Try Judicial Estoppel:
"Judicial estoppel is an equitable
doctrine that precludes a party from gaining an advantage
by asserting one position, and then later seeking an
advantage by taking a clearly inconsistent position." Hamilton
v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir.
2001).
>
> I would send a letter to whoever prepared the POC and ask them to
detail
> all expenses included in the POC. Then compare that to the payoff
> statement. This gives them a chance to fix the error. Then once
you
> egt your response (unless it is "oops we made a mistake) definitely
> object to the POC. I would be happy to take a look at what you
have
> once you have the response from your letter.
>
>
>
> Erik Clark
> Borowitz, Lozano & Clark, LLP
> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
> West Covina, CA 91791
> Office: (626) 332-8600
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
> eclark@...
>
>
www.BLClaw.com
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
Behalf
> Of Mark JM
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:21 AM
> To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Objecting to reinstatement figure in Ch. 13
>
>
>
> For all you Ch. 13 mortgage experts out there:
>
>
>
> If a debtor received, pre-petition, a reinstatement statement, good
> through the petition filing date, and used that figure in the plan
> calculations, and then that same creditor files a proof of claim
showing
> a much higher arrearage amount (adding in escrow advances, and
other
> fees), can I use the pre-petition document as a basis to object to
the
> claim, or is the proof of claim going to supercede that?
>
>
>
> ______________________
> 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).
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.