Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Not enforceable. Clear insiders. Should have been a secured loan to
avoid these issues. If there is equity in the property and pc wants
to sell then should file prior to selling property so can take
advantage of the homestead exemption and then sell after case is
closed or after home is abandoned back to her by trustee if earlier.
That way the 6 month recapture rule will not be applicable.
Mark T. Jessee
Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
"A Debt Relief Agency"
50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 497-5868
On Tue 2/02/10 12:28 PM , Daniela Romero dromerolaw@gmail.com sent:
Hi all,
Potential client(PC) is mother; she put daughter and son-in-law on
title of her house 2yrs ago; PC on fixed income and having financial
difficulties (I believe mostly credit card) and will be coming in for
consult. Son-in-law advanced $$ for repairs--he claims 49k, but PC
doesn't believe it was that much. House is now on market and
son-in-law wants PC to sign doc stating that he will get 49k off the
top; proceeds to be divided and then PC agrees not to file bk for 120
days.
Will get more info when she comes in--she may only need assist in
debt reduction (will have her call Debbie Tyrell, David Tilem's
referral--if this is the case), but my initial question is whether an
agmt not to file bk is enforceable? I imagine that the kids, by
including such a clause, are probably trying to get around a
preference issue--maybe not knowing that they are insiders anyway.
Any initial thoughts about this?
Thanks,
--
Daniela P. Romero
Law Office of Daniela Romero, APLC
1015 N. Lake Ave., Ste. 115
Pasadena, CA 91104
Telephone:626-817-2611
Facsimile: 626-628-1781
email: dromerolaw@gmail.com [1]
NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. The
information herein is confidential, privileged & exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. This E-mail (including attachments)
are intended solely for the use of the addressee hereof. If you are
not the intended recipient of this message, you are prohibited from
reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing, disseminating, or
otherwise using this transmission. The originator of this e-mail and
its affiliates do not represent, warrant or guarantee that the
integrity of this communication has been maintained or that this
communication is free of errors, viruses or other defects. Delivery
of this message or any portions herein to any person other than the
intended recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege.
If you have received this message in error, please promptly notify the
sender by e-mail and immediately delete this message.
To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of
Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed
under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or
recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Links:
[1] mailto:dromerolaw@gmail.com
[2] mailto:dromerolaw@gmail.com?subjectagreement not to file bk for
120 days; enforceable?
[3] mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com?subjectagreement not to file bk
for 120 days; enforceable?
[4]

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Hi all,
Potential client(PC) is mother; she put daughter and son-in-law on title of
her house 2yrs ago; PC on fixed income and having financial difficulties (I
believe mostly credit card) and will be coming in for consult. Son-in-law
advanced $$ for repairs--he claims 49k, but PC doesn't believe it was that
much. House is now on market and son-in-law wants PC to sign doc stating
that he will get 49k off the top; proceeds to be divided and then PC agrees
not to file bk for 120 days.
Will get more info when she comes in--she may only need assist in debt
reduction (will have her call Debbie Tyrell, David Tilem's referral--if this
is the case), but my initial question is whether an agmt not to file bk is
enforceable? I imagine that the kids, by including such a clause, are
probably trying to get around a preference issue--maybe not knowing that
they are insiders anyway.
Any initial thoughts about this?
Thanks,
Daniela P. Romero
Law Office of Daniela Romero, APLC
1015 N. Lake Ave., Ste. 115
Pasadena, CA 91104
Telephone:626-817-2611
Facsimile: 626-628-1781
email: dromerolaw@gmail.com
NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. The information herein
is confidential, privileged & exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
This E-mail (including attachments) are intended solely for the use of the
addressee hereof. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
you are prohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing,
disseminating, or otherwise using this transmission. The originator of this
e-mail and its affiliates do not represent, warrant or guarantee that the
integrity of this communication has been maintained or that this
communication is free of errors, viruses or other defects. Delivery of this
message or any portions herein to any person other than the intended
recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have
received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by e-mail
and immediately delete this message.
To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal
tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot
be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal
Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any
transaction or matter addressed herein.
Hi all,Potential client(PC) is mother; she put daughter and son-in-law on title of her house 2yrs ago; PC on fixed income and having financial difficulties (I believe mostly credit card) and will be coming in for consult. Son-in-law advanced $$ for repairs--he claims 49k, but PC doesn't believe it was that much. House is now on market and son-in-law wants PC to sign doc stating that he will get 49k off the top; proceeds to be divided and then PC agrees not to file bk for 120 days.
Will get more info when she comes in--she may only need assist in debt reduction (will have her call Debbie Tyrell, David Tilem's referral--if this is the case), but my initial question is whether an agmt not to file bk is enforceable? I imagine that the kids, by including such a clause, are probably trying to get around a preference issue--maybe not knowing that they are insiders anyway.
Any initial thoughts about this? Thanks,-- Daniela P. RomeroLaw Office of Daniela Romero, APLC1015 N. Lake Ave., Ste. 115Pasadena, CA 91104Telephone:626-817-2611Facsimile: 626-628-1781
email: dromerolaw@gmail.comNOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. The information herein is confidential, privileged & exempt from disclosure under applicable law. This E-mail (including attachments) are intended solely for the use of the addressee hereof. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are prohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing, disseminating, or otherwise using this transmission. The originator of this e-mail and its affiliates do not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that this communication is free of errors, viruses or other defects. Delivery of this message or any portions herein to any person other than the intended recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by e-mail and immediately delete this message.
To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.