Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

I agree with Peter that 18% in California is fine.
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
Avanesian Law Firm
801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: 818.276.2477 | Fax: 818.208.4550
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
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 herein.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Peter Lively petermlively2000@yahoo.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> [Attachment(s) from Peter Lively included below]
>
> See section 511
> [image: image1.PNG]
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos.
> Thank you.
>
> On Mar 9, 2016, at 9:20 PM, stephen burton stephenburtonlaw@yahoo.com
> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
>
> Does anyone have any further comments on this thread? Counties filing
> claims for property tax arrears at the 18% rate. Some stopped doing it
> for a while, but now they appear to be bringing back the practice. I
> thought the practice had stopped or judges were just ruling against the
> counties when a claim objection was brought. Any insights?
>
> Steve Burton
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 28, 2008 11:32 AM, "Hale Andrew Antico, Esq." bk.lawyer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> An update on this. To me, it's a matter for a judge to determine. Issue:
> Should the tax collector get the same interest rate as a credit card or as
> a secured lienholder (*Till* et.al.)? They have a favorable set of
> rulings in OC, but I'm not convinced the Valley judges will see it the same
> way (this one's with G. Mund). If I can oppose and get an opinion that
> 8.75% or whatever is reasonable, that seems to be good all around. OC Tax
> won't negotiate and wants to roll the dice with a decision thus far. Case
> continued to June.
>
> Any input or insight is welcome.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com [mailto:cdcbaa@ yahoogroups. com] *On
> Behalf Of *Raymond Bulaon
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 14, 2008 2:01 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] Orange County tax arrearages
>
> Got the same letter from Riverside County tax collector yesterday. Cites
> case law and relevant code sections. I believe they are correct.
>
> Ray Bulaon, ESQ.
> Ray Bulaon Law Offices, Inc.
> Telephone (818) 243-7745 Fax (818) 243-7795
> *Locations: Glendale, Cerritos & West Covina*
> Website: www.bulaonlaw. com
>
> ********** PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE **********
> The information in this electronic mail is intended for the named
> recipients only. It may contain privileged and confidential matter. If you
> have received this electronic mail in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by replying to this e-mail or by collect call to (818)
> 243-7745. Do not disclose the contents to anyone.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com [mailto:cdcbaa@ yahoogroups. com] *On
> Behalf Of *Jeffrey Cancilla
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:56 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Orange County tax arrearages
>
> The Riverside Tax Collector took same position in a chap 13 recently in my
> case, stating it was secured debt b/c of the property tax lien they
> routinely place on properties w/ delinquent property taxes. The 18% is
> determined by R&T Code, according to the letter. If you send your fax #, I
> can fax you the letter which had legal citations.
>
> Law Office of Jeffrey A. Cancilla & Associates
> 15355 Brookhurst St., Suite 202
> Westminster , CA 92683
> 714-418-9735
> 714-418-9738 (fax)
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:15:43 PM
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Orange County tax arrearages
> Chapter 13 in Valley (less than 100%) and a creditor is the Orange County
> tax collector, who is objecting. Just curious: they will withdrawal
> objection if we interlineate eighteen percent (18%) interest on arrears. He
> says SA Division supports his percentage, even though we're in SV. Does
> anyone have experience with this specific issue? That seems awfully hgh.
> Is he full of hot air?
>
>
>
>
>
I agree with Peter that 18% in California is fine.Sincerely,
The post was migrated from Yahoo.