All posts tagged chapter 13

From Kathy Dockery Staff Atty Aki re Chapter 13 payments

By | September 4, 2019 | Chapter 13 | No comments

*****IMPORTANT*****

Best Practice Advice

If your client is making a plan payment within 5 days of a confirmation hearing date, please have them purchase a cashier’s check or money order instead of making the payment electronically via TFS. The TFS payments take about 3-5 days to process and the delay is causing an increase in conditionally continued or confirmed matters and even causing dismissal of cases.

An alternate strategy for making sure your client’s plan payments are made timely is to set up your client in TFS with a plan payment due date that is 7 days prior to the legal due date. This way, the posting delay will not be an issue.

For electronic payment evidence to be sufficient with this office, the payment must be in the status row which is titled “Processing Transactions”. An electronic payment which is in the status row for “Upcoming Transactions” is not sufficient.

Thank you.

Must a Chapter 13 Plan be 3 or 5 years (or full pay) even if no one objects?

By | January 22, 2018 | Case Briefs, Cases, Chapter 13 | No comments

One of the more interesting cases we will discuss on Saturday is In re Escarcega.  The BAP really blasts the chapter 13 trustee up in San Jose.   The BAP ruled that a chapter 13 plan must be 3 or 5 years (or full pay), even if no one objects.

In re Escarcega, 573 B.R. 219 (9th Cir. BAP September 2017) 

Issue:   Where the chapter 13 trustee does not object to a plan, must the plan still be for “the applicable commitment period”?

Holding:   Yes.  Plus the chapter 13 trustee should be objecting to such plans.

Judges Elaine Hammond and Stephen Johnson, Northern District of California (San Jose Division) Read more…

Judge Neil Bason Hearing Times to Change

By | June 28, 2012 | Chapter 13, Judges Corner | 1 Comment

Judge Bason News:

Starting with the 8/30 Calendar, the confirmation hearings will begin at 9:00 a.m.

Aki Koyama

cdcbaa Program: How to Get a Chapter 13 Case Confirmed and Post Confirmation Issues

By | May 3, 2012 | Chapter 13, Community, Programs | No comments

Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys Association

How to Get a Chapter 13 Case Confirmed and Post Confirmation Issues

 May 19, 2012

 Speakers:

Omid Moezzi, Staff Attorney to Chapter 13 Trustee Nancy Curry

Angela Gill, Staff Attorney to Chapter 13 Trustee Kathy Dockery

 Where:  Southwestern Law School

Read more…

Chapter 13 Plan Modification: Does the Applicable Commitment Period Still Apply?

By | April 25, 2012 | Chapter 13 | 1 Comment

Does the applicable commitment period and 1325(b) still apply when you modify a plan?

For a no, see In re Mattson, No. 11-1478 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. April 5, 2012) which followed the holding in In re: Sunahara on this issue.  The Mattson court suggested that possible justifications for a shortened plan period might be retirement, leaving the employment market, changing jobs, or anticipated health issues justifying a shorter plan.

Aki Koyama
Staff Attorney for Kathy Dockery, Chapter 13 Trustee

Judge Mark Houle Tentative on the Chapter 13 Addendum

By | April 22, 2012 | Chapter 11, Chapter 13 | No comments

Judge Mark Houle in Riverside has written a very nice tentative on the addendum and specifically whether it has been preempted by new Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1.  You can get the tentative ruling here.  Addendum-TENTATIVE- Houle His position is that the addendum remains alive and well.

New Opinion on Lam Motions in Chapter 20

By | April 11, 2012 | Chapter 13 | No comments

In re Frazier, 2012 Westlaw 812387 (E.D. Cal. March 2012), the District Court has affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling allowing a residential lien strip notwithstanding no discharge in the chapter 13.  The court says, “Instead of discharge, the Court agrees with the underlying Bankruptcy Court and finds plan completion is the appropriate end to Appellees’ Chapter 20 case.  The lien strip will become permanent not upon a discharge, as would happen in a typical Chapter 13 case, but upon completion of all payments as required by the plan. See In re Blenheim, 2011 WL 6779709 (Bankr.W.D.Wash. Dec.27, 2011).”

Chapter 13 Day with Judge Ahart

By | April 5, 2012 | Chapter 13 | No comments

I had a very pleasant chapter 13 confirmation hearing this morning with Judge Ahart.  I got to court an hour and a half before the hearing.  The trustee’s attorney told me everything was okay and the plan would be confirmed and I could leave.   I commented that I was surprised that it wasn’t more crowded, even an hour and a half early.  She said Judge Ahart’s calendar is very efficient and sometimes he is on second call by 11:00am.  If you are not there by then, you risk the case being dismissed.

Bankruptcy Filings in the Central District Exceed all of Texas AND all of New York in February, 2012

By | March 11, 2012 | Bankruptcy Data | No comments

Total bankruptcy filings in February in the Central District of California was 9,307, up 1% from January but 12% lower than the previous February.  To put the total into context, the TOTAL filings in February, 2012 for all four districts in Texas AND all four districts in New York was 7,830.  Of the total here, 2,256 were chapter 13s or about 24% of the total.  This means each trustee received about 450 new cases in February.

Central   District of California
2008 2009 2010 % 2011 2012
Jan 3,694 6,004 9,013 50% 10,868 21% 8,835 -19%
Feb 3,787 6,971 9,659 39% 10,631 10% 9,307 -12%
March 4,381 8,529 12,840 51% 13,543 5%
April 5,023 8,512 12,114 42% 12,087 0%
May 5,177 8,967 11,906 33% 11,669 -2%
June 5,351 9,595 12,190 27% 11,718 -4%
July 5,983 9,894 12,737 29% 10,418 -18%
Aug 6,195 9,748 12,720 30% 11,496 -10%
Sept 6,290 9,214 12,412 35% 10,006 -19%
Oct 6,364 10,322 11,753 14% 9,887 -16%
Nov 6,029 9,462 10,900 15% 9,099 -17%
Dec 6,615 9,864 10,925 11% 9,089 -17%
64,889 107,082 139,169 30% 130,511 -6%
% of total 0.059 0.075 0.089 0.095

 

Update Chapter 20 Lam Motions

By | February 2, 2012 | Appeals, Cases, Chapter 13, Judges Corner | No comments

Judge Catherine Bauer ruled today that a discharge is required for a successful Lam Motion.     

NACBA filed an amicus brief on this issue for an appeal in the 7th Circuit District Court.  See attached.

← Older Entries