=?iso-8859-1?q?Response_to_trustee=92s_objection_=96_no_Lam_motion_filed.?=
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:12 pm
I have a chapter 13 case in Santa Ana with a wholly unsecured junior lien and debtor chose not to do a Lam motion. The plan proposes to pay 18% to unsecured creditors. Trustee filed an objection to the plan stating "The Debtors propose to pay in full totally unsecured junior liens while proposing an 18% dividend to the general unsecured creditors. The disparate treatment of unsecured creditors violates 1322 (a)(3) and (b)(1) and the plan should not be confirmed." Trustee is arguing that treating a wholly unsecured junior lien as a secured lien is discriminatory.
Any input and/or a sample brief on this issue will be greatly appreciated.
Jasmine Dzhanszyan
Ray Bulaon Law Offices, Inc.
818-243-7745
The post was migrated from Yahoo.