Brace Yourself! Nice program coming up on the new California Supreme Court analysis of community property

By | August 19, 2020 | Cases, Programs | No comments

“BRACE YOURSELF”
THE SHOCKWAVE CAUSED BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN BRACE, THE EXTENT OF ITS IMPACT ON BANKRUPTCY CASES, OTHER COMMUNITY PROPERTY ISSUES, AND AN UPDATE ON RECENT HOMESTEAD CASES

Panelists:
Hon. Margaret M. Mann, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Southern District of California
D. Edward Hays, Marshack Hays LLP
Roksana D. Moradi-Brovia, Resnik Hayes Moradi LLP

Moderator:
Richard Marshack, Marshack Hays LLP

Topics to Include:
• What will be estate property when filing for just one spouse?
• How can a transmutation avoid the result in Brace?
• Are transmutations avoidable as fraudulent transfers?
• Is bankruptcy advisable when a divorce is pending?
• What claims will community property pay?
• The type of interest in property required to support a homestead under In re Nolan, __ B.R. __ (Bankr. C.D.Cal. July 21, 2020, J. Clarkson)

Thursday, September 10, 2020

Hosted by the Inland Empire Bankruptcy Forum – the flyer is here.  Brace Flyer_IEBF_9-10-209(b)

Secretary of State UCC-1 and Judgment Lien new search engine

By | August 18, 2020 | Community | No comments
This new search engine is amazing.  Find UCC-1s and tax liens in seconds.  Download a copy in seconds – no charge.
It even shows if the entity has a UCC-1 or judgment lien in its favor.

Wherein my 1111(b) article is cited by a Judge!

By | August 17, 2020 | Books & Articles, Chapter 11 | No comments

A thanks and tip of the hat to Bankruptcy Judge Eric Frank, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, for citing my article  The Section 1111(b) Election: A Primer, 31 Cal. Bankr. J. 755 (2011), written with Roksana Moradi-Brovia.   You can access the case here, In re Body Transit, Inc.  Pretty fun to be called a “commentator.”  Judge Frank writes, “One commentator explained it concisely as follows:” and goes on to quote two paragraphs from the article.

The issue to Judge Frank was whether the the bank’s “interest on account [of its claim] in [property of the estate] is of inconsequential value,” because if so, the bank cannot make the 1111(b) election.  The court said it was “inconsequential” under the facts of the case and pitched out the election.  Apparently here the value of the property was around $80,000 and the debt was $917,000 so the property was 8.2% of the debt.  Judge Frank rules that that is inconsequential, although comments that it is a close call.  I do not see it as a close call.  To force the debtor to pay the bank $917,000, certainly money taken away from other unsecured creditors, because its collateral is worth $80,000 is not a close call to me.

Judge Frank states astutely:

“[W]hile ‘the numbers’ provide an important starting point in deciding how much value is ‘inconsequential,’ the court also must consider other relevant circumstances presented in the case and make a holistic determination that takes into account the purpose and policy of the statutory provisions that govern the reorganization case.”

Here the bank was simply trying to scuttle the plan, in a subchapter V case by the way.  Judge Frank is absolutely correct here.

Bankruptcy filings down again in July 2020

By | August 14, 2020 | Bankruptcy Data | No comments

Sounds like groundhog day!  Total filings in the Central District were 158 more than June but 26% lower than July 2019.

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Jan 2,828 2,745 2,741 2,839 2,872 3,364 4,704
Feb 2,781 2,754 2,708 2,795 3,299 3,829 4,574
March 2,736 3,481 3,363 3,782 3,923 4,496 5,430
April 1,669 3,631 3,277 3,209 3,584 4,486 5,364
May 2,080 3,347 3,226 3,384 3,484 3,971 5,500
June 2,257 2,967 2,981 3,252 3,545 3,966 4,386
July 2,415 3,270 3,057 2,953 3,239 3,731 4,701
Aug 3,274 3,337 3,387 3,543 3,544 4,540
Sept 2,934 2,772 3,071 3,168 3,493 4,317
Oct 3,355 3,259 3,170 3,235 3,751 4,554
Nov 2,636 2,821 3,004 3,025 3,531 3,642
Dec 2,723 2,419 2,416 2,902 2,718 3,733
Total 16,766 37,117 35,961 37,262 39,819 44,880 55,445

There were 23 chapter 11s, 255 chapter 13s and the rest were chapter 7.

Filings by chapter for the year:

Non-Comm’l Commercial Chapter 7 Chapter 13 Chapter 11
15,273 1,496 14,004 2,585 178
91% 9% 84% 15% 1%

SFVBA Program on Homestead Exemption – this Friday, August 14, 2020 – noon

By | August 11, 2020 | Programs | No comments

Email from Steve Fox:

Dear All:

We have a nifty program for you this time around.  We have an all-Riverside area panel, Judge Meredith Jury (ret’d), Todd Turoci and Summer Shaw speaking about two important topics: the homestead exemption; and abandonment.  They will dig deep into the meat of the subjects.  Attending attorneys will learn a lot.  We have good, thick materials.  I have been reading them.  If you feel that you know these topics, guess again.  I was lucky to participate in the early discussions the panelists had, discussions that were fast, furious and lively, arguing the homestead exemption and abandonment.  This is a practical program that will enhance your legal abilities including the quality of legal advice you can render.

