Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

charset="US-ASCII"
The only lenders that I have heard of (or that we have heard of through this
list serve) that are repossessing if no reaff is signed are Ford and
Chrysler.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green, Esq.
Fitzgerald & Green
Attorneys at Law
1010 E. Union Street
Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

X-Yahoo-Marked-Not-Spam:
Lexus will also allow the debtor to keep the vehicle without a reaffirmation if
it's current and I know Ford will repo without one. However, you should always
check for each client in case the creditor's policies have changed.
________________________________
To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 8:31:00 AM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Dumont
Yes, ford does it. It is up to the lender if they will honor payments or repo
the vehicle.
Jonathan Leventhal
Attorney at Law
818-347-5800
On Oct 9, 2010, at 7:24 AM, "Robert" wrote:
>I had a case two months or so ago where a Debtor did not timely return a
>reaffirmation agreement to the lender. As a result, I thought, by Dumont, the
>lender would repo.
>
>
>However, the Debtor called the lender and the lender volunteered that the Debtor
>could simply continue to pay on the obligation....this seems contrary to Dumont
>where a debtor must chose from the options expressly listed under 362(h)(1)(A)
>if they wish to maintain possession of their secured property in bankruptcy.
>
>
>Anyone else see lenders letting Debtors doing voluntary payments on secured
>collateral without a reaffirmation?
>
>
Lexus will also allow the debtor to keep the vehicle without a reaffirmation if it's current and I know Ford will repo without one. However, you should always check for each client in case the creditor's policies have changed. From: Law Offices of Jonathan Leventhal <law@3yl.com>To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com" <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 8:31:00 AM

Yes, ford does it. It is up to the lender if they will honor payments or repo the vehicle.Jonathan LeventhalAttorney at Law818-347-5800On Oct 9, 2010, at 7:24 AM, "Robert" <robertvitt@vittlawfirm.com> wrote:

I had a case two months or so ago where a Debtor did not timely return a reaffirmation agreement to the lender. As a result, I thought, by Dumont, the lender would repo.
However, the Debtor called the lender and the lender volunteered that the Debtor could simply continue to pay on the obligation....this seems contrary to Dumont where a debtor must chose from the options expressly listed under 362(h)(1)(A) if they wish to maintain possession of their secured property in bankruptcy.
Anyone else see lenders letting Debtors doing voluntary payments on secured collateral without a reaffirmation?

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

The only lenders that I have heard of (or that we have heard of through this
list serve) that are repossessing if no reaff is signed are Ford and
Chrysler.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green, Esq.
Fitzgerald & Green
Attorneys at Law
1010 E. Union Street
Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Nissan
Sent from AT&T's Wireless network using Mobile Email
To:
Date: Saturday, October 9, 2010 2:24:49 PM GMT-0000
Subject: [cdcbaa] Dumont
I had a case two months or so ago where a Debtor did not timely return a reaffirmation agreement to the lender. As a result, I thought, by Dumont, the lender would repo.
However, the Debtor called the lender and the lender volunteered that the Debtor could simply continue to pay on the obligation....this seems contrary to Dumont where a debtor must chose from the options expressly listed under 362(h)(1)(A) if they wish to maintain possession of their secured property in bankruptcy.
Anyone else see lenders letting Debtors doing voluntary payments on secured collateral without a reaffirmation?

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I had a case two months or so ago where a Debtor did not timely return a reaffirmation agreement to the lender. As a result, I thought, by Dumont, the lender would repo.
However, the Debtor called the lender and the lender volunteered that the Debtor could simply continue to pay on the obligation....this seems contrary to Dumont where a debtor must chose from the options expressly listed under 362(h)(1)(A) if they wish to maintain possession of their secured property in bankruptcy.
Anyone else see lenders letting Debtors doing voluntary payments on secured collateral without a reaffirmation?

The post was migrated from Yahoo.