My view is if the mobile home is primary
Residence then it is a dwelling and most judges
I have talked to do not approve these reaffs.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:14 PM, "Wesley H. Avery" wrote:
> Thank you for the response. I believe that a trustors rights under CCP 580b cannot be waived, as it would be against public policy.
>
>
>
> Wesley H. Avery, Esq.
> Roquemore, Pringle & Moore, Inc.
> 6055 E. Washington Blvd., Ste. 500
> Los Angeles, CA 90040-2466
>
wavery@rpmlaw.com
>
http://www.rpmlaw.com
> (323) 724-3117 (office)
> (323) 724-5410 (fax)
> (323) 919-9336 (blackberry)
>
> The Bankruptcy Law Center
> 28005 Smyth Drive, Ste. 125
> Valencia, CA 91355-4023
>
wavery@thebankruptcylawcenter.com
>
http://www.thebankruptcylawcenter.com
> (661) 295-4673 (office)
> (661) 430-5467 (fax)
> (661) 618-7376 (cell)
>
> Certified Specialist
> Bankruptcy Law
> State Bar of California
>
> Board Certified
> Business Bankruptcy Law
> American Board of Certification
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail transmission is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. This e-mail transmission , and any documents, files, previous e-mail transmissions or other information attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail transmission, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, copying, or other use of this transmission or any of the information contained in or attached to it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail transmission or by telephone at (661) 618-7376, and destroy the original e-mail transmission and its attachments without reading it or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
>
Holly Roark
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 2:03 PM
> To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Reaffirmation agreements on mobile homes
>
>
>
>
>
> I had this issue come up recently and am wondering about the likelihood of an agressive Ford type of "repo" by the lender when the debtor is current but didn't sign the reaffirmation agreement. I am loathe to have the client reaffirm a $75,000 debt when the mobile home is only worth $35,000.
>
>
>
> However, it may not matter if the debtor goes ahead and signs the agreement and it gets approved because I don't believe that signing the reaffirmation agreement *waives* the antideficiency laws. CCP 580b appears to apply to mobile homes under the definition of "dwelling":
>
>
>
> California Code of Civil Procedure 704.710 defines a dwelling this way:
>
>
> "(a) "Dwelling" means a place where a person resides and may
> include but is not limited to the following:
> (1) A house together with the outbuildings and the land upon which
> they are situated.
> (2) A mobilehome together with the outbuildings and the land upon
> which they are situated.
> (3) A boat or other waterborne vessel.
> (4) A condominium, as defined in Section 783 of the Civil Code.
> (5) A planned development, as defined in Section 11003 of the
> Business and Professions Code.
> (6) A stock cooperative, as defined in Section 11003.2 of the
> Business and Professions Code.
> (7) A community apartment project, as defined in Section 11004 of
> the Business and Professions Code."
>
> The antideficiency statutes apply to "dwellings":
>
>
>
> California Code of Civil Procedure 580b provides in pertinent part:
>
>
>
> "No deficiency judgment shall lie in any event after a sale of real property or an estate for years therein for failure of the purchaser to complete his or her contract of sale, or under a deed of trust, or mortgage given to the vendor to secure payment of the balance of the purchase price of that real property or estate for years therein, or under a deed of trust or mortgage on a dwelling for not more than four families given to a lender to secure repayment of a loan which was in fact used to pay all or part of the purchase price of that dwelling occupied, entirely or in part, by the purchaser."
>
>
>
> See also Judge Morgan's memorandum of decision on the issue of waiving the antideficiency protection:
http://www.canb.uscourts.gov/node/1038
>
> "Because of its strong public policy objective, the anti-deficiency protection cannot be altered or waived at the time the purchase money obligation is created or renewed. Palm v. Schilling, 199 Cal. App. 3d 63, 69, 244 Cal. Rptr. 600 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)."
>
>
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
>
>
>
>
> Holly Roark
>
> CDCA
>
>
holly@roarklawoffices.com
>
> 2010/10/11 Wesley H. Avery
>
>
>
> Do judges commonly approve reaffirmation agreements on mobile homes? Amount at issue is $5k; I assume that this would be approved.
>
>
>
> Wesley H. Avery, Esq.
> Roquemore, Pringle & Moore, Inc.
> 6055 E. Washington Blvd., Ste. 500
> Los Angeles, CA 90040-2466
>
wavery@rpmlaw.com
>
http://www.rpmlaw.com
> (323) 724-3117 (office)
> (323) 724-5410 (fax)
> (323) 919-9336 (blackberry)
>
> The Bankruptcy Law Center
> 28005 Smyth Drive, Ste. 125
> Valencia, CA 91355-4023
>
wavery@thebankruptcylawcenter.com
>
http://www.thebankruptcylawcenter.com
> (661) 295-4673 (office)
> (661) 430-5467 (fax)
> (661) 618-7376 (cell)
>
> Certified Specialist
> Bankruptcy Law
> State Bar of California
>
> Board Certified
> Business Bankruptcy Law
> American Board of Certification
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail transmission is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. This e-mail transmission , and any documents, files, previous e-mail transmissions or other information attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail transmission, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, copying, or other use of this transmission or any of the information contained in or attached to it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail transmission or by telephone at (661) 618-7376, and destroy the original e-mail transmission and its attachments without reading it or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
>
David A. Tilem
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 2:09 PM
> To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Chapter 11 Attorneys Meet and Greet and Networking Event
>
>
>
>
>
> Giovanni and all others:
>
>
>
> A number of us have talked about doing a separate listserve, available to anyone, but limited to C11 topics.
>
> That needs to be proposed to/by the Board of Directors and I would support it.
>
> A social event may be appropriate, but I would caution against trying to do C11 programs because there are already so many organizations doing them. I would not want to dilute the primary cdcbaa mission.
>
>
>
> 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-----
Giovanni Orantes
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 1:53 PM
> To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 11 Attorneys Meet and Greet and Networking Event
>
>
>
> Ladies and Gentlemen:
>
>
>
> For several years, I practiced exclusively Chapter 11 bankruptcy law. I was based in Orange County (with Winthrop Couchot PC) and then in L.A. and handled mostly cases in Orange County, Riverside, a few in Los Angeles and the remaining in other states and at a national level (NY or Delaware). With the drought in Chapter 11 work starting back in 2004 and continuing through 2006 (which I believe was caused by the ready availability of credit), I returned to handling a greater portion of civil litigation than before for a couple of years. Since 2008, however, I have returned to practicing mainly bankruptcy law. For reasons too time-consuming to discuss in this e-mail, I cross-trained to handle consumer cases for individuals (who aren't necessarily famous or/and very wealthy, which was a requisite in my previous firms) and joined the CDCBAA.
>
>
>
> Since joining the CDCBAA, I have noticed a division among bankruptcy attorneys. For example, LACBA, the L.A. or O.C. Bankruptcy Forums and the Financial Lawyers Association membership is made up mostly of business Chapter 11 attorneys on both the debtor and creditor sides while the CDCBAA counts as members Chapter 11 attorneys who also handle consumer cases. Few attorneys belong to both camps.
>
>
>
> Regardless of the composition of the CDCBAA or the LABF, it appears that the Chapter 11 attorneys who are also members of the CDCBAA do not communicate with each other as much as we should. Other Chapter 11 attorneys on this listserv have recognized this before. However, I do not think anybody has taken the first step to getting all of the CDCBAA Chapter 11 attorneys together at a dinner or lunch event or otherwise. Needless to say, although we are all somewhat each other's competition, it is important to know each other when conflicts arise or when there is an opportunity to represent creditors' committees, for example. In the business Chapter 11 bar, since businesses typically operate through multiple legal entities, a good portion of cases are referred out because of conflicts and you will always send cases to people you know and trust to do a good job for the client. Penetrating the business Chapter 11 bar is priceless but not easy. Perhaps BAPCPA, which I believe increased the need for Chapter 11 attorneys for individuals, presents us with an opportunity to make new friends and hopefully increase business.
