From alex at kam13trustee.com Mon Jul 1 18:08:52 2013 From: alex at kam13trustee.com (Alexandra Caval) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 00:08:52 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] 11-207 Exemption Message-ID: <710336195d374a7391d71afbfdaf2a3b@BL2PR08MB004.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Here's a new case on the very popular 11-207 exemption with the fight centering on the characterization of funds held in a DIP account on a Ch 11 case that converted to Ch 7. Alexandra O. Caval Staff Attorney Office of Kathleen A. McCallister Chapter 13 Trustee P.O. Box 1150 Meridian, ID 83680 T: (208) 922-5100 F: (208) 922-5599 alex at kam13trustee.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Hoyle_exemption_decision.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 71223 bytes Desc: Hoyle_exemption_decision.pdf URL: From gugino at cableone.net Tue Jul 2 11:01:09 2013 From: gugino at cableone.net (Jeremy Gugino) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:01:09 -0600 Subject: [CLBS] Hoyle Message-ID: <004f01ce7745$c02768a0$407639e0$@cableone.net> A follow-up to a previous e-mail sent out about this decision. There are two distinct issues that were decided: (1) determination of property of the estate in converted chapter 11 cases and (2) whether Idaho Code 11-207 applied. One result was predictable (debtor lost the exemption issue for failure to show that rental money qualified as "earnings" from "personal services" as required under the statute). The other issue, whether post-chapter 11/pre-conversion "earnings" are even property of the estate, was addressed in my presentation at the seminar on conversion issues. At the time, there was conflicting case law on the interplay between 11 USC 348 and 1115. Under this decision, the post-Ch. 11 "earnings" ARE property of the converted chapter 7 case - unlike Chapter 13 conversions where the post-petition earnings are NOT property of the Ch. 7 case. The court based this on the plain language of the applicable statutes and chose not to read into the statutes language that wasn't there (Even Collier's took a liberal view of the applicable statutes and suggested that converted chapter 11's be treated in a similar vein as chapter 13's). If you do individual chapter 11 work this case, and all of the other Hoyle decisions, is a must-read (for so many reasons). A link to the latest Hoyle decision is below. Enjoy. http://www.id.uscourts.gov/decisions-bk/Hoyle_exemption_decision.pdf From gugino at cableone.net Wed Jul 3 09:09:42 2013 From: gugino at cableone.net (Jeremy Gugino) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:09:42 -0600 Subject: [CLBS] Documents from QuikDocs for Case: 13-01315 (EAGLE MARKETPLACE, LLC) Message-ID: <000a01ce77ff$58efcf00$0acf6d00$@cableone.net> Attorneys: If you represent Wells Fargo in the attached case, please contact me at 208-342-1590. Jeremy -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ECF_DOC_1_19817622.PDF Type: application/pdf Size: 196494 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sw2 at moscow.com Fri Jul 12 10:32:12 2013 From: sw2 at moscow.com (Susan R. Wilson) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:32:12 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] Creditor Claim question Message-ID: <000501ce7f1d$5df59dc0$19e0d940$@moscow.com> I am sure this is a common scenario so the answer is probably pretty easy: I have a an ex-wife with a decree stating the husband has the house and the responsibility for the loan. Decree says husband is to refinance the house within a year. Husband never does that; wife has quitclaimed her interest to husband per the decree, but is still on the loan. Husband defaults, bank forecloses. During the foreclosure the husband files for Chapter 13 with a long list of creditors. There likely will be a significant deficiency judgment, which the bank will go after ex-wife for. Can ex-wife recover from husband? Technically, wife's claim against husband will not arise until the bank goes after wife for the deficiency, which we won't know what is until after the foreclosure sale. Not sure if the bankruptcy will be done then and I suspect the bank will ask for a stay so they can proceed to foreclose. Husband is letting the house go. Wife is not aware of any notice of trustee's sale - only the notice of default. She can't afford the house but also can't afford a $30-$50k deficiency judgment and she doesn't want to file bankruptcy. . . Any thoughts? Susan Susan R. Wilson Attorney at Law, PLLC 208 S. Main St. Ste 2 Moscow, ID 83843 sw2 at moscow.com 208-882-8060 866-221-9397 (fx) ? This electronic communication may contain confidential information belonging to the sender that is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510 and 2521 and may be legally privileged. This message and any associated files are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or the files associated herewith, is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please notify Susan R. Wilson, Attorney at Law, immediately by telephone at 208-882-8060 and destroy the original message. ? From Tyler at twinfallsattorneys.com Fri Jul 12 11:09:16 2013 From: Tyler at twinfallsattorneys.com (Tyler McGee) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:09:16 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] Creditor Claim question In-Reply-To: <000501ce7f1d$5df59dc0$19e0d940$@moscow.com> References: <000501ce7f1d$5df59dc0$19e0d940$@moscow.com> Message-ID: <68A314F324C1BD41873F05A36DE1AE3411910FFD@MBX023-W1-CA-2.exch023.domain.local> One argument would be that this is not dischargeable under 11 USC 523(a)(15), because the debt (indemnification right) is not a domestic support obligation and it is to a former spouse incurred by the debtor in the course of a divorce or in connection with a divorce decree etc. Alternatively you might argue that if she does end up having to pay, any indemnification obligation wasn't part of the bankruptcy because the obligation only arose after filing. Tyler J. McGee ROY, NIELSON, BARINI-GARCIA & PLATTS P.O. Box 487 Twin Falls, Idaho 83303-0487 Phone: (208) 734-4450 Fax:? (208) 734-4452 This firm will not mail a hard copy of this transmission and its attachments to you unless specifically requested. ? CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:? This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by the Attorney-Client privilege.? If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.? If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return this e-mail to the sender.? Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Susan R. Wilson Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 10:32 AM To: 'Ford Elsaesser' Cc: 'clbs' Subject: [CLBS] Creditor Claim question I am sure this is a common scenario so the answer is probably pretty easy: I have a an ex-wife with a decree stating the husband has the house and the responsibility for the loan. Decree says husband is to refinance the house within a year. Husband never does that; wife has quitclaimed her interest to husband per the decree, but is still on the loan. Husband defaults, bank forecloses. During the foreclosure the husband files for Chapter 13 with a long list of creditors. There likely will be a significant deficiency judgment, which the bank will go after ex-wife for. Can ex-wife recover from husband? Technically, wife's claim against husband will not arise until the bank goes after wife for the deficiency, which we won't know what is until after the foreclosure sale. Not sure if the bankruptcy will be done then and I suspect the bank will ask for a stay so they can proceed to foreclose. Husband is letting the house go. Wife is not aware of any notice of trustee's sale - only the notice of default. She can't afford the house but also can't afford a $30-$50k deficiency judgment and she doesn't want to file bankruptcy. . . Any thoughts? Susan Susan R. Wilson Attorney at Law, PLLC 208 S. Main St. Ste 2 Moscow, ID 83843 sw2 at moscow.com 208-882-8060 866-221-9397 (fx) ? This electronic communication may contain confidential information belonging to the sender that is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510 and 2521 and may be legally privileged. This message and any associated files are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or the files associated herewith, is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please notify Susan R. Wilson, Attorney at Law, immediately by telephone at 208-882-8060 and destroy the original message. ? _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs From rbrower at lewiston.com Sun Jul 14 17:21:05 2013 From: rbrower at lewiston.com (Robert Brower) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 16:21:05 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] Creditor Claim question In-Reply-To: <68A314F324C1BD41873F05A36DE1AE3411910FFD@MBX023-W1-CA-2.exch023.domain.local> References: <000501ce7f1d$5df59dc0$19e0d940$@moscow.com> <68A314F324C1BD41873F05A36DE1AE3411910FFD@MBX023-W1-CA-2.exch023.domain.local> Message-ID: <001901ce80e8$d1434da0$73c9e8e0$@lewiston.com> I believe a chapter 13 discharge, discharges an 11 USC 523 (a)(15) obligation including a contingent claim. Bob Brower -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Tyler McGee Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 10:09 AM To: Susan R. Wilson Cc: 'clbs' Subject: Re: [CLBS] Creditor Claim question One argument would be that this is not dischargeable under 11 USC 523(a)(15), because the debt (indemnification right) is not a domestic support obligation and it is to a former spouse incurred by the debtor in the course of a divorce or in connection with a divorce decree etc. Alternatively you might argue that if she does end up having to pay, any indemnification obligation wasn't part of the bankruptcy because the obligation only arose after filing. Tyler J. McGee ROY, NIELSON, BARINI-GARCIA & PLATTS P.O. Box 487 Twin Falls, Idaho 83303-0487 Phone: (208) 734-4450 Fax:? (208) 734-4452 This firm will not mail a hard copy of this transmission and its attachments to you unless specifically requested. ? CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:? This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by the Attorney-Client privilege.? If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.? If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return this e-mail to the sender.? Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Susan R. Wilson Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 10:32 AM To: 'Ford Elsaesser' Cc: 'clbs' Subject: [CLBS] Creditor Claim question I am sure this is a common scenario so the answer is probably pretty easy: I have a an ex-wife with a decree stating the husband has the house and the responsibility for the loan. Decree says husband is to refinance the house within a year. Husband never does that; wife has quitclaimed her interest to husband per the decree, but is still on the loan. Husband defaults, bank forecloses. During the foreclosure the husband files for Chapter 13 with a long list of creditors. There likely will be a significant deficiency judgment, which the bank will go after ex-wife for. Can ex-wife recover from husband? Technically, wife's claim against husband will not arise until the bank goes after wife for the deficiency, which we won't know what is until after the foreclosure sale. Not sure if the bankruptcy will be done then and I suspect the bank will ask for a stay so they can proceed to foreclose. Husband is letting the house go. Wife is not aware of any notice of trustee's sale - only the notice of default. She can't afford the house but also can't afford a $30-$50k deficiency judgment and she doesn't want to file bankruptcy. . . Any thoughts? Susan Susan R. Wilson Attorney at Law, PLLC 208 S. Main St. Ste 2 Moscow, ID 83843 sw2 at moscow.com 208-882-8060 866-221-9397 (fx) ? This electronic communication may contain confidential information belonging to the sender that is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510 and 2521 and may be legally privileged. This message and any associated files are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or the files associated herewith, is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please notify Susan R. Wilson, Attorney at Law, immediately by telephone at 208-882-8060 and destroy the original message. ? _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs From alex at kam13trustee.com Sun Jul 14 19:14:36 2013 From: alex at kam13trustee.com (Alexandra Caval) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:14:36 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] Zions First National Bank Message-ID: Anyone know who represents Zion's First National Bank here in Boise? Alexandra O. Caval Staff Attorney