The program will be held through Zoom so you need to register for the program in order to receive the link and access password.

Here is basic information about the program:

Friday, August 14, 2020   12 noon
1 and ¼ hour MCLE

Charges:              $20 member;
$30 non-members  (So much less expensive than other bar associations – and better programs to boot!)

Here are the signup options:  Read more…

Update on Self-Help Desk in Woodland Hills

By | August 7, 2020 | Pro Bono | No comments

Email from Barbara Sanchez:

Good morning, wonderful volunteers,

I hope that you and your loved ones are happy, safe, and well.

Self-Help services are still being offered remotely. There is no date set for reopening in Woodland Hills, but we are not likely to open before mid-September. We have been able to help debtors file for Chapter 7 online, through electronic Self-Representation (eSR), sharing screens in MS Teams. It’s time-consuming, but it works well, and debtors appreciate the support.

Neighborhood Legal Services has hired a wonderful new employee, Daniel Calzadillas-Rodriguez. Daniel has been helping with calls to Spanish-speaking debtors, as well as translating bankruptcy materials. He is warm and supportive with debtors, yet professional, and has excellent computer and administrative skills. I look forward to introducing him to you when we reopen. Read more…

Judge Martin Barash new supplemental requirements for noticing motions before him.

By | July 30, 2020 | Courts, Judges Corner | No comments

In June, Judge Barash updated his posted “telephonic” procedures to include ZoomGov instructions and announced that he would be holding all hearings (unless otherwise ordered) using ZoomGov audio and video—at least through the end of the year.  His procedures are here (under “Telephonic Instructions”).

I am advised that he has decided to continue this policy for the foreseeable future.  In furtherance of that decision, he has established supplemental requirements for noticing motions that require a hearing before him.  Those procedures are here (under “Self Calendaring”).

These requirements are intended to ensure that parties get the maximum notice possible that a hearing will be held remotely and get the necessary information to connect to that hearing, either by computer, handheld device or telephone.

The following, which describes the new policy, has been added to Judge Barash’s publicly posted self-calendaring procedures.

Until further notice, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all of Judge Barash’s hearings will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov audio and video.  Accordingly, in addition to all other applicable noticing requirements, and pursuant to the authority granted under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9007,  Judge Barash requires that a moving party or other party noticing a ZoomGov hearing before him (i) file and serve a completed Supplemental Notice of Hearing to Be Held Remotely Using ZoomGov Audio and Video (“Supplemental Notice”), at the same time the principal notice of such hearing is to be filed and served, or (ii) incorporate conforming language into such principal notice.  The form of Supplemental Notice approved by Judge Barash for a hearing in a bankruptcy case can be found here.  The form of the Supplemental Notice approved by Judge Barash for a hearing in an adversary proceeding can be found here.  The unique ZoomGov connection information for each day’s hearings before Judge Barash—which information is necessary to complete the Supplemental Notice–is posted on his public calendar, which can be located at: http://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/CiaoPosted/default.aspx

Nice post by evidence guru Wayne Silver on whether settlement discussions are really confidential

By | July 24, 2020 | Community, Courts | No comments

This is worth reading.  Gives you little shivers about the prospect of hearing your “confidential settlement discussions” being discussed with the judge.

You know Legal and Equitable Rights, but have you heard of a Reversionary Right?

By | July 22, 2020 | Cases, Chapter 13, Chapter 7 | No comments

What happens when two spouses file two separate bankruptcy cases?  I will use Spouse 1 and Spouse 2 both to distinguish the spouses but also to establish the order of filing — first and second.  Spouse 1 files first followed by Spouse 2 later.

Do the community assets of Spouse 1 get included in Spouse 2’s bankruptcy case?  Not so says the Court in this published decision but Spouse 2 does have a “Reversionary Right” to those assets.

Here’s what happened in this published Chapter 13 Moreno case from Riverside.

Read more…

Good points from the cdcbaa program “Meet the chapter 7 Trustees.”

By | July 18, 2020 | Chapter 7, Programs | No comments

These programs are absolutely fascinating!  I can’t comprehend that any attorney doing any appreciable amount of chapter 7 cases is not a member of this group and attending these meetings.  The program consisted of two hours of debtor’s counsel asking questions and each of the trustees responding (although the most common answer by far was “it depends.”

Points that jumped out at me:

1.  The trustees unanimously agreed that doing the 341(a) meeting by Zoom is great and will continue, certainly for now, and for some of them, hopefully forever.  One benefit is that attendance by the debtors has increased since there are fewer excuses for not attending.  More creditors are attending because it’s so easy to attend, trustees like creditors being involved (most of the time). Read more…

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →