PMTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
Refinance takes loan outside of anti-deficiency statute, since no longer purchase money. CCP 580b protection requires at least partial owner occupancy, so that apparently wasn't available on your facts anyway. Sold-out non-purchase-money second is recourse as to borrower and it counts in 109(e).
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
From: t_mannis <toddlaw@dslextreme.com>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Fri, May 6, 2011 6:56:26 PMSubject: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
LOL, well, of course now we have two competing theories...Just to clarify, rental properties, in California, so anti-deficiency, re-fi's, non-purchase. We know under the one-action rule, the first that foreclosed got their property, and so they're done. That leaves $300,000 second which got nothing, and which hasn't uttered word one...yet.--- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, P L <
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
It appears from your factsthat all the events giving rise to the claim have
already occured prepetition(not-contingent) and the debtor's liability and
theamount of the debt are readily acertainable,without an extensive
evidentiary heaing, as beingthe entire note balance (liquidated) until the
lender issues a COD 1099.
This debtors actual experience with this lender on similar facts might count,
but your experience with other lenders generally is a stretch.
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center* Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, May 6, 2011 9:41:15 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
Do actual experience count here? I've had many lenders forgive the 2nd's and
issue the applicable 1099. Aren't the holders of the seconds free to do
whatever they well please? As such, isn't the debt contingent and unliquidated
if the holder of the 2nd wants it to be so? And if so, why can't the debtor
deem it to be so unless the lender argues otherwise?
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:06 PM, P L wrote:
>Refinancetakes loan outside of anti-deficiency statute, since no longer
>purchase money.CCP 580b protection requires at least partial owner occupancy,
>so that apparently wasn't available on your facts anyway.
>Sold-outnon-purchase-moneysecondis recourse as to borrower and itcountsin
>109(e).
>
>Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>The Personal Financial Law Center* Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Fri, May 6, 2011 6:56:26 PM
>Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
>
>
>
>LOL, well, of course now we have two competing theories...
>
>Just to clarify, rental properties, in California, so anti-deficiency, re-fi's,
>non-purchase. We know under the one-action rule, the first that foreclosed got
>their property, and so they're done. That leaves $300,000 second which got>nothing, and which hasn't uttered word one...yet.
>
>--- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, P L wrote:
>>
>> Settle something toget below 109(e) debt limit?>>way?
>>
>> If not purchase money in an anti-deficiency state, note is in default,
>> andcollateral is gone, thenI believethe debt isnon-contingent and
>> liquidated.
>>
>>
>> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>> The Personal Financial Law Center* Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Fri, May 6, 2011 4:43:53 PM
>> Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
>>
>>
>> In a nutshell, potential client cannot pass Means Test for a 7. OK, so let's
>>put
>>
>> him into a 13. Well, he had a couple expensive rental properties that
>> foreclosed. The second on one is $300,000 alone. Needless to say, with the
>>other
>>
>> debt that he has, that would put him over the unsecured limit almost by itself.
>>
>> However, they haven't YET come after him, or given any indication as to if and
>
>> when they will, although its clear that they could. How does that factor into
>> the debt limit equation? Practically speaking, the guy simply cannot afford to
>
>> go 11. Is he out of luck?
>>
>>
>> Todd Mannis, Esq.
>> Calabasas, CA
>>
>
>
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND
SANTA BARBARA.
Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately
notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail at (213)
389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by the
Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in
this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
It appears from your facts that all the events giving rise to the claim have already occured prepetition (not-contingent) and the debtor's liability and the amount of the debt are readily acertainable, without an extensive evidentiary heaing, as being the entire note balance (liquidated) until the lender issues a COD 1099.
This debtors actual experience with this lender on similar facts might count, but your experience with other lenders generally is a stretch.
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
From: Giovanni Orantes <go@gobklaw.com>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Fri, May 6, 2011 9:41:15 PMSubject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
Do actual experience count here? I've had many lenders forgive the 2nd's and issue the applicable 1099. Aren't the holders of the seconds free to do whatever they well please? As such, isn't the debt contingent and unliquidated if the holder of the 2nd wants it to be so? And if so, why can't the debtor deem it to be so unless the lender argues otherwise?
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:06 PM, P L <
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Do actual experience count here? I've had many lenders forgive the 2nd's
and issue the applicable 1099. Aren't the holders of the seconds free to do
whatever they well please? As such, isn't the debt contingent and
unliquidated if the holder of the 2nd wants it to be so? And if so, why
can't the debtor deem it to be so unless the lender argues otherwise?
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:06 PM, P L wrote:
>
>
> Refinance takes loan outside of anti-deficiency statute, since no longer
> purchase money. CCP 580b protection requires at least partial owner
> occupancy, so that apparently wasn't available on your facts anyway.
> Sold-out non-purchase-money second is recourse as to borrower and
> it counts in 109(e).
>
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>
> *The Personal Financial Law Center * *Culver City & Costa Mesa *
> 800-307-DEBT
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* t_mannis
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Fri, May 6, 2011 6:56:26 PM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
>
>
>
> LOL, well, of course now we have two competing theories...
>
> Just to clarify, rental properties, in California, so anti-deficiency,
> re-fi's, non-purchase. We know under the one-action rule, the first that
> foreclosed got their property, and so they're done. That leaves $300,000
> second which got nothing, and which hasn't uttered word one...yet.
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, P L wrote:
> >
> > Settle something to get below 109(e) debt limit? Perhaps a 1099c
> is on the way?
> >
> > If not purchase money in an anti-deficiency state, note is in default,
> > and collateral is gone, then I believe the debt is non-contingent and
>
> > liquidated.
