Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Pay enough into the estate to cover estate's administrative expenses and the secured creditor or covert to Chapter 13
Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos.
Thank you.
> On Feb 12, 2016, at 10:46 AM, nclark@blclaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
>
> Fact Pattern:
>
> Debtor files chapter 7. Claims homestead exemption of $175,000 because she is 91 years old. Lists the mortgage on the home of $68,000. Prior to filing she obtained an appraisal of the property on 6/29/15 and the appraiser valued the property at $200,000. Next day she files her case. She files several Section 522(f) motions and removes several liens. Creditor X files opposition valuing the property at $380,000 and stating that its claim of $40,000 is secured. Chapter 7 Trustee decides he is going to liquidate the property and files asset report. Only two POC are filed. Creditor X files secured poc for $40,000, and IRS files claim for $15,000 for unassessed taxes. Debtor fills out appropriate documents to show she does not owe the taxes. IRS withdraws its claim. Debtor withdraws Section 522(f) Motion, and calls the Chapter 7 trustee to explain that there is not unsecured creditors. Trustee states that they have made a deal with Creditor X. Creditor X has agreed to amend its claim as unsecured. Debtor tell Trustee that if that is done, she is going to object to the claim on the basis of Judicial Estoppel. Creditor X who has filed an Opposition to the 522(f) Motion and a secured claim, now is conspiring with the Trustee to sell Debtor's property for the sole purpose of immediately pay Creditor X and to generate fees for the Chapter 7 Trustee.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

jeff looke at the brief we filed in wolkowitz v beverly in the last case, long argument re judiciall estopple.
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 7:27 PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Judicial Estoppel
PC is being sued by someone who filed BK, Chapter 7. The plaintiff/debtor vaguely listed "claims" against my client and listed the value as $0.00, in his Schedule B. I think it matters (maybe) that the debtor/plaintiff also listed some other schedule B assets as "unkown". Ergo: the plaintiff/debtor knows the difference between "$0.00" and "unknown".
The debtor/plaintiff submitted a stipulation to his chapter 7 trustee in his case to abandon the claims, the trustee signed it and the BK judge ordered the "claims" against PC abandoned under section 554.
Now plaintiff is suing my client for $$ damages including fraud.
I found no less than 100 cases from all over the country that say that unscheduled claims are subject to being dismissed based on judicial estoppel. I'm looking for any case that says the same theory applies to a case where the asset IS listed, but the value is stated as "$0.00" The rationale for estoppel seems to be the same, but I'd love to see a case.
Would it change any of your opinions if I told you that the "0.00" "claims" AGAINST my client will be 523 claims in a BK court, as my PC is in his own chapter 7? I think that helps me as the BK judge in my PC's case is going to hear how the plaintiff in a 523 action told another BK judge (and chapter 7 trustee), down the hall, a few months ago that these same claims have a value of "0.00", and that judge signed an abandonment order at least in part based on that misrepresentation in plaintiff/debtor's schedules.
Jeffrey B. Smith**
CURD, GALINDO & SMITH, L.L.P.
301 East Ocean Blvd. #1700
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 624-1177
(562) 624-1178 fax
(310) 993-6560 cellular
www.expertbk.com
jeff looke at the brief we filed in wolkowitz v beverly in the last case, long argument re judiciall estopple.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charsetndows-1252
I suggest you read Russell, Bankruptcy Evidence Manual, for sure, as that is a quite comprehensive resource on Judicial Estoppel.
Jason
Jason Wallach
jwallach@gladstonemichel.com
On Jun 18, 2012, at 7:27 PM, jbsesq1965 wrote:
> PC is being sued by someone who filed BK, Chapter 7. The plaintiff/debtor vaguely listed "claims" against my client and listed the value as $0.00, in his Schedule B. I think it matters (maybe) that the debtor/plaintiff also listed some other schedule B assets as "unkown". Ergo: the plaintiff/debtor knows the difference between "$0.00" and "unknown".
>
> The debtor/plaintiff submitted a stipulation to his chapter 7 trustee in his case to abandon the claims, the trustee signed it and the BK judge ordered the "claims" against PC abandoned under section 554.
>
> Now plaintiff is suing my client for $$ damages including fraud.
>
> I found no less than 100 cases from all over the country that say that unscheduled claims are subject to being dismissed based on judicial estoppel. I'm looking for any case that says the same theory applies to a case where the asset IS listed, but the value is stated as "$0.00" The rationale for estoppel seems to be the same, but I'd love to see a case.
>
> Would it change any of your opinions if I told you that the "0.00" "claims" AGAINST my client will be 523 claims in a BK court, as my PC is in his own chapter 7? I think that helps me as the BK judge in my PC's case is going to hear how the plaintiff in a 523 action told another BK judge (and chapter 7 trustee), down the hall, a few months ago that these same claims have a value of "0.00", and that judge signed an abandonment order at least in part based on that misrepresentation in plaintiff/debtor's schedules.
>
>
> Jeffrey B. Smith**
> CURD, GALINDO & SMITH, L.L.P.
> 301 East Ocean Blvd. #1700
> Long Beach, CA 90802
> (562) 624-1177
> (562) 624-1178 fax
> (310) 993-6560 cellular
> www.expertbk.com
>
>
charsetndows-1252
I suggest you read Russell, Bankruptcy Evidence Manual, for sure, as that is a quite comprehensive resource on Judicial Estoppel.Jason
Jason Wallach
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

PC is being sued by someone who filed BK, Chapter 7. The plaintiff/debtor vaguely listed "claims" against my client and listed the value as $0.00, in his Schedule B. I think it matters (maybe) that the debtor/plaintiff also listed some other schedule B assets as "unkown". Ergo: the plaintiff/debtor knows the difference between "$0.00" and "unknown".
The debtor/plaintiff submitted a stipulation to his chapter 7 trustee in his case to abandon the claims, the trustee signed it and the BK judge ordered the "claims" against PC abandoned under section 554.
Now plaintiff is suing my client for $$ damages including fraud.
I found no less than 100 cases from all over the country that say that unscheduled claims are subject to being dismissed based on judicial estoppel. I'm looking for any case that says the same theory applies to a case where the asset IS listed, but the value is stated as "$0.00" The rationale for estoppel seems to be the same, but I'd love to see a case.
Would it change any of your opinions if I told you that the "0.00" "claims" AGAINST my client will be 523 claims in a BK court, as my PC is in his own chapter 7? I think that helps me as the BK judge in my PC's case is going to hear how the plaintiff in a 523 action told another BK judge (and chapter 7 trustee), down the hall, a few months ago that these same claims have a value of "0.00", and that judge signed an abandonment order at least in part based on that misrepresentation in plaintiff/debtor's schedules.
Jeffrey B. Smith**
CURD, GALINDO & SMITH, L.L.P.
301 East Ocean Blvd. #1700
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 624-1177
(562) 624-1178 fax
(310) 993-6560 cellular
www.expertbk.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.