Move Over Sundquist – 9th Circuit Says Enticing a Borrower to Apply for a Loan Mod It Knows Will be Rejected is a Violation of California B & P 17200

By | June 20, 2017 | Foreclosure Corner | No comments

Oskoui v. JP Morgan Chase, 851 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. March, 2017)

Issue:   Did the bank’s offer to the borrower that she apply for a loan modification which it knew would be rejected because the borrower did not qualify constitute unfair competition under California B & P Section 17200?

Holding:   Yes, at least enough to overcome summary judgment.  The borrower “was the victim of an unconscionable process.”

Appeal from district court, Judge Fernando Olguin

Judge Stephen Trott

“Mahin Oskoui sued defendant J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) for damages allegedly suffered when she unsuccessfully attempted over a two-year period to modify the loan on her home.”  When she became delinquent on her house payments, she began responding to Chase letters offering her loan modifications which she found out later she did not qualify for under any circumstances.  With each application, she made certain required payments to Chase, she should have learnt about payday loans no credit check

 

Read more…

This is Huge . . . California Dismantling the State Board of Equalization . . . and there is very little news about it

By | June 19, 2017 | Taxes | No comments

The California Board of Equalization administers taxes that account for about a third of the state’s revenues: sales taxes, use taxes, excise taxes, even cannabis taxes.  It also serves as the state’s tax court: if you contest any audit performed by a state taxing agency (Franchise Tax Board or Board of Equalization), you would file a petition with the Board of Equalization.  Five members sit on the Board: the state controller, and four elected members who serve geographical districts.

Many of our clients owe taxes to this agency. The split will definitely affect attorneys who practice bankruptcy law

On Thursday, June 15, the California Assembly voted to dismantle the Board of Equalization and create two new agencies.  One will administer taxes, and the other will handle the tax appeals that the Board currently handles.  The change will take effect on July 1, 2017 – in two weeks. Read more…

Mortgage Refinance Calculator

By | June 19, 2017 | Community, Foreclosure Corner | No comments

This “tool” is really nice.  If you want to refi your mortgage and get a lower interest rate, you have to pay points, appraisal, other costs etc.  You’re actually in the hole for a while.  Is it worth it?  This calculator is just my style – SIMPLE and gives you a straight answer.  You can get it here.

Bringing an Action in Federal Court versus State Court.

By | June 16, 2017 | Community, Courts | No comments

On another list serve an attorney asked if there was any benefit to bringing an action in federal court versus state court (assuming there is diversity).  My friend Gary Wallace’s answer is great.

There are a great many differences between the two forums.  Here are some:

1.    Filing fees differ, especially post-complaint filing.  E.g., MSJ fee now $500 in state court.  Non-refundable $150 jury fee must be posted very early in the case (or waiver may result) (CCP 631).  Typical motion fee: $60.  It can add up.

2.    Time to respond to complaint: 21 days in federal court vs. 30 days in state court.

3.    Recording of proceedings:  Under federal law, each session of court and every proceeding designated by rule or order of the court or by one of the judges shall be recorded verbatim by shorthand, stenotype, stenomask, or electronic sound recording equipment. The method of recording may be elected by the district judge.  In contrast, budgetary constraints have greatly reduced the availability of court reporters in state court proceedings and there is little or no electronic recording. Read more…

San Fernando Valley Bar Association; Bankruptcy Section Program; “Settling with the Trustees” Friday, June 16, 2017, at 12 noon

By | June 12, 2017 | Community, Programs | No comments

Email from Steve Fox

Dear All:

This is the monthly message I send to you.

The SFVBA Bankruptcy Section monthly meeting will be this Friday.  The topic is a good one, one that we have gone back to repeatedly over the years because of many requests that we update and repeat the program. Each time, the panel of trustees and trustee attorneys look at the recent issues.  One issue will look at trustee efforts to go after the homestead exemption following the sale of the homestead.  Another will look at the goings on in a chapter 7 case where the trustee sold the family residence to a third party,  the various issues which arose and how the parties and the court dealt with the issues.  In that case, the IRS asserted that its penalty claim against the debtors had to satisfied from the Debtor’s homestead monies.  This particular case had its share of drama too. Read more…

US Trustee’s FY 2016 Annual Report on Criminal Referrals

By | June 11, 2017 | U.S. Trustee | No comments

From the report (which you access here):

The United States Trustee Program (Program or USTP) made 2,158 bankruptcy and bankruptcy-related criminal referrals during Fiscal Year (FY) 2016. This represents a 1.3 percent increase from the 2,131 criminal referrals made during FY 2015.  The five most common allegations contained in the FY 2016 criminal referrals involved tax fraud, false oath or statement, concealment of assets, bankruptcy fraud scheme, and identity theft or use of false/multiple Social Security numbers.

Of the 2,158 criminal referrals, as of January 9, 2017, formal criminal charges had been filed in connection with 16 of the referrals, 1,416 of the referrals remained under review or investigation, 723 of the referrals were declined for prosecution, and three were administratively closed.

Consumer Financial Protection Board Slaps Around Fay Servicing

By | June 10, 2017 | Foreclosure Corner | No comments

“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today took action against mortgage servicer Fay Servicing for failing to provide mortgage borrowers with the protections against foreclosure that are required by law.”  The article on the CFPB website can be accessed here.

NextChapter Software – the best bankruptcy software!

By | June 10, 2017 | Community, Firm Announcements | No comments

This isn’t the typical substantive bk news I share but I recently started my own practice in Glendale and spent hours looking at different bankruptcy petition preparing software – Bestcase, CINCompass, etc.  Then I stumbled upon NextChapter when setting up my practice management software, Clio.  On Clio, there was a feature where you can sync your practice management software with NextChapter (that in itself is unheard of because I said to myself “great, the two softwares will “talk” to each other!)   So I looked into NextChapter and I was absolutely blown away!

No, I am not a paid spokesperson but I promised the CEO/Founder, a wonderful young women, that I would help spread the word about her amazing software.  Their customer service is amazing and their software is unmatched (plus it is much more affordable than the clunky competitors).  Here’s a link – https://nextchapterbk.com/

You can find me now at sevan@gorginianlaw.com

Proposed Amended Local Rules

By | June 7, 2017 | Court Clerk Information, Courts | No comments

This is the announcement re the comment period.  As they say, if you don’t speak up now, don’t start complaining later.  A redline of the amendments can be accessed here.

RE: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON PROPOSED LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULES AMENDMENTS

The United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, is proposing amendments to its Local Bankruptcy Rules, to become effective December 1, 2017, and is circulating the proposed amendments to the bar and public for comment.  A summary and redline of the proposed amendments is available on the Court’s website www.cacb.uscourts.gov under Rules, or by clicking here.

All comments on the proposed amendments will be carefully considered by the Court.  Please provide any comments on the proposed amendments as soon as possible but no later than July 7, 2017.

Comments concerning the proposed amendments must be submitted by email to bkcomments@cacb.uscourts.gov and include the name, email address, and phone number of the person submitting the comment.

KATHLEEN J. CAMPBELL

CLERK OF COURT

State Bar “Sections” to Separate from the State Bar, Effective as Early as January 1, 2018

By | June 5, 2017 | Community, Current Events, Legislation | No comments

From Jim Hill, Chairman of the Business Law Section of the State Bar:

The bar restructuring legislation, SB 36, passed unanimously in the Senate and has been sent to the Assembly for its consideration in the early days of the summer.  If all stays on track, we are looking for the Sections to emerge into the new entity as early as January 1, 2018.

The summary of Senate Bill 36 provides:    Read more…

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →