From mtc at angstman.com Mon Feb 3 10:27:18 2020 From: mtc at angstman.com (Matthew Christensen) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 17:27:18 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] Seminar discussion preview Message-ID: All, Paul Ross and I are presenting at the upcoming Section Conference on the continuing unbundling/bifurcation of fees issues. We would like our presentation to be more of a "group discussion," rather than just Paul and I droning on from the front of the room. To that end, we're providing our written materials (which are largely summaries of relevant cases), as well as two Local Rules that Utah adopted recently. Our own Local Rules Committee began discussion of some sort of incorporation of the Utah rule late last year, and will continue discussion this year. However, we would like to get comments/discussion from the general bankruptcy bar on the issue - which led to this section of the seminar. Please take a moment before Thursday to review the case summaries and the Utah rule (both of which are attached here). On Thursday, we'll be discussing the following (the actual discussion questions will be more specific - but this at least gets everyone thinking): 1. Should our District adopt a similar rule? 2. What are the pros/cons of the Utah rule (or something similar)? See you all later this week in McCall!! Matt [cid:image001.png at 01D5DA7C.80E74E20] Matthew T. Christensen Managing Partner/Attorney at Law ANGSTMAN JOHNSON 199 N. Capitol Blvd. Suite 200 Boise, ID 83702 T | 208-384-8588 W | www.angstman.com F | 208-629-2157 E | mtc at angstman.com [cid:image002.png at 01D5DA7C.80E74E20] [cid:image003.jpg at 01D5DA7C.80E74E20] 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. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 4776 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 7219 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2592 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BK Section - Unbundling Revisited (FINAL VERSION).docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 36212 bytes Desc: BK Section - Unbundling Revisited (FINAL VERSION).docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Local Rule 2091-1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 34951 bytes Desc: Local Rule 2091-1.pdf URL: From paul at idbankruptcylaw.com Tue Feb 4 14:43:47 2020 From: paul at idbankruptcylaw.com (Paul Ross) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 14:43:47 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] Trial Attorney UST position In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI A Job Opportunity Announcement to fill the position of Trial Attorney for the Office of the United States Trustee Region 18, Boise, ID has been posted and is open through 11:59 p.m. on 5 March 2020. More information is available at https://www.justice.gov/legal-careers/job/trial-attorney-417 Respectfully, David W. Newman Assistant United States Trustee Districts of Idaho, Montana, and Utah U.S. Department of Justice Office of the United States Trustee 405 South Main Street, Suite 300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (801) 524-5149 This message and any attachments are intended only for the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, "Limited Official Use," or "Sensitive But Unclassified." If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient, then any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail message or by telephone at the number above, and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Thank you. -- Idaho Bankruptcy Law T: (208) 219-7997 F: (208) 416-6996 This communication is intended for the party above. If this e-mail has been sent to you by mistake, please notify me immediately. This information is private and is confidential and unauthorized use can impose penalties and liabilities. A client-attorney relationship is not created without a signed agreement and should not be construed as legal advice without such an agreement. From shawngmillerlaw at gmail.com Tue Feb 4 17:05:15 2020 From: shawngmillerlaw at gmail.com (Shawn Miller) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 17:05:15 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] 1099-c Message-ID: Mates, Potential client came in with a 1099-C for mortgage debt that was forgiven. The amount on the 1099-c was the entire amount he owed on the property before he stopped making payments. However he still lives in the home and was never served with any sort of foreclosure documents. Has anyone ever had a situation like this where the 1099-c comes prior to a foreclosure? Any thoughts are welcomed as to what might be occurring here? -- Miller Law PLLC 6901 W. Emerald St. Ste 203 Boise, ID 83704 Phone: 208-901-1647 Fax:208-906-8667 Email: shawngmillerlaw at gmail.com *ATTENTION*: This email and any attachments are intended for the addressee only and may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, disregard and delete it immediately. Any unauthorized use or dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error please contact the sender at the email address provided above. From paul at idbankruptcylaw.com Fri Feb 7 22:54:23 2020 From: paul at idbankruptcylaw.com (Paul Ross) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 22:54:23 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] Forum non conveniens case Message-ID: After all the repeated Burley jokes today and yesterday, I provide you this Judge Kent case on forum non conveniens. I hope you get a good laugh out of it too. My response email last year echoed some of this decision. Paul KENT , District Judge. This is a breach of contract case based on an insurance contract entered into by Plaintiff and Defendant. Now before the Court is Defendant?s October 11, 1996 Motion to Transfer Venue from the Galveston Division to the Houston Division of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1404(a) . For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is *DENIED.* [1] [image: Headnote Citing References] [2] [image: Headnote Citing References] Section 1404(a) provides: ?For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.? 28 U.S.C. ? 1404(a) . The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating to the District Court that it should, in its sound discretion, decide to transfer the action. *Peteet v. Dow Chemical Co.,* 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir.) (holding that the decision whether to transfer rests with the sound discretion of the District Court), *cert. denied,* 493 U.S. 935, 110 S.Ct. 328, 107 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989) ; *Time, Inc. v. Manning,* 366 F.2d 690, 698 (5th Cir.1966) (holding that the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the action should be transferred). The Court weighs the following factors to decide whether a transfer is warranted: the availability and convenience of witnesses and parties, the location of counsel, the location of books and records, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses and other trial expenses, the place of the alleged wrong, the possibility of delay and prejudice if transfer is granted, and the plaintiff?s choice of forum, which is generally entitled to great deference. *E.g., **Dupre v. Spanier Marine Corp.,* 810 F.Supp. 823, 825 (S.D.Tex.1993) ; *Continental Airlines v. American Airlines,* 805 F.Supp. 1392, 1395-96 (S.D.Tex.1992) (discussing the importance of the plaintiff?s choice of forum in light of the policies underlying ? 1404(a) ). [3] [image: Headnote Citing References] Defendant?s request for a transfer of venue is centered around the fact that Galveston does not have a commercial airport into which Defendant?s employees and corporate**784* representatives may fly and out of which they may be expediently whisked to the federal courthouse in Galveston. Rather, Defendant contends that it will be faced with the huge ?inconvenience? of flying into Houston and driving less than forty miles to the Galveston courthouse, an act that will ?encumber? it with ?unnecessary driving time and expenses.? The Court certainly does not wish to encumber any litigant with such an onerous burden. The Court, being somewhat familiar with the Northeast, notes that perceptions about travel are different in that part of the country than they are in Texas. A litigant in that part of the country could cross several states in a few hours and might be shocked at having to travel fifty miles to try a case, but in this vast state of Texas, such a travel distance would not be viewed with any surprise or consternation. FN1 Defendant should be assured that it is not embarking on a three-week-long trip via covered wagons when it travels to Galveston. Rather, Defendant will be pleased to discover that the highway is paved and lighted all the way to Galveston, and thanks to the efforts of this Court?s predecessor, Judge Roy Bean, the trip should be free of rustlers, hooligans, or vicious varmints of unsavory kind. Moreover, the speed limit was recently increased to seventy miles per hour on most of the road leading to Galveston, so Defendant should be able to hurtle to justice at lightning speed. To assuage Defendant?s worries about the inconvenience of the drive, the Court notes that Houston?s Hobby Airport is located about equal drivetime from downtown Houston and the Galveston courthouse. Defendant will likely find it an easy, traffic-free ride to Galveston as compared to a congested, construction-riddled drive to downtown Houston. The Court notes that any inconvenience suffered in having to drive to Galveston may likely be offset by the peacefulness of the ride and the scenic beauty of the sunny isle. FN1. ?The sun is ?rize, the sun is set, and we is still in Texas yet!? [4] [image: Headnote Citing References] The convenience of the witnesses and the parties is generally a primary concern of this Court when considering transfer motions. However, vague statements about the convenience of unknown and unnamed witnesses is insufficient to convince this Court that the convenience of the witnesses and the parties would be best served by transferring venue. *See **Dupre,* 810 F.Supp. at 823 (to support a transfer of venue, the moving party cannot merely allege that certain key witnesses are not available or are inconveniently located, but must specifically identify the key witnesses and outline the substance of their testimony). In the Court?s view, even if all the witnesses, documents, and evidence relevant to this case were located within walking distance of the Houston Division courthouse, the inconvenience caused by retaining the case in this Court would be minimal at best in this age of convenient travel, communication, discovery, and trial testimony preservation. The Galveston Division courthouse is only about fifty miles from the Houston Division courthouse. ?[I]t is not as if the key witnesses will be asked to travel to the wilds of Alaska or the furthest reaches on the Continental United States.? *Continental Airlines,* 805 F.Supp. at 1397 . As to Defendant?s argument that Houston might also be a more convenient forum for Plaintiff, the Court notes that Plaintiff picked Galveston as her forum of choice even though she resides in San Antonio. Defendant argues that flight travel is available between Houston and San Antonio but is not available between Galveston and San Antonio, again because of the absence of a commercial airport. Alas, this Court?s kingdom for a commercial airport! FN2 The Court is unpersuaded by this argument because it is not this Court?s concern how Plaintiff gets here, whether it be by plane, train, automobile, horseback, foot, or on the back of a huge Texas jackrabbit, as long as Plaintiff is here at the proper date and time. Thus, the Court declines to disturb the forum chosen by the Plaintiff and introduce the likelihood of delay inherent in any transfer simply to **785* avoid the insignificant inconvenience that Defendant may suffer by litigating this matter in Galveston rather than Houston. *See **United Sonics, Inc. v. Shock,* 661 F.Supp. 681, 683 (W.D.Tex.1986) (plaintiff?s choice of forum is ?most influential and should rarely be disturbed unless the balance is strongly in defendant?s favor?); *Dupre,* 810 F.Supp. at 828 (a prompt trial ?is not without relevance to the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice?). FN2. Defendant will again be pleased to know that regular limousine service is available from Hobby Airport, even to the steps of this humble courthouse, which has got lights, indoor plummin?, ?lectric doors, and all sorts of new stuff, almost like them big courthouses back East. For the reasons stated above, Defendant?s Motion to Transfer is hereby *DENIED.* The parties are *ORDERED* to bear their own taxable costs and expenses incurred herein to date. The parties are also *ORDERED* to file nothing further on this issue in this Court, including motions to reconsider and the like. Instead, the parties are instructed to seek any further relief to which they feel themselves entitled in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as may be appropriate in due course. *IT IS SO ORDERED.* S.D.Tex.,1996. Smith v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co. 943 F.Supp. 782 From paul at idbankruptcylaw.com Sat Feb 8 19:10:12 2020 From: paul at idbankruptcylaw.com (Paul Ross) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 19:10:12 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] Fwd: new klein opinion In-Reply-To: <59DD92D5-0EA3-4D4E-8F54-F12AD15CB1FF@id.uscourts.gov> References: <59DD92D5-0EA3-4D4E-8F54-F12AD15CB1FF@id.uscourts.gov> Message-ID: Here is the case Judge Meier shared with us today during the Judges panel. Paul -- Idaho Bankruptcy Law T: (208) 219-7997 F: (208) 416-6996 This communication is intended for the party above. If this e-mail has been sent to you by mistake, please notify me immediately. This information is private and is confidential and unauthorized use can impose penalties and liabilities. A client-attorney relationship is not created without a signed agreement and should not be construed as legal advice without such an agreement. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Opinion LeGrand (003).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 129539 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dara at dparkerlaw.pl Mon Feb 10 10:51:50 2020 From: dara at dparkerlaw.pl (D Parker Law PLLC) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 10:51:50 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] Bankruptcy conflict waiver - ex spouses Message-ID: Does anyone have a conflict of interest waiver that they use in representing Ch. 7 bankruptcy Debtor ex-spouses (or soon to be ex-spouses) that they would be willing to share with me? Former bankruptcy clients have been referring their ex-spouses to me recently, and I don't feel like I should be doing that without a solid conflicts waiver in place, probably from both parties. I'm also concerned about conflict scenarios where still-married clients walk in, wanting bankruptcy jointly before they divorce. -- Dara L. Parker Bankruptcy and Wills Attorney dara at dparkerlaw.pl main: 208-287-4664 cell: 208-991-0433 www.dparkerlawidaho.com This communication may be confidential and protected under the attorney-client privilege. From shawngmillerlaw at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 10:53:21 2020 From: shawngmillerlaw at gmail.com (Shawn Miller) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 10:53:21 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] Abandoned secured property Message-ID: I have a couple of clients who have listed their cars or motorcycles in their BK with the intention of surrendering them back to the creditor. Many have already received their discharge and case has been closed. Some of these cases have been closed for over a year and the creditor has made no attempt to collect their property. At some point can they claim the property as abandoned and apply for new titles? Not sure how to advise them. Any info would be appreciated. -- Miller Law PLLC 6901 W. Emerald St. Ste 203 Boise, ID 83704 Phone: 208-901-1647 Fax:208-906-8667 Email: shawngmillerlaw at gmail.com *ATTENTION*: This email and any attachments are intended for the addressee only and may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, disregard and delete it immediately. Any unauthorized use or dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error please contact the sender at the email address provided above. From tecla.druffel at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 11:09:00 2020 From: tecla.druffel at gmail.com (Tecla Druffel) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:09:00 -0800 Subject: [CLBS] Hot off the presses: Idaho has now disgorged Ch. 13 Trustee fees in cases dismissed before confirmation Message-ID: Big news for debtor's attorneys and Ch. 13 Trustees alike: a Ch. 13 trustee may not retain trustee fees in a case that is dismissed prior to confirmation. This is the first written decision on this topic by a court within the 9th Circuit. Attached is the Memorandum of Decision in In re: Evans/Steedman. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 40_Memorandum_Decision - In re Evans Steedman.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 641328 bytes Desc: not available URL: From holly at roarklawboise.com Mon Feb 17 14:51:49 2020 From: holly at roarklawboise.com (Holly Roark) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:51:49 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] State disability payments included on Means Test? Message-ID: <046801d5e5dc$75b6ae90$61240bb0$@roarklawboise.com> Are state disability payments included as income on the Chapter 7 Means Test? Best regards, HOLLY ROARK Attorney at Law Certified Bankruptcy Specialist - By the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization ROARK LAW OFFICES 950 Bannock Street | 11th Floor | Boise, Idaho 83702 Phone: (208) 536-3638 (Texting is great! Regular business hours only, please.) Fax: (310) 553-2601 E-mail: holly at roarklawboise.com Website: www.roarklawboise.com You can easily see my real-time availability and schedule time with me at https://calendly.com/hollyr (Appointments are by phone only unless otherwise noted.) *This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship. Unless you have signed a retainer agreement with Roark Law Offices, this communication may not be private or privileged. From holly at roarklawboise.com Mon Feb 17 18:39:49 2020 From: holly at roarklawboise.com (Holly Roark) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 18:39:49 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? Message-ID: <04d501d5e5fc$4f7589c0$ee609d40$@roarklawboise.com> Debtor is in arrears $28K in mortgage and has saved up enough employment income to fully catch up. There may be excess equity in the property above the homestead by about $10K, according to Zillow, which is probably on the high end. Will reinstating the mortgage and paying the lender $28K prior to filing Ch 7 or Ch 13 cause an issue for the debtor in either chapter? This is a CA case. Best