Office of Kathleen A. McCallister Chapter 13 Trustee P.O. Box 1150 Meridian, ID 83680 T: (208) 922-5100 F: (208) 922-5599 alex at kam13trustee.com From mtc at Angstman.com Mon Jul 15 09:32:02 2013 From: mtc at Angstman.com (Matthew T. Christensen) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:32:02 -0600 Subject: [CLBS] Creditor Claim question In-Reply-To: <001901ce80e8$d1434da0$73c9e8e0$@lewiston.com> References: <000501ce7f1d$5df59dc0$19e0d940$@moscow.com> <68A314F324C1BD41873F05A36DE1AE3411910FFD@MBX023-W1-CA-2.exch023.domain.local> <001901ce80e8$d1434da0$73c9e8e0$@lewiston.com> Message-ID: <77846F147B6E0148A950F1D952A44802021FEE06@hades.dynasty.angstman.com> Bob addressed Tyler's first idea. Regarding the second alternative, see this case: Heilman v. Heilman (In re Heilman), 430 B.R. 213 (9th Cir. BAP, 2010). MTC Matthew T. Christensen Attorney and Counselor at Law ANGSTMAN JOHNSON Attorneys and Counselors 3649 N. Lakeharbor Lane Boise, Idaho 83703 (208) 384-8588 (208) 853-0117 (fax) mtc at angstman.com www.angstman.com NOTICE: This electronic transmission (and/or the documents accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender that is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?? 2510 and 2521 and may be legally privileged. This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Angstman Johnson immediately by telephone (208-384-8588) and destroy the original message. Messages sent to and from us may be monitored. If you are the intended recipient, you acknowledge that the email address being utilized is secure and that there will not be a waiver of the attorney-client privilege or breach of any duty of confidentiality by the sender's correspondence to that email address. -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Robert Brower Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 17:21 To: CLBS at admws.idaho.gov Subject: Re: [CLBS] Creditor Claim question I believe a chapter 13 discharge, discharges an 11 USC 523 (a)(15) obligation including a contingent claim. Bob Brower -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov ] On Behalf Of Tyler McGee Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 10:09 AM To: Susan R. Wilson Cc: 'clbs' Subject: Re: [CLBS] Creditor Claim question One argument would be that this is not dischargeable under 11 USC 523(a)(15), because the debt (indemnification right) is not a domestic support obligation and it is to a former spouse incurred by the debtor in the course of a divorce or in connection with a divorce decree etc. Alternatively you might argue that if she does end up having to pay, any indemnification obligation wasn't part of the bankruptcy because the obligation only arose after filing. Tyler J. McGee ROY, NIELSON, BARINI-GARCIA & PLATTS P.O. Box 487 Twin Falls, Idaho 83303-0487 Phone: (208) 734-4450 Fax: (208) 734-4452 This firm will not mail a hard copy of this transmission and its attachments to you unless specifically requested. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by the Attorney-Client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return this e-mail to the sender. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov ] On Behalf Of Susan R. Wilson Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 10:32 AM To: 'Ford Elsaesser' Cc: 'clbs' Subject: [CLBS] Creditor Claim question I am sure this is a common scenario so the answer is probably pretty easy: I have a an ex-wife with a decree stating the husband has the house and the responsibility for the loan. Decree says husband is to refinance the house within a year. Husband never does that; wife has quitclaimed her interest to husband per the decree, but is still on the loan. Husband defaults, bank forecloses. During the foreclosure the husband files for Chapter 13 with a long list of creditors. There likely will be a significant deficiency judgment, which the bank will go after ex-wife for. Can ex-wife recover from husband? Technically, wife's claim against husband will not arise until the bank goes after wife for the deficiency, which we won't know what is until after the foreclosure sale. Not sure if the bankruptcy will be done then and I suspect the bank will ask for a stay so they can proceed to foreclose. Husband is letting the house go. Wife is not aware of any notice of trustee's sale - only the notice of default. She can't afford the house but also can't afford a $30-$50k deficiency judgment and she doesn't want to file bankruptcy. . . Any thoughts? Susan Susan R. Wilson Attorney at Law, PLLC 208 S. Main St. Ste 2 Moscow, ID 83843 sw2 at moscow.com 208-882-8060 866-221-9397 (fx) This electronic communication may contain confidential information belonging to the sender that is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510 and 2521 and may be legally privileged. This message and any associated files are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or the files associated herewith, is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please notify Susan R. Wilson, Attorney at Law, immediately by telephone at 208-882-8060 and destroy the original message. _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs !SIG:51e33276208041952913646! From katied at nctv.com Tue Jul 16 15:34:55 2013 From: katied at nctv.com (Catherine Dullea) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:34:55 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] float home/homestead Message-ID: <8DBA820613DF41EBAAC0267DA1BF4107@katied> Listmates: Potential chapter 7 client owns a "float home". It is not a boat, it's a house that floats and it is relatively permanently moored at a marina. It is hooked up to sewer, water, electricity, phone, etc. Client doesn't currently live in the float home and has it rented out. He does intend to live there again, and if it were real property I'd know just how to protect it, with a recorded homestead declaration. But he doesn't own the real property and I don't think the Kootenai County Recorder would record a homestead declaration without a legal description. 1. How do I protect this asset as his homestead without him having to evict his tenants and move back in? 2. If I can do that, is the Trustee entitled to the rent he's collecting? If so, for how long? --Katie Dullea From denny at andrewslaw.info Tue Jul 16 16:00:52 2013 From: denny at andrewslaw.info (Denton Andrews) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:00:52 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] float home/homestead In-Reply-To: <8DBA820613DF41EBAAC0267DA1BF4107@katied> Message-ID: I am currently homesteading a sail boat petitioner lives on This email is intended to be confidential, and is intended only for the addressee. If you have received this message in error, you may not copy or disseminate the information in this email nor use it for any purpose. Please contact us immediately at the telephone number above or reply to this email to notify us of any delivery errors. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including, where appropriate, assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Law Offices of Denton Andrews Ph: 208-743-8200 111 Main Street Suite 177 Fax: 208-748-4022 Lewiston, Idaho 83501 denny at andrewslaw.info -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Catherine Dullea Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:35 PM To: 'Bankruptcy list' Subject: [CLBS] float home/homestead Listmates: Potential chapter 7 client owns a "float home". It is not a boat, it's a house that floats and it is relatively permanently moored at a marina. It is hooked up to sewer, water, electricity, phone, etc. Client doesn't currently live in the float home and has it rented out. He does intend to live there again, and if it were real property I'd know just how to protect it, with a recorded homestead declaration. But he doesn't own the real property and I don't think the Kootenai County Recorder would record a homestead declaration without a legal description. 1. How do I protect this asset as his homestead without him having to evict his tenants and move back in? 2. If I can do that, is the Trustee entitled to the rent he's collecting? If so, for how long? --Katie Dullea _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3204/6480 - Release Date: 07/10/13 From RFrench at bauerandfrench.com Thu Jul 18 10:05:43 2013 From: RFrench at bauerandfrench.com (Randal French) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:05:43 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] float home/homestead In-Reply-To: <8DBA820613DF41EBAAC0267DA1BF4107@katied> References: <8DBA820613DF41EBAAC0267DA1BF4107@katied> Message-ID: <45AF97379DC9354BA4F5CFECBB5FFD83021AD1C2@BFSBS.BFDom.local> Very tough questions. Look at the decisions allowing a homestead exemption on a mobile home, Rogers, 225 BR 755 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1998) and a motor home, Peters, 168 BR 710 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1994) for guidance as to exempting a homestead without a legal description. I think those decisions rested on the debtor actually occupying the mobile home or motor home, not intending to reside there later. If Debtor does not occupy the property, then the Debtor would seem to need the equivalent of the filing of a notice of declaration of homestead identifying the intent to reside on the homesteaded property. I.C. 55-1004. That also references a homestead declaration for a mobile home located on land not owned by debtor, and allows a homestead from and after delivery of a declaration as described in section 55-1006. 55-1006 still calls for recording, not delivery, of a homestead declaration. You might look at other states whether people may more commonly live on houseboats, like Calif and Florida, maybe Washington and Oregon. That might provide some insight. Even if you can exempt the floathome, the trustee may demand the rents. Gugino has done so in this area. If you could rather quickly get the property abandoned, ?554, that might limit the damage. The trustee may oppose that effort because even though the exempted asset is of inconsequential value to the estate, ?554(a), the rents are of value. An argument may be that after the time period for objecting to a claim of exemption runs, if there is no objection, then should the property be considered "removed" from the estate, as I recall some courts having characterized the effect of an exemption. The problem is that the assets may be removed from the estate only to the extent that the equity in the asset is less than the amount of the exemption. You can exempt a home and have no objection to the exemption, but if there is equity above the exempt amount the trustee can still sell the home and keep equity above the exemption. That being the case, it is hard to say that the asset, as opposed to the exempt equity, was removed from the estate. If the estate does not assume the lease within the statutory time, the lease is deemed rejected. 365(d)(1). Leases of real property includes any rental agreement, ?365(m), presumably including a month to month agreement. Is there an argument that a trustee should be prohibited from receiving rent from a rejected lease agreement? Does the inclusion in 541(a)(6) of rents of or from property of the estate provide an independent basis for collecting rents even if the lease is rejected? Sounds like a basis for a good article for the bk section newsletter for an insightful practitioner. Good luck. -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Catherine Dullea Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 3:35 PM To: 'Bankruptcy list' Subject: [CLBS] float home/homestead Listmates: Potential chapter 7 client owns a "float home". It is not a boat, it's a house that floats and it is relatively permanently moored at a marina. It is hooked up to sewer, water, electricity, phone, etc. Client doesn't currently live in the float home and has it rented out. He does intend to live there again, and if it were real property I'd know just how to protect it, with a recorded homestead declaration. But he doesn't own the real property and I don't think the Kootenai County Recorder would record a homestead declaration without a legal description. 1. How do I protect this asset as his homestead without him having to evict his tenants and move back in? 2. If I can do that, is the Trustee entitled to the rent he's collecting? If so, for how long? --Katie Dullea _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs !SIG:51e5bcb0208041836412229! From mtc at Angstman.com Thu Jul 18 10:09:34 2013 From: mtc at Angstman.com (Matthew T. Christensen) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:09:34 -0600 Subject: [CLBS] float home/homestead In-Reply-To: <45AF97379DC9354BA4F5CFECBB5FFD83021AD1C2@BFSBS.BFDom.local> References: <8DBA820613DF41EBAAC0267DA1BF4107@katied> <45AF97379DC9354BA4F5CFECBB5FFD83021AD1C2@BFSBS.BFDom.local> Message-ID: <77846F147B6E0148A950F1D952A44802021FF147@hades.dynasty.angstman.com> As an "insightful practitioner" himself - sounds like Randy just volunteered to write an article for the newsletter. :) MTC Matthew T. Christensen Attorney and Counselor at Law ? ANGSTMAN JOHNSON Attorneys and Counselors 3649 N. Lakeharbor Lane Boise, Idaho? 83703 (208) 384-8588 (208) 853-0117 (fax) mtc at angstman.com www.angstman.com ? NOTICE: This electronic transmission (and/or the documents accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender that is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?? 2510 and 2521 and may be legally privileged.? This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret.? If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited.? If you have received this communication in error, please notify Angstman Johnson immediately by telephone (208-384-8588) and destroy the original message.? Messages sent to and from us may be monitored.? If you are the intended recipient,?you acknowledge that the email address being utilized is secure and that there will not be a waiver of the attorney-client privilege or breach of any?duty of confidentiality?by the sender's correspondence to that email address. -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Randal French Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 10:06 To: Catherine Dullea; clbs at admws.idaho.gov Subject: Re: [CLBS] float home/homestead Very tough questions. Look at the decisions allowing a homestead exemption on a mobile home, Rogers, 225 BR 755 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1998) and a motor home, Peters, 168 BR 710 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1994) for guidance as to exempting a homestead without a legal description. I think those decisions rested on the debtor actually occupying the mobile home or motor home, not intending to reside there later. If Debtor does not occupy the property, then the Debtor would seem to need the equivalent of the filing of a notice of declaration of homestead identifying the intent to reside on the homesteaded property. I.C. 55-1004. That also references a homestead declaration for a mobile home located on land not owned by debtor, and allows a homestead from and after delivery of a declaration as described in section 55-1006. 55-1006 still calls for recording, not delivery, of a homestead declaration. You might look at other states whether people may more commonly live on houseboats, like Calif and Florida, maybe Washington and Oregon. That might provide some insight. Even if you can exempt the floathome, the trustee may demand the rents. Gugino has done so in this area. If you could rather quickly get the property abandoned, ?554, that might limit the damage. The trustee may oppose that effort because even though the exempted asset is of inconsequential value to the estate, ?554(a), the rents are of value. An argument may be that after the time period for objecting to a claim of exemption runs, if there is no objection, then should the property be considered "removed" from the estate, as I recall some courts having characterized the effect of an exemption. The problem is that the assets may be removed from the estate only to the extent that the equity in the asset is less than the amount of the exemption. You can exempt a home and have no objection to the exemption, but if there is equity above the exempt amount the trustee can still sell the home and keep equity above the exemption. That being the case, it is hard to say that the asset, as opposed to the exempt equity, was removed from the estate. If the estate does not assume the lease within the statutory time, the lease is deemed rejected. 365(d)(1). Leases of real property includes any rental agreement, ?365(m), presumably including a month to month agreement. Is there an argument that a trustee should be prohibited from receiving rent from a rejected lease agreement? Does the inclusion in 541(a)(6) of rents of or from property of the estate provide an independent basis for collecting rents even if the lease is rejected? Sounds like a basis for a good article for the bk section newsletter for an insightful practitioner. Good luck. -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Catherine Dullea Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 3:35 PM To: 'Bankruptcy list' Subject: [CLBS] float home/homestead Listmates: Potential chapter 7 client owns a "float home". It is not a boat, it's a house that floats and it is relatively permanently moored at a marina. It is hooked up to sewer, water, electricity, phone, etc. Client doesn't currently live in the float home and has it rented out. He does intend to live there again, and if it were real property I'd know just how to protect it, with a recorded homestead declaration. But he doesn't own the real property and I don't think the Kootenai County Recorder would record a homestead declaration without a legal description. 1. How do I protect this asset as his homestead without him having to evict his tenants and move back in? 2. If I can do that, is the Trustee entitled to the rent he's collecting? If so, for how long? --Katie Dullea _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs !SIG:51e8128b208041622810148! From RFrench at bauerandfrench.com Thu Jul 18 10:11:28 2013 From: RFrench at bauerandfrench.com (Randal French) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:11:28 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] float home/homestead In-Reply-To: <77846F147B6E0148A950F1D952A44802021FF147@hades.dynasty.angstman.com> References: <8DBA820613DF41EBAAC0267DA1BF4107@katied> <45AF97379DC9354BA4F5CFECBB5FFD83021AD1C2@BFSBS.BFDom.local> <77846F147B6E0148A950F1D952A44802021FF147@hades.dynasty.angstman.com> Message-ID: <45AF97379DC9354BA4F5CFECBB5FFD83021AD1F9@BFSBS.BFDom.local> I am just not sure I can get any more insightful than I just did. Need a deep thinker and a good writer. -----Original Message----- From: Matthew T. Christensen [mailto:mtc at Angstman.com] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 10:10 AM To: Randal French; Catherine Dullea; clbs at admws.idaho.gov Subject: RE: [CLBS] float home/homestead As an "insightful practitioner" himself - sounds like Randy just volunteered to write an article for the newsletter. :) MTC Matthew T. Christensen Attorney and Counselor at Law ? ANGSTMAN JOHNSON Attorneys and Counselors 3649 N. Lakeharbor Lane Boise, Idaho? 