listing debts secured by RP on Stmt. of Intention
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:07 pm
Ok, I see your point. But, sometimes I get from out-of-state lenders
or equity funds reaffirmation agreements. As we discussed, maybe the
ultimate appellate issued is left to the pro per that signs a
reaffirmation, and the court enters an order on it after a hearing.
That order may give rise to the security first rule being triggered,
followed by a quiet title action that would release the collateral in
place of the personal judgment. File a chapter 13 to discharge the
personal property judgment? This could be the next waive, as were the
lien stripping cases!
>
> Lou:
>
>
>
> I have been out town for a week, so I am jumping in late on this.
As Jim
> Selth pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, the appropriate
way to
> list these mortgages on the statement of intention is to state that the
> debtor intends to keep and pay. The reasoning behind the keep and
pay case
> law has not changed with BAPCPA. The only thing that has changed is
that
> the ipso facto clause override of 365 has been excluded from
application to
> personal property by 521(a)(6). Thus RP should be listed as keep
and pay
> and as such will not create any rights in the creditor that they do
not have
> due to our anti deficiency statutes.
>
>
>
> Pat
>
>
>
> Patrick T. Green
>
> 1010 E. Union Street
>
> Suite 206
>
> Pasadena, CA 91106
>
> Tel: 626-449-8433
>
> Fax: 626-449-0565
>
> pat@...
>
>
>
Behalf Of
> Law Offices of Louis J. Esbin
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 7:30 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: listing debts secured by RP on Stmt. of Intention
>
>
>
> I believe California real property law controls in this situation.
> And, California is an anti-deficiency state, whereas most others are
> not. What would happen if a debt secured by a California residence
> was not listed on the Statement of Intentions? Is it being suggested
> that a lender can commence foreclosure? I'll take that case on! In
> the alternative, what if the debt is listed on the Statement of
> Intention, is it equally arguable that a lender can be forced under
> the Bankruptcy Code to obtain an order that would deem the debt the
> personal liability of the debtor; in other words, there would be a
> personal judgment of reaffirmation? That's would be the security
> first rule. I'll take that one too!
>
> These issues were first raised in the Claims MCLE we did last year.
> In February, we are going to have an MCLE on California mortgage and
> deed of trust practice under BAPCPA. Judge Bufford may be one
> panelist, I am another, and I am trying to get Chuck Hansen, who wrote
> the California Mortgage & Deed of Trust Practice Guide to come down
> from Oakland, where he practices. He and I are close friends, and we
> could not get a better authority. He is also professor of real
> property at Boalt Hall.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com , "Raj
> Wadhwani" wrote:
> >
> > You're right. Section 521 used to say "consumer". I just looked at my
> > black line edition & the work consumer is crossed out.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nonetheless, I typically just list all secured consumer debt in
the Stmt
> > of Intentions.
> >
> >
> >
> > Also, unless I'm mistaken, 521(a)(2) is not limited to personal
property
> > (even pre-BAPCPA).
> >
> >
> >
> > Raj T. Wadhwani
> >
> > Wadhwani Law Firm, APLC
> >
> > 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1120
> >
> > Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
> >
> > Phone: (818) 784-0500
> >
> > Fax: (818) 784-0508
> >
> > raj@
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com ]
On Behalf
> > Of Mark JM
> > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 9:44 AM
> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] listing debts secured by RP on Stmt. of
Intention
> >
> >
> >
> > Where in 521(a)(2) (or elsewhere) does it limit this to consumer
debts?
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________
> > Mark J. Markus
> > Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> > 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> > Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> > (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> > web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> > This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> > ___________
> > NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
office
> > of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended
> > for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note
> > that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this
> > message is prohibited.
> > IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed
> > by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
> > communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written 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 in
> > this communication (or in any attachment).
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> >
> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>
> >
> > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 9:15 AM
> >
> > Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] listing debts secured by RP on Stmt. of
> > Intention
> >
> >
> >
> > I do not list them because they are not "consumer debts secured
> > by personal property of the estate" if non-residential real property.
> > If residential real property then CA anti-deficiency statute renders
> > listing purchase money loan meaningless. For non-purchase money loan
> > (equity or refinance loan) secured by residence debtor is not required
> > to reaffirm the debt. However, I do indicate on Schedule A and D the
> > debtor's intent to surrender the property to the creditor or to
retain.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > Mark JM wrote:
> >
> > This is more a matter of form over substance, but do any
> > of you list debts secured by real property on the statement of
> > intentions form? I think technically we're supposed to, although in
> > practice I suspect few of us do because none of the stated options
> > really applies--in California anyway.
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________
> > Mark J. Markus
> > Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> > 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> > Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> > (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> > web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> > This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> > ___________
> > NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information
> > from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The
> > information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are
> > not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use
> > of the contents of this message is prohibited.
> > IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with
> > requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax
advice
> > contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended
> > or written 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 in this communication (or in any attachment).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
> > Mobile. Try it now.
> >
The post was migrated from Yahoo.