>
>
>
> All of the foregoing is my round-about way of asking all of the CDCBAA Chapter 11 attorneys to please reply identifying yourselves and providing your contact information to gauge interest in organizing a gathering and to know where to send you notice of such event, if any.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> --
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Phone: (888) 619-8222 x101
> 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 >
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Holly Roark
>
holly@roarklawoffices.com
>
www.roarklawoffices.com
> Central District of California
> Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
>
>
My view is if the mobile home is primary Residence then it is a dwelling and most judgesI have talked to do not approve these reaffs.Sent from my iPhoneOn Oct 18, 2010, at 2:14 PM, "Wesley H. Avery" <
wavery@rpmlaw.com> wrote:
Thank you for the response. I believe that a trustor’s rights under CCP
§ 580b cannot be waived, as it would be against public policy.
Wesley H. Avery, Esq.
Roquemore, Pringle & Moore, Inc.
6055 E. Washington Blvd., Ste. 500
Los Angeles, CA
90040-2466
wavery@rpmlaw.com
http://www.rpmlaw.com
(323) 724-3117
(office)
(323) 724-5410
(fax)
(323) 919-9336
(blackberry)
The Bankruptcy Law Center
28005 Smyth Drive, Ste. 125
Valencia, CA 91355-4023
wavery@thebankruptcylawcenter.com
http://www.thebankruptcylawcenter.com
(661) 295-4673 (office)
(661) 430-5467 (fax)
(661) 618-7376 (cell)
Certified Specialist
Bankruptcy Law
State Bar of California
Board Certified
Business
Bankruptcy Law
American Board
of Certification
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information contained in this e-mail transmission is intended only for use
of the individual or entity named above. This e-mail transmission , and any
documents, files, previous e-mail transmissions or other information attached
to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient of this e-mail transmission, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, dissemination, copying, or other use of this
transmission or any of the information contained in or attached to it is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error,
please immediately notify us by return e-mail transmission or by telephone at
(661) 618-7376, and destroy the original e-mail transmission and its
attachments without reading it or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
From:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Holly Roark
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010
2:03 PM
To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa]
Reaffirmation agreements on mobile homes
I had this issue come up recently and am wondering about the likelihood
of an agressive Ford type of "repo" by the lender when the
debtor is current but didn't sign the reaffirmation agreement. I am
loathe to have the client reaffirm a $75,000 debt when the mobile home is only
worth $35,000.
However, it may not matter if the debtor goes ahead and signs the
agreement and it gets approved because I don't believe that signing the
reaffirmation agreement *waives* the antideficiency laws. CCP 580b
appears to apply to mobile homes under the definition of
"dwelling":
California Code of Civil Procedure § 704.710 defines a dwelling this
way:
"(a) "Dwelling"
means a place where a person resides and may
include but is not limited to the following:
(1) A house together with the outbuildings and the land upon which
they are situated.
(2) A mobilehome
together with the outbuildings and the land upon
which they are situated.
(3) A boat or other waterborne vessel.
(4) A condominium, as defined in Section 783 of the Civil Code.
(5) A planned development, as defined in Section 11003 of the
Business and Professions Code.
(6) A stock cooperative, as defined in Section 11003.2 of the
Business and Professions Code.
(7) A community apartment project, as defined in Section 11004 of
the Business and Professions Code."
The antideficiency statutes apply to "dwellings":
California Code of Civil Procedure § 580b provides in pertinent
part:
"No deficiency judgment shall lie in any event after a sale of
real property or an estate for years therein for failure of the purchaser to
complete his or her contract of sale, or under a deed of trust, or mortgage
given to the vendor to secure payment of the balance of the purchase price of
that real property or estate for years therein, or under a deed of trust or mortgage on a dwelling for not more
than four families given to a lender to secure repayment of a loan which was in
fact used to pay all or part of the purchase price of that dwelling occupied,
entirely or in part, by the purchaser."
See also Judge Morgan's
memorandum of decision on the issue of waiving the antideficiency
protection:
http://www.canb.uscourts.gov/node/1038
"Because of its strong public policy objective, the
anti-deficiency protection cannot be altered or waived at the time the purchase
money obligation is created or renewed.
Palm v. Schilling, 199 Cal. App. 3d 63,
69, 244 Cal.
Rptr. 600 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)."
Any thoughts on this?
Holly Roark
CDCA
holly@roarklawoffices.com
2010/10/11 Wesley H. Avery
<
wavery@rpmlaw.com>
Do judges commonly approve reaffirmation agreements on mobile
homes? Amount at issue is $5k; I assume that this would be
approved.
Wesley
H. Avery, Esq.
Roquemore, Pringle & Moore, Inc.
6055 E. Washington Blvd., Ste. 500
Los Angeles, CA
90040-2466
wavery@rpmlaw.com
http://www.rpmlaw.com
(323) 724-3117
(office)
(323) 724-5410
(fax)
(323) 919-9336
(blackberry)
The Bankruptcy Law Center
28005 Smyth Drive, Ste. 125
Valencia, CA 91355-4023
wavery@thebankruptcylawcenter.com
http://www.thebankruptcylawcenter.com
(661) 295-4673 (office)
(661) 430-5467 (fax)
(661) 618-7376 (cell)
Certified Specialist
Bankruptcy Law
State Bar of California
Board Certified
Business
Bankruptcy Law
American Board
of Certification
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information
contained in this e-mail transmission is intended only for use of the
individual or entity named above. This e-mail transmission , and any
documents, files, previous e-mail transmissions or other information attached
to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail transmission, or the
employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, copying, or other use
of this transmission or any of the information contained in or attached to it
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in
error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail transmission or by
telephone at (661) 618-7376, and destroy the original e-mail transmission and
its attachments without reading it or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
From:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of David A. Tilem
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010
2:09 PM
To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Chapter 11
Attorneys Meet and Greet and Networking Event
Giovanni and all others:
A number of us have talked about doing a separate
listserve, available to anyone, but limited to C11 topics.
That needs to be proposed to/by the Board of Directors and I
would support it.
A social event may be appropriate, but I would caution
against trying to do C11 programs because there are already so many
organizations doing them. I would not want to dilute the primary cdcbaa
mission.
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-----
From:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Giovanni Orantes
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010
1:53 PM
To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 11
Attorneys Meet and Greet and Networking Event
Ladies and Gentlemen:
For several years, I practiced exclusively Chapter 11 bankruptcy law.
I was based in Orange County (with Winthrop Couchot PC) and then in L.A. and handled mostly cases in Orange
County, Riverside,
a few in Los Angeles and the remaining in other
states and at a national level (NY or Delaware).
With the drought in Chapter 11 work starting back in 2004 and continuing
through 2006 (which I believe was caused by the ready availability of credit),
I returned to handling a greater portion of civil litigation than before for a
couple of years. Since 2008, however, I have returned to practicing
mainly bankruptcy law. For reasons too time-consuming to discuss in this
e-mail, I cross-trained to handle consumer cases for individuals (who aren't
necessarily famous or/and very wealthy, which was a requisite in
my previous firms) and joined the CDCBAA.
Since joining the CDCBAA, I have noticed a division among bankruptcy
attorneys. For example, LACBA, the L.A.
or O.C. Bankruptcy Forums and the Financial Lawyers Association membership is
made up mostly of business Chapter 11 attorneys on both the debtor and creditor
sides while the CDCBAA counts as members Chapter 11 attorneys who also handle
consumer cases. Few attorneys belong to both camps.
Regardless of the composition of the CDCBAA or the LABF, it appears
that the Chapter 11 attorneys who are also members of the CDCBAA do not
communicate with each other as much as we should. Other Chapter 11
attorneys on this listserv have recognized this before. However, I do not
think anybody has taken the first step to getting all of the CDCBAA Chapter 11
attorneys together at a dinner or lunch event or otherwise. Needless to
say, although we are all somewhat each other's competition, it is important to
know each other when conflicts arise or when there is an opportunity to
represent creditors' committees, for example. In the business Chapter 11
bar, since businesses typically operate through multiple legal entities, a good
portion of cases are referred out because of conflicts and you will always send
cases to people you know and trust to do a good job for the client.
Penetrating the business Chapter 11 bar is priceless but not easy.
Perhaps BAPCPA, which I believe increased the need for Chapter 11
attorneys for individuals, presents us with an opportunity to make new friends
and hopefully increase business.
All of the foregoing is my
round-about way of asking all of the CDCBAA Chapter 11 attorneys to please
reply identifying yourselves and providing your contact information to gauge
interest in organizing a gathering and to know where to send you notice of such
event, if any.
Sincerely,
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Phone: (888) 619-8222 x101
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.
Holly Roark
holly@roarklawoffices.com
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
The post was migrated from Yahoo.