regards, HOLLY ROARK Attorney at Law Certified Bankruptcy Specialist - By the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization ROARK LAW OFFICES 950 Bannock Street | 11th Floor | Boise, Idaho 83702 Phone: (208) 536-3638 (Texting is great! Regular business hours only, please.) Fax: (310) 553-2601 E-mail: holly at roarklawboise.com Website: www.roarklawboise.com You can easily see my real-time availability and schedule time with me at https://calendly.com/hollyr (Appointments are by phone only unless otherwise noted.) *This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship. Unless you have signed a retainer agreement with Roark Law Offices, this communication may not be private or privileged. From mtc at angstman.com Tue Feb 18 18:06:38 2020 From: mtc at angstman.com (Matthew Christensen) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 01:06:38 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? In-Reply-To: <04d501d5e5fc$4f7589c0$ee609d40$@roarklawboise.com> References: <04d501d5e5fc$4f7589c0$ee609d40$@roarklawboise.com> Message-ID: Wouldn't it be a preference payment? They're obviously behind, so it's not an "ordinary course" payment, and there's no new value being provided by the lender - the value was already paid. I think there's a risk the Trustee pursues it as a preference (or the Ch. 13 Trustee wants that amount included in what has to be paid to creditors through the plan). Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. MTC Matthew T. Christensen (208) 384-8588 mtc at 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 On Behalf Of Holly Roark Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 6:40 PM To: CLBS at admws.idaho.gov Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? Debtor is in arrears $28K in mortgage and has saved up enough employment income to fully catch up. There may be excess equity in the property above the homestead by about $10K, according to Zillow, which is probably on the high end. Will reinstating the mortgage and paying the lender $28K prior to filing Ch 7 or Ch 13 cause an issue for the debtor in either chapter? This is a CA case. Best regards, HOLLY ROARK Attorney at Law Certified Bankruptcy Specialist - By the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization ROARK LAW OFFICES 950 Bannock Street | 11th Floor | Boise, Idaho 83702 Phone: (208) 536-3638 (Texting is great! Regular business hours only, please.) Fax: (310) 553-2601 E-mail: holly at roarklawboise.com Website: www.roarklawboise.com You can easily see my real-time availability and schedule time with me at https://calendly.com/hollyr (Appointments are by phone only unless otherwise noted.) *This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship. Unless you have signed a retainer agreement with Roark Law Offices, this communication may not be private or privileged. _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs From SSchwager at hawleytroxell.com Tue Feb 18 18:29:54 2020 From: SSchwager at hawleytroxell.com (Sheila Schwager) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 01:29:54 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? In-Reply-To: References: <04d501d5e5fc$4f7589c0$ee609d40$@roarklawboise.com>, Message-ID: <85C8A06F-1EE5-48CF-99F3-94BC28B5997F@hawleytroxell.com> The creditor is secured. How is that a preference? Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 18, 2020, at 6:06 PM, Matthew Christensen wrote: > > ?Wouldn't it be a preference payment? They're obviously behind, so it's not an "ordinary course" payment, and there's no new value being provided by the lender - the value was already paid. I think there's a risk the Trustee pursues it as a preference (or the Ch. 13 Trustee wants that amount included in what has to be paid to creditors through the plan). > > Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. > > MTC > > > Matthew T. Christensen > (208) 384-8588 > mtc at 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 On Behalf Of Holly Roark > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 6:40 PM > To: CLBS at admws.idaho.gov > Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? > > Debtor is in arrears $28K in mortgage and has saved up enough employment income to fully catch up. There may be excess equity in the property above the homestead by about $10K, according to Zillow, which is probably on the high end. Will reinstating the mortgage and paying the lender $28K prior to filing Ch 7 or Ch 13 cause an issue for the debtor in either chapter? This is a CA case. > > > > Best regards, > > HOLLY ROARK > > Attorney at Law > > Certified Bankruptcy Specialist - > > By the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization > > > > ROARK LAW OFFICES > > 950 Bannock Street | 11th Floor | Boise, Idaho 83702 > > Phone: (208) 536-3638 (Texting is great! Regular business hours only, > please.) > > Fax: (310) 553-2601 > > E-mail: holly at roarklawboise.com Website: > www.roarklawboise.com > > You can easily see my real-time availability and schedule time with me at https://calendly.com/hollyr (Appointments are by phone only unless otherwise noted.) > > *This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship. > > Unless you have signed a retainer agreement with Roark Law Offices, this > > communication may not be private or privileged. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cavallawoffice.com Tue Feb 18 18:36:35 2020 From: alex at cavallawoffice.com (Alexandra Caval) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:36:35 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? Message-ID: <7BB58CF4-0CFD-4BCD-BB12-D00CA6939234@cavallawoffice.com> ?Not sure that it meets all the elements of a preference because this is a secured creditor with a lien on property. Holly says there is equity above the homestead so if this is a CA case there?s presumably $85,000 in equity. This mortgage is fully secured and none of the cure payment would be toward unsecured debt. I don?t think a trustee could avoid it if it?s fully secured because trustee couldn?t show that creditor is getting more than it would in a chapter 7 case. The closest thing I?ve done to this is have a debtor make a partial cure payment of 6,000 on a mortgage default within 90 days of filing a chapter 13 (it brought the mortgage arrears down but didn?t fully cure it). The partial cure payment wasn?t as issue in the chapter 13 case but my creditor was oversecured in that case. I think that?s what you have going on here. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 18, 2020, at 6:06 PM, Matthew Christensen wrote: > > ?Wouldn't it be a preference payment? They're obviously behind, so it's not an "ordinary course" payment, and there's no new value being provided by the lender - the value was already paid. I think there's a risk the Trustee pursues it as a preference (or the Ch. 13 Trustee wants that amount included in what has to be paid to creditors through the plan). > > Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. > > MTC > > > Matthew T. Christensen > (208) 384-8588 > mtc at 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 On Behalf Of Holly Roark > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 6:40 PM > To: CLBS at admws.idaho.gov > Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? > > Debtor is in arrears $28K in mortgage and has saved up enough employment income to fully catch up. There may be excess equity in the property above the homestead by about $10K, according to Zillow, which is probably on the high end. Will reinstating the mortgage and paying the lender $28K prior to filing Ch 7 or Ch 13 cause an issue for the debtor in either chapter? This is a CA case. > > > > Best regards, > > HOLLY ROARK > > Attorney at Law > > Certified Bankruptcy Specialist - > > By the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization > > > > ROARK LAW OFFICES > > 950 Bannock Street | 11th Floor | Boise, Idaho 83702 > > Phone: (208) 536-3638 (Texting is great! Regular business hours only, > please.) > > Fax: (310) 553-2601 > > E-mail: holly at roarklawboise.com Website: > www.roarklawboise.com > > You can easily see my real-time availability and schedule time with me at https://calendly.com/hollyr (Appointments are by phone only unless otherwise noted.) > > *This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship. > > Unless you have signed a retainer agreement with Roark Law Offices, this > > communication may not be private or privileged. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 bratton.law.idaho at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 09:18:56 2020 From: bratton.law.idaho at gmail.com (Sarah Bratton) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:18:56 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] Spanish Speaking Attorney Message-ID: Do we have any Spanish speaking attorney's? Preferably in Central or Eastern Idaho for this specific referral but Boise could work as well. Sarah B. Bratton, Attorney Bratton Law, PLLC (208)918-0394 6126 W. State St. Suite 607 Boise, ID 83703 *PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE* This e-mail is intended only for the use of the recipient named and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the named recipient, you may have received this transmission in error. We ask that you immediately notify the sender and remove this and all attached file(s) from your system. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of the attorney-client or work-product privileges. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in this transmission if you are not the intended recipient is prohibited and may expose you to liability. From boiselaw.debbie at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 10:14:42 2020 From: boiselaw.debbie at gmail.com (Deborah Gates) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:14:42 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] Spanish Speaking Attorney In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Barrera Legal Group in Nampa 208-466-1800. That?s my office and we speak Spanish. Foley and Freeman has a Spanish speaker too. Hope that helps. Have a great day! Deborah Gates > On Feb 19, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Sarah Bratton wrote: > > ?Do we have any Spanish speaking attorney's? Preferably in Central or > Eastern Idaho for this specific referral but Boise could work as well. > > > Sarah B. Bratton, Attorney > > Bratton Law, PLLC > > (208)918-0394 > > > 6126 W. State St. > > Suite 607 > > Boise, ID 83703 > > > *PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE* > This e-mail is intended only for the use of the recipient named and may > contain information that is confidential, privileged, and exempt from > disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the named recipient, you > may have received this transmission in error. We ask that you immediately > notify the sender and remove this and all attached file(s) from your > system. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver > of the attorney-client or work-product privileges. You are hereby notified > that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the > information contained in this transmission if you are not the intended > recipient is prohibited and may expose you to liability. > _______________________________________________ > CLBS mailing list > CLBS at admws.idaho.gov > http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs From mtc at angstman.com Wed Feb 19 10:53:15 2020 From: mtc at angstman.com (Matthew Christensen) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:53:15 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? In-Reply-To: <7BB58CF4-0CFD-4BCD-BB12-D00CA6939234@cavallawoffice.com> References: <7BB58CF4-0CFD-4BCD-BB12-D00CA6939234@cavallawoffice.com> Message-ID: Good points. That's why I included my caveat at the end. :) MTC Matthew T. Christensen (208) 384-8588 mtc at 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: Alexandra Caval Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 6:37 PM To: Matthew Christensen Cc: holly at roarklawboise.com; Bankruptcy list Subject: Re: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? Not sure that it meets all the elements of a preference because this is a secured creditor with a lien on property. Holly says there is equity above the homestead so if this is a CA case there?s presumably $85,000 in equity. This mortgage is fully secured and none of the cure payment would be toward unsecured debt. I don?t think a trustee could avoid it if it?s fully secured because trustee couldn?t show that creditor is getting more than it would in a chapter 7 case. The closest thing I?ve done to this is have a debtor make a partial cure payment of 6,000 on a mortgage default within 90 days of filing a chapter 13 (it brought the mortgage arrears down but didn?t fully cure it). The partial cure payment wasn?t as issue in the chapter 13 case but my creditor was oversecured in that case. I think that?s what you have going on here. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 18, 2020, at 6:06 PM, Matthew Christensen wrote: > > ?Wouldn't it be a preference payment? They're obviously behind, so it's not an "ordinary course" payment, and there's no new value being provided by the lender - the value was already paid. I think there's a risk the Trustee pursues it as a preference (or the Ch. 13 Trustee wants that amount included in what has to be paid to creditors through the plan). > > Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. > > MTC > > > Matthew T. Christensen > (208) 384-8588 > mtc at 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 On Behalf Of Holly Roark > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 6:40 PM > To: CLBS at admws.idaho.gov > Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? > > Debtor is in arrears $28K in mortgage and has saved up enough employment income to fully catch up. There may be excess equity in the property above the homestead by about $10K, according to Zillow, which is probably on the high end. Will reinstating the mortgage and paying the lender $28K prior to filing Ch 7 or Ch 13 cause an issue for the debtor in either chapter? This is a CA case. > > > > Best regards, > > HOLLY ROARK > > Attorney at Law > > Certified Bankruptcy Specialist - > > By the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization > > > > ROARK LAW OFFICES > > 950 