Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

charset-ASCII;
delsps;
formatowed
As another side note, I've successfully opposed a 707(b), not on the
facts, but the law. I have a brief if anyone wants it. I've also
lost one, which is up on appeal with the BAP, with oral arguments
this Friday.
On Jul 23, 2005, at 10:08 AM, NickLambajian@aol.com wrote:
> Perhaps amended schedules with supporting documentation to the UST
> might keep them at bay. Although 707(b) seems to be the new mantra
> of the UST. When I clerked for Judge Lasarow, years ago, we saw
> one or two every six months. Now the docket is full of these
> motions. And I haven't seen one successfully opposed. I think you
> do you client a disservice by not opposing it and voluntarily
> converting. In most instances, if the 707(b) mx is successful, the
> judge grants 30 days to file a motion to convert. You would still
> have that option.
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> Visit your group "cdcbaa" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> cdcbaa-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
charsetO-8859-1
As another side note, I've successfully opposed a 707(b), not on the facts, but the law. I have a brief if anyone wants it. I've also lost one, which is up on appeal with the BAP, with oral arguments this Friday.On Jul 23, 2005, at 10:08 AM, NickLambajian@aol.com wrote: Perhaps amended schedules with supporting documentation to the UST might keep them at bay. Although 707(b) seems to be the new mantra of the UST. When I clerked for Judge Lasarow, years ago, we saw one or two every six months. Now the docket is full of these motions. And I haven't seen one successfully opposed. I think you do you client a disservice by not opposing it and voluntarily converting. In most instances, if the 707(b) mx is successful, the judge grants 30 days to file a motion to convert. You would still have that option.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

The marriage was not planned. Learning of the
pregnancy preceded any notions of marriage.
>
>
>
>
> . previously . Chapter 7
> . paralegal . Case dismissed section 707(b).
> new Chapter 7 case 3 months after the dismissal.
> >
> > Current Chapter 7 is being attacked by a Motion to
> > Dismiss based again on 707(b) for substantial
> abuse
> by the US Trustee. Their main contention is that
> client has extra income because her expenses are
> overstated. Client is definitely not well off and
> > prefers not to contest the motion to dimiss and
> convert this to a Chapter 13.
>
> Here is the current instruction for Schedule I
> INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SCHEDULE I
> SCHEDULE OF CURRENT INCOME OF INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR(S)
> The Bankruptcy Code requires all debtors to file a
> statement of current income and current
> expenditures.
> 11 U.S.C. 521(1). .....(corporate instructions
> deleted)....The individual debtor should total the
> monthly income for the debtor and, in a joint case
> or
> a chapter 12 or chapter 13 case filed by a married
> debtor, the debtor's spouse and place the total on
> the
> line provided. The total combined monthly income
> should be placed on the form and reported on the
> Summary of Schedules under the column labeled
> "Other."
> Debtors should include a description of any
> anticipated increase or decrease of over ten percent
> (10%) in any category that may occur within the year
> following the filing of Schedule I.
>
> Note, ONLY in a joint case do you list both spouses
> incomes.
>
> However, the 10% rule must apply, the expenses must
> have a large changes....so she probably has to
> report
> everything, requiring an entire new budget. Worse,
> the UST will argue the anticipated changes should
> have
> been listed under the 10% rule, and the failure to
> do
> so is further bad faith.
>
> What were the circumstances of the marriage? Was it
> planned? If not planned, do you think you could
> convice the court and the UST the marriage was not
> planned?
>
> I hate the new slavery, so mostly I fight, but the
> new
> budget will tell you what to do.
>
> dennis
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Perhaps amended schedules with supporting documentation to the UST might
keep them at bay. Although 707(b) seems to be the new mantra of the UST. When I
clerked for Judge Lasarow, years ago, we saw one or two every six months.
Now the docket is full of these motions. And I haven't seen one successfully
opposed. I think you do you client a disservice by not opposing it and
voluntarily converting. In most instances, if the 707(b) mx is successful, the
judge grants 30 days to file a motion to convert. You would still have that
option.
Perhaps amended schedules with supporting documentation to the UST
might keep them at bay. Although 707(b) seems to be the new mantra of the
UST. When I clerked for Judge Lasarow, years ago, we saw one or two every
six months. Now the docket is full of these motions. And I haven't seen
one successfully opposed. I think you do you client a disservice by not
opposing it and voluntarily converting. In most instances, if the 707(b)
mx is successful, the judge grants 30 days to file a motion to convert.
You would still have that option.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

on a side note:
after reading some of the comments to this quesxtion:
is there no such thing as FRCP 60 any longer???
has inadvertence, neglect and sometimes just plain stupidity been removed as an instrument for attorneys to come back into court w/an equitable defense???
________________________________

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

. previously . Chapter 7
. paralegal . Case dismissed section 707(b).
new Chapter 7 case 3 months after the dismissal.
>
> Current Chapter 7 is being attacked by a Motion to
> Dismiss based again on 707(b) for substantial abuse
by the US Trustee. Their main contention is that
client has extra income because her expenses are
overstated. Client is definitely not well off and
> prefers not to contest the motion to dimiss and
convert this to a Chapter 13.
Here is the current instruction for Schedule I
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SCHEDULE I
SCHEDULE OF CURRENT INCOME OF INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR(S)
The Bankruptcy Code requires all debtors to file a
statement of current income and current expenditures.
11 U.S.C. 521(1). .....(corporate instructions
deleted)....The individual debtor should total the
monthly income for the debtor and, in a joint case or
a chapter 12 or chapter 13 case filed by a married
debtor, the debtor's spouse and place the total on the
line provided. The total combined monthly income
should be placed on the form and reported on the
Summary of Schedules under the column labeled "Other."
Debtors should include a description of any
anticipated increase or decrease of over ten percent
(10%) in any category that may occur within the year
following the filing of Schedule I.

Note, ONLY in a joint case do you list both spouses
incomes.
However, the 10% rule must apply, the expenses must
have a large changes....so she probably has to report
everything, requiring an entire new budget. Worse,
the UST will argue the anticipated changes should have
been listed under the 10% rule, and the failure to do
so is further bad faith.
What were the circumstances of the marriage? Was it
planned? If not planned, do you think you could
convice the court and the UST the marriage was not
planned?
I hate the new slavery, so mostly I fight, but the new
budget will tell you what to do.
dennis
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I have a client who previously filed a Chapter 7 through a paralegal
service in late 2004. Case was later dismissed under section 707(b).
Because of deficiencies in client's prior filing, I filed a new
Chapter 7 case 3 months after the dismissal.
Current Chapter 7 is being attacked by a Motion to Dismiss based
again on 707(b) for substantial abuse by the US Trustee. Their main
contention is that client has extra income because her expenses are
overstated and her income appears to be higher than stated on the
schedules. Client is definitely not well off and prefers not to
contest the motion to dimiss and convert this to a Chapter 13.
Note that the client has had a change in income level since the
second Chapter 7 filing. Although she is still employed by the same
company, her position has changed and her gross pay has decreased.
In addition, she is now preganant (did not know this prior to
filing) and has moved in with her now husband. Would the above post-
petition changes aid in opposing the Motion to Dismiss or should
this case be converted to a chapter 13 first?
Thanks in advance,
Khiem T. Tran, Esq.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.