83703 (208) 384-8588 (208) 853-0117 (fax) mtc at angstman.com www.angstman.com ? NOTICE: This electronic transmission (and/or the documents accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender that is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?? 2510 and 2521 and may be legally privileged.? This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret.? If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited.? If you have received this communication in error, please notify Angstman Johnson immediately by telephone (208-384-8588) and destroy the original message.? Messages sent to and from us may be monitored.? If you are the intended recipient,?you acknowledge that the email address being utilized is secure and that th ere will not be a waiver of the attorney-client privilege or breach of any?duty of confidentiality?by the sender's correspondence to that email address. -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Randal French Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 10:06 To: Catherine Dullea; clbs at admws.idaho.gov Subject: Re: [CLBS] float home/homestead Very tough questions. Look at the decisions allowing a homestead exemption on a mobile home, Rogers, 225 BR 755 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1998) and a motor home, Peters, 168 BR 710 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1994) for guidance as to exempting a homestead without a legal description. I think those decisions rested on the debtor actually occupying the mobile home or motor home, not intending to reside there later. If Debtor does not occupy the property, then the Debtor would seem to need the equivalent of the filing of a notice of declaration of homestead identifying the intent to reside on the homesteaded property. I.C. 55-1004. That also references a homestead declaration for a mobile home located on land not owned by debtor, and allows a homestead from and after delivery of a declaration as described in section 55-1006. 55-1006 still calls for recording, not delivery, of a homestead declaration. You might look at other states whether people may more commonly live on houseboats, like Calif and Florida, maybe Washington and Oregon. That might provide some insight. Even if you can exempt the floathome, the trustee may demand the rents. Gugino has done so in this area. If you could rather quickly get the property abandoned, ?554, that might limit the damage. The trustee may oppose that effort because even though the exempted asset is of inconsequential value to the estate, ?554(a), the rents are of value. An argument may be that after the time period for objecting to a claim of exemption runs, if there is no objection, then should the property be considered "removed" from the estate, as I recall some courts having characterized the effect of an exemption. The problem is that the assets may be removed from the estate only to the extent that the equity in the asset is less than the amount of the exemption. You can exempt a home and have no objection to the exemption, but if there is equity above the exempt amount the trustee can still sell the home and keep equity above the exemption. That being the case, it is hard to say that the asset, as opposed to the exempt equity, was removed from the estate. If the estate does not assume the lease within the statutory time, the lease is deemed rejected. 365(d)(1). Leases of real property includes any rental agreement, ?365(m), presumably including a month to month agreement. Is there an argument that a trustee should be prohibited from receiving rent from a rejected lease agreement? Does the inclusion in 541(a)(6) of rents of or from property of the estate provide an independent basis for collecting rents even if the lease is rejected? Sounds like a basis for a good article for the bk section newsletter for an insightful practitioner. Good luck. -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Catherine Dullea Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 3:35 PM To: 'Bankruptcy list' Subject: [CLBS] float home/homestead Listmates: Potential chapter 7 client owns a "float home". It is not a boat, it's a house that floats and it is relatively permanently moored at a marina. It is hooked up to sewer, water, electricity, phone, etc. Client doesn't currently live in the float home and has it rented out. He does intend to live there again, and if it were real property I'd know just how to protect it, with a recorded homestead declaration. But he doesn't own the real property and I don't think the Kootenai County Recorder would record a homestead declaration without a legal description. 1. How do I protect this asset as his homestead without him having to evict his tenants and move back in? 2. If I can do that, is the Trustee entitled to the rent he's collecting? If so, for how long? --Katie Dullea _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs !SIG:51e81346208047916121084! From gugino at cableone.net Thu Jul 18 10:12:42 2013 From: gugino at cableone.net (Jeremy Gugino) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:12:42 -0600 Subject: [CLBS] float home/homestead In-Reply-To: <45AF97379DC9354BA4F5CFECBB5FFD83021AD1C2@BFSBS.BFDom.local> References: <8DBA820613DF41EBAAC0267DA1BF4107@katied> <45AF97379DC9354BA4F5CFECBB5FFD83021AD1C2@BFSBS.BFDom.local> Message-ID: <003801ce83d1$a2494f40$e6dbedc0$@cableone.net> 1. There is probably a way to get your declaration of homestead filed, but even if you do, I would hope the trustee objects. The facts you set forth seem a little flimsy as to his intent to make that his permanent residence. 2. Yes, the trustee gets the rent for as long as there is a tenant. 11 USC 541(a)(6) Lots of potential risk here - and your debtor should be advised as such before he files. He could lose the floating home. -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Randal French Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 10:06 AM To: Catherine Dullea; clbs at admws.idaho.gov Subject: Re: [CLBS] float home/homestead Very tough questions. Look at the decisions allowing a homestead exemption on a mobile home, Rogers, 225 BR 755 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1998) and a motor home, Peters, 168 BR 710 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1994) for guidance as to exempting a homestead without a legal description. I think those decisions rested on the debtor actually occupying the mobile home or motor home, not intending to reside there later. If Debtor does not occupy the property, then the Debtor would seem to need the equivalent of the filing of a notice of declaration of homestead identifying the intent to reside on the homesteaded property. I.C. 55-1004. That also references a homestead declaration for a mobile home located on land not owned by debtor, and allows a homestead from and after delivery of a declaration as described in section 55-1006. 