.jpg)
plan addendum -- anybody sued under this?
I do not understand your question
M. Erik Clark
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
www.BLClaw.com
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Board Certified in Consumer Bankruptcy
American Board of Certification
________________________________
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Pat,
Yes that is t main focus of all the addendum provisions. I think our
obligation is to review all pleadings filed by the servicer (MFR, POCs
etc) and look for the hidden fees. Then when you find them, and you
will, object to them. As for getting paid, you file a supplemental fee
app - or get the servicer to pay your fees. We have done both. In a
perfect world you would order a QWR towards the end of the case to make
sure nothing has happened. The other important issue is to alert your
client to be on the lookout. Once they know what to look for it is
amazing what they can find.
M. Erik Clark
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
www.BLClaw.com
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Board Certified in Consumer Bankruptcy
American Board of Certification
________________________________
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Hopefully, the appeal will be over soon. The briefing has completed and
now we are just waiting on the 9th Circuit.
Thank you,
Nancy B. Clark
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If
you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver
this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message
and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately
if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages
of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this
message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be
understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury
Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly
indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication was
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose
of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter
addressed herein.
________________________________
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charsetndows-1252
Yikes, that is a real disincentive to filing the addendum in the first place.
If its a 0% plan, or in almost every event, you wont get fairly compensated for that review (apparently especially in Riverside).
Jason
On Oct 8, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Nancy Clark wrote:
>
> Now, I dont speak for Erik, but I think the cost of reviewing the monthly statement is ministerial and could be absorbed in your fees. The review of the quarterly statements I would venture to guess would be more involved and you could file a supplemental fee application in order to review the quarterly report (and monthly statements). If you dont find anything unusual, you may not need to spend much time on the statements and the quarterly reports but if you do find something it is in your clients best interest and the best interest of the estate that you resolve the issue. Your client will be grateful you did and supplemental fees will be completely justified. You may even have to file an adversary proceeding against the mortgage creditor for accounting. You may recoup your fees from the creditor if they are misapplying payments.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Nancy B. Clark
>
>
>
> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
>
> West Covina, CA 91791
>
> Office: (626) 332-8600
>
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
>
>
>
> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
>
>
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication was
>
> not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
>
>
>
Patrick Green
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 2:14 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] plan addendum -- anybody sued under this?
>
>
>
>
>
> Erik:
>
>
>
> Isnt the main purpose to keep an eye on their accounting while the case is pending so there are no post filing surprises?
>
>
>
> If the answer is yes, what do you think our obligation as counsel for the debtor is to review the monthly statements?
>
>
>
> How do we get paid for it?
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
blc subscriptions
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 11:38 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com; blc subscriptions
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] plan addendum -- anybody sued under this?
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree. However, note that the case about the addendum is in front of the 9th Circuit on appeal
>
>
>
> M. Erik Clark
>
>
> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
> West Covina, CA 91791
>
> www.BLClaw.com
> Office: (626) 332-8600
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
> Board Certified in Consumer Bankruptcy
> American Board of Certification
>
>
>
dbcommons
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:36 AM
> To: blc subscriptions
> Subject: [cdcbaa] plan addendum -- anybody sued under this?
>
>
>
>
>
> Listmates:
>
> Have any of you sued a lender for damages based upon the requirements of the Plan Addendum? Used it to oppose a MFR? Used it to reinstate a stay after an order lifting the stay has been entered? The language of the Addendum sounds great, but I'm wondering to what practical use it has been put, and what the results have been. Obvioulsy, the time is right to push these lenders on their sloppy record-keeping.
>
> David Commons
>
>
>
charsetndows-1252
Yikes, that is a real disincentive to filing the addendum in the first place.If its a 0% plan, or in almost every event, you wont get fairly compensated for that review (apparently especially in Riverside).JasonOn Oct 8, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Nancy Clark wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.