> >
> >
> > Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
> > The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa *
> 800-307-DEBT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Fri, May 6, 2011 4:43:53 PM
> > Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
> >
> >
> > In a nutshell, potential client cannot pass Means Test for a 7. OK, so
> let's put
> > him into a 13. Well, he had a couple expensive rental properties that
> > foreclosed. The second on one is $300,000 alone. Needless to say, with
> the other
> > debt that he has, that would put him over the unsecured limit almost by
> itself.
> > However, they haven't YET come after him, or given any indication as to
> if and
> > when they will, although its clear that they could. How does that factor
> into
> > the debt limit equation? Practically speaking, the guy simply cannot
> afford to
> > go 11. Is he out of luck?
> >
> >
> > Todd Mannis, Esq.
> > Calabasas, CA
> >
>
>
>
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA.
Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by
the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
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 herein.
Do actual experience count here? I've had many lenders forgive the
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Paul has a good point. Also if the 2nd is the same bank as the first t.d, they cannot go after him for a deficiency.
Margaret Norman, Attorney
111 N.Sepulveda Blvd. #355
Manhattan Beach, Ca. 90266
310-376-7873
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Not 100% sure, but the statute seems clear where it state "aloan which was in
fact used to pay all or part of the purchase price of thatdwelling"
I'm curoius to know if there are cases supporting your recollection.
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center* Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, May 6, 2011 7:12:12 PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
Its been a long time since I did research on CCP 580b, but my recollection is
that in a refinance it is still considered purchase money so long as it isfinancing the original loan amount. In other words, if you originally financed
$400,000 of a $500,000 house and your only refinancing the current balance owed
on the original financing, say the loan was paid down to $350,000 and only$350,000 was borrowed in the refi then that still has the 580b protection.that correct or have I muddled it?
Steven B. Lever
www.leverlaw.com
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of P L
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:06 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
Refinancetakes loan outside of anti-deficiency statute, since no longer
purchase money.CCP 580b protection requires at least partial owner occupancy,
so that apparently wasn't available on your facts anyway.
Sold-outnon-purchase-moneysecondis recourse as to borrower and itcountsin
109(e).
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center* Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
________________________________
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Refinancetakes loan outside of anti-deficiency statute, since no longer
purchase money.CCP 580b protection requires at least partial owner occupancy,
so that apparently wasn't available on your facts anyway.
Sold-outnon-purchase-moneysecondis recourse as to borrower and itcountsin
109(e).
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center* Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, May 6, 2011 6:56:26 PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
LOL, well, of course now we have two competing theories...
Just to clarify, rental properties, in California, so anti-deficiency, re-fi's,
non-purchase. We know under the one-action rule, the first that foreclosed got
their property, and so they're done. That leaves $300,000 second which gotnothing, and which hasn't uttered word one...yet.
>
> Settle something toget below 109(e) debt limit?>way?
>
> If not purchase money in an anti-deficiency state, note is in default,
> andcollateral is gone, thenI believethe debt isnon-contingent and
> liquidated.
>
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
> The Personal Financial Law Center* Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, May 6, 2011 4:43:53 PM
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
>
>
> In a nutshell, potential client cannot pass Means Test for a 7. OK, so let's
>put
>
> him into a 13. Well, he had a couple expensive rental properties that
> foreclosed. The second on one is $300,000 alone. Needless to say, with the
>other
>
> debt that he has, that would put him over the unsecured limit almost by itself.
>
> However, they haven't YET come after him, or given any indication as to if and
> when they will, although its clear that they could. How does that factor into
> the debt limit equation? Practically speaking, the guy simply cannot afford to
> go 11. Is he out of luck?
>
>
> Todd Mannis, Esq.
> Calabasas, CA
>
Refinance takes loan outside of anti-deficiency statute, since no longer purchase money. CCP 580b protection requires at least partial owner occupancy, so that apparently wasn't available on your facts anyway. Sold-out non-purchase-money second is recourse as to borrower and it counts in 109(e).
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
From: t_mannis <toddlaw@dslextreme.com>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Fri, May 6, 2011 6:56:26 PMSubject: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
LOL, well, of course now we have two competing theories...Just to clarify, rental properties, in California, so anti-deficiency, re-fi's, non-purchase. We know under the one-action rule, the first that foreclosed got their property, and so they're done. That leaves $300,000 second which got nothing, and which hasn't uttered word one...yet.--- In
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
LOL, well, of course now we have two competing theories...
Just to clarify, rental properties, in California, so anti-deficiency, re-fi's, non-purchase. We know under the one-action rule, the first that foreclosed got their property, and so they're done. That leaves $300,000 second which got nothing, and which hasn't uttered word one...yet.
>
> Settle something toget below 109(e) debt limit?Perhaps a 1099c ison the way?
>
> If not purchase money in an anti-deficiency state, note is in default,
> andcollateral is gone, thenI believethe debt isnon-contingent and
> liquidated.
>
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
> The Personal Financial Law Center* Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, May 6, 2011 4:43:53 PM
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13 Debt Limits with POSSIBLE deficiencies
>
>
> In a nutshell, potential client cannot pass Means Test for a 7. OK, so let's put
> him into a 13. Well, he had a couple expensive rental properties that
> foreclosed. The second on one is $300,000 alone. Needless to say, with the other
> debt that he has, that would put him over the unsecured limit almost by itself.
> However, they haven't YET come after him, or given any indication as to if and
> when they will, although its clear that they could. How does that factor into
> the debt limit equation? Practically speaking, the guy simply cannot afford to
> go 11. Is he out of luck?
>
>
> Todd Mannis, Esq.
> Calabasas, CA
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.