55-1006 still calls for recording, not delivery, of a homestead declaration. You might look at other states whether people may more commonly live on houseboats, like Calif and Florida, maybe Washington and Oregon. That might provide some insight. Even if you can exempt the floathome, the trustee may demand the rents. Gugino has done so in this area. If you could rather quickly get the property abandoned, ?554, that might limit the damage. The trustee may oppose that effort because even though the exempted asset is of inconsequential value to the estate, ?554(a), the rents are of value. An argument may be that after the time period for objecting to a claim of exemption runs, if there is no objection, then should the property be considered "removed" from the estate, as I recall some courts having characterized the effect of an exemption. The problem is that the assets may be removed from the estate only to the extent that the equity in the asset is less than the amount of the exemption. You can exempt a home and have no objection to the exemption, but if there is equity above the exempt amount the trustee can still sell the home and keep equity above the exemption. That being the case, it is hard to say that the asset, as opposed to the exempt equity, was removed from the estate. If the estate does not assume the lease within the statutory time, the lease is deemed rejected. 365(d)(1). Leases of real property includes any rental agreement, ?365(m), presumably including a month to month agreement. Is there an argument that a trustee should be prohibited from receiving rent from a rejected lease agreement? Does the inclusion in 541(a)(6) of rents of or from property of the estate provide an independent basis for collecting rents even if the lease is rejected? Sounds like a basis for a good article for the bk section newsletter for an insightful practitioner. Good luck. -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Catherine Dullea Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 3:35 PM To: 'Bankruptcy list' Subject: [CLBS] float home/homestead Listmates: Potential chapter 7 client owns a "float home". It is not a boat, it's a house that floats and it is relatively permanently moored at a marina. It is hooked up to sewer, water, electricity, phone, etc. Client doesn't currently live in the float home and has it rented out. He does intend to live there again, and if it were real property I'd know just how to protect it, with a recorded homestead declaration. But he doesn't own the real property and I don't think the Kootenai County Recorder would record a homestead declaration without a legal description. 1. How do I protect this asset as his homestead without him having to evict his tenants and move back in? 2. If I can do that, is the Trustee entitled to the rent he's collecting? If so, for how long? --Katie Dullea _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs !SIG:51e5bcb0208041836412229! _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs From gugino at cableone.net Thu Jul 18 13:24:59 2013 From: gugino at cableone.net (Jeremy Gugino) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:24:59 -0600 Subject: [CLBS] Capital One Auto Finance Message-ID: <006501ce83ec$7e899770$7b9cc650$@cableone.net> Folks: Can anyone accept a preference/lien avoidance demand for Capital One Auto Finance? Jeremy From ajt at aaronjtolsonlaw.com Tue Jul 23 10:11:57 2013 From: ajt at aaronjtolsonlaw.com (Aaron Tolson) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:11:57 -0600 Subject: [CLBS] had this ? come up Message-ID: for creditor attorneys: garnishment on the debtor paid the judgment in full, creditor files satisfaction and a couple of weeks later bankruptcy, trustee request most of the funds back- violation of the stay to set aside the satisfaction. is there anything creditor can do -- Aaron J. Tolson 2677 E. 17th St. #300 Ammon, ID. 83406 208-228-5221 This a privileged communication. Please advise if you received it in error. From ford at ejame.com Tue Jul 23 10:20:44 2013 From: ford at ejame.com (Ford Elsaesser) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:20:44 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] had this ? come up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3996556F8B2F8040ABBD7B56935D500E1398D309@EJAMEDC.ejame.local> Unless the creditor can prove solvency -a 1 in a million shot-the trustee recovers under 547-ford -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Aaron Tolson Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:12 AM To: clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov; clbs at admws.idaho.gov Subject: [CLBS] had this ? come up for creditor attorneys: garnishment on the debtor paid the judgment in full, creditor files satisfaction and a couple of weeks later bankruptcy, trustee request most of the funds back- violation of the stay to set aside the satisfaction. is there anything creditor can do -- Aaron J. Tolson 2677 E. 17th St. #300 Ammon, ID. 83406 208-228-5221 This a privileged communication. Please advise if you received it in error. _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs From cjlaw at cableone.net Tue Jul 23 10:38:42 2013 From: cjlaw at cableone.net (Charles Johnson) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:38:42 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] had this ? come up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51E50286-967A-4D43-A8BF-4D485A69B1A8@cableone.net> Aaron, The creditor should simply file a general unsecured claim for the preference. There is no reason to file anything in state court or undo the Satisfaction of Judgment since the Trustee and will understand what you are doing. Charles Johnson On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Aaron Tolson wrote: > for creditor attorneys: garnishment on the debtor paid the judgment in > full, creditor files satisfaction and a couple of weeks later bankruptcy, > trustee request most of the funds back- violation of the stay to set aside > the satisfaction. is there anything creditor can do > > -- > Aaron J. Tolson > 2677 E. 17th St. #300 > Ammon, ID. 83406 > 208-228-5221 > > This a privileged communication. Please advise if you received it in > error. > _______________________________________________ > CLBS mailing list > CLBS at admws.idaho.gov > http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs From RFrench at bauerandfrench.com Tue Jul 23 10:46:59 2013 From: RFrench at bauerandfrench.com (Randal French) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:46:59 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] had this ? come up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45AF97379DC9354BA4F5CFECBB5FFD83021B5218@BFSBS.BFDom.local> I take it the trustee is asserting a claim for recovery of a preferential transfer, so the defenses under 547 are available. Did the creditor have any kind of collateral arising from a consensual lien or a judgment lien? If the creditor had a consensual lien on any assets, or had recorded the judgment and the debtor had real estate in his or her name, then the creditor may have had a valid lien and was entitled to payment in full from the real estate. That defeats one element of the preferential transfer, that the creditor got more than it would have received if the assets were liquidated and the creditor, as a secured creditor, was paid in full. If the creditor had a lien that was not avoidable, then the payment might be considered fair value for and a contemporaneous exchange for, the release of the lien. Here may be other defenses available under 547 that apply to your facts. On setting aside the satisfaction, I do not know that the creditor needs to set aside the satisfaction. BR3002(c)(3) allows a person to file an unsecured claim which arises from a recovery of money or property. That is what applies, in my view, from the trustee's recovery of a payment which paid the judgment in full. Randy French www.bauerandfrench.com Bauer & French Attorneys at Law 1501 Tyrell Lane 1P.O. Box 2730 PBoise, ID 83701-2730 (208) 383-0090 ( Fax: (208) 383-0412 IMPORTANT NOTICE: This communication, including any attachments, may contain information that may be confidential or privileged and is intended solely for the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient, you must delete this message and attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this email, including any attachment, is to be a legally binding signature. -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Aaron Tolson Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 10:12 AM To: clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov; clbs at admws.idaho.gov Subject: [CLBS] had this ? come up for creditor attorneys: garnishment on the debtor paid the judgment in full, creditor files satisfaction and a couple of weeks later bankruptcy, trustee request most of the funds back- violation of the stay to set aside the satisfaction. is there anything creditor can do -- Aaron J. Tolson 2677 E. 17th St. #300 Ammon, ID. 83406 208-228-5221 This a privileged communication. Please advise if you received it in error. _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs !SIG:51eeab6999021490510917! From rokytalaw at gmail.com Wed Jul 31 14:44:48 2013 From: rokytalaw at gmail.com (Ashley ) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:44:48 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] Chapter 11 Referral Message-ID: <0b1301ce8e2e$cd944850$68bcd8f0$@gmail.com> List, Can someone please provide an attorney referral for a Chapter 11 in the Moscow/Lewiston area? Thanks, Ashley Ashley Rokyta McCormick & Rokyta, PLLC 116 East Third St., Ste. 201 Moscow, ID 83843 Telephone: (208) 301-9291 Fax: (866) 777-3186 This electronic message transmission contains information which may be confidential, privileged, and/or protected attorney work product. It is intended for the use of the addressee(s). Any unauthorized use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please destroy it completely and inform us of the erroneous delivery by return email message from your computer. Additionally, although all attachments have been scanned at the source for viruses, the recipient should check all attachments for the presence of viruses before opening. We accept no liability for any damages caused by any virus transmitted by email. Thank you for your cooperation mod scales2 resized -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 940 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ajt at aaronjtolsonlaw.com Thu Jul 11 17:07:53 2013 From: ajt at aaronjtolsonlaw.com (Aaron Tolson) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:07:53 -0000 Subject: [CLBS] Chemical overspray agriculture case Message-ID: Has anyone had experience with one of these lawsuits? I would like to discuss if you have a few minutes. -- Aaron J. Tolson 2677 E. 17th St. #300 Ammon, ID. 83406 208-228-5221 This a privileged communication. Please advise if you received it in error. From tyler.wirick at gmail.com Fri Jul 5 13:52:37 2013 From: tyler.wirick at gmail.com (Tyler Wirick) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 19:52:37 -0000 Subject: [CLBS] Bad Faith in Conversion Message-ID: <3B490ACE-DCA1-4199-AC48-96E702C8EBD0@gmail.com> Here's the scenario: client's previous Ch. 7 was in early 2005. Files a Ch. 13 in January 2012 and pay for a while, but client is now behind and wants to convert. I see a bad faith argument coming if he converts. If he dismisses how long would he have to wait to get beyond a bad faith argument? Best regards, Tyler S. Wirick Law Offices of Tyler S. Wirick 250 Northwest Blvd. Suite 107A Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 Telephone: (208) 292-4200 Fax: (208) 292-4201 tyler.wirick at wiricklaw.com ******NOTICE****** The information transmitted in this email and any attachments is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients. This message may be or may contain privileged and confidential communications. If you as the reader are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any retention, review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or the information contained is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message from your system.