.jpg)
re 109 (e) Issue
charset="US-ASCII"
The court looks at Schedules D, E and F. Schedule D will state the value
of the property and the amount that is secured versus the amount that is
unsecured. BestCase will add up these numbers and state the total amount
of unsecured in the Plan under Class 5. Now Judge Tighe has stated that
as long as some portion of a lien is secured, the entire lien will be
counted as secured for 109(e) purposes. I believe, though, that there
are other decisions (different jurisdictions) which will bifurcate the
secured and unsecured portions regardless of whether or not they can be
stripped under Section 506. However, it does not appear that any of the
Judges in the Central District have signed on to that interpretation.
In your case, your PC is not eligible because you must add the $325K to
the $196K.
Nancy Clark
Borowitz & Clark, LLP
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.
Hello Everyone:
I use BestCase software to prepare ch 13 petitions and when it comes to creating the plan, there is an "error" button which indicates a potential 109(e) issue. In your experience, how do Judges in Woodland Hills and in LA interpret this section. Judge E. Carroll always states that the 109(e) issue is determined at the time of the filing. Here is the situation with a PC. PC has three loans against her principal residence totaling $606K. The first loan is $410K and the appraisal came in at $405K. Therefore, there is an "undersecured portion" of $196K. PC also has $325K in unsecured debt ("F" debt). Summary of Schedules states $606K for secured claims and $325K for unsecured nonpriority claims. The error message that I get states "unsecured debt is over by $184,100. I know that the limit for unsecured nonpriority debts is $336,900 and based on my research, the undersecured portion of the loans are counted toward this limit, but sometimes I see a different interpretation. I guess my question is "do the judges look at summary of schedules to determine if there is a 109(e) issue or is there some other formula"? Any advice is greatly appreciated!
Thanks
Sofya
The post was migrated from Yahoo.