means test amount when no mortgage payment required
Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 5:38 pm
charsetndows-1252
On that specific issue, I do not believe the bankers or collection agencies would agree: the charge off is for internal, accounting and regulatory purposes; and it is of interest to credit reporting agencies; but it is not equivalent to a release of the indebtedness and the debt is still collectable.
If you get a 1099 for forgiveness of the debt, that might be a different story.
I am not sure what my comment adds to the means test discussion.
Jason
On May 17, 2011, at 4:56 PM, David A. Tilem wrote:
>
> Some believe that a charged off debt (if a 1099 has been issued) is no longer collectable. Hence no payments are required or due.
>
>
> David A. Tilem
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
> Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
> 206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
> Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
>
> * Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal Specialization.
> Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of Certification
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
Mark J. Markus
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:26 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: means test amount when no mortgage payment required
>
> OK...I'm going to revise my question a bit and add some facts.
>
> It turns out that the credit union that holds the Notes has "charged off" the debt, but is not pursuing foreclosure. This is a military credit union, so maybe they're trying to help out the former enlisteds...In any event, if the debtor filed a Chapter 13 (which is a possibility to do a LAM motion), how would we determine the required postpetition mortgage payments to be made? In other words, will the Trustee accept whatever the debtor and creditor agree to as far as staying "postpetition current"? Or must they pay the note rate unless is officially modified?
>
>
>
> *************************
> 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 5/14/2011 6:13 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>>
>> I actually haven't seen the Notes yet, so my question may have been premature, but Dennis' point is also well taken that if the debtor hasn't been making the payments, it might be problematic to use a different amount over the 60 months. On the other hand, if they are "contractually due" during that period and the debtors start making the payments (despite the bank apparently allowing them to pay less) it may be appropriate. Similar to debtor who are paying interest-only on a loan, but they could (and probably SHOULD) be paying principal and interest.
>>
>> *************************
>> 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 5/14/2011 6:08 PM, Gerald McNally wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>>
>>> You presumably know what the loans are due, and the interest rate. Couldnt you amortize the loans over the period remaining before theyre up? I would try for that in a Ch7 scenario.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gerry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gerald McNally
>>>
>>> McNally & Associates, P.C.
>>>
>>> 517 East Wilson Ave., Ste 104
>>>
>>> Glendale, CA 91206
>>>
>>> 818.507.5100
>>>
>>> Fax: 818.507.5001
>>>
>>>
>>> Notice to Recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this email in error, and review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return email and please delete this message and any and all duplicates of this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
>>>
>>>
>>> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This email was scanned by VIPRE version 4.0.4182 when it was sent, using definitions version 9282
>
>
charsetndows-1252
On that specific issue, I do not believe the bankers or collection agencies would agree: the charge off is for internal, accounting and regulatory purposes; and it is of interest to credit reporting agencies; but it is not equivalent to a release of the indebtedness and the debt is still collectable.If you get a 1099 for forgiveness of the debt, that might be a different story.I am not sure what my comment adds to the means test discussion.JasonOn May 17, 2011, at 4:56 PM, David A. Tilem wrote:
Some believe that a charged
off debt (if a 1099 has been issued) is no longer collectable. Hence no
payments are required or due.
David A.
Tilem
The post was migrated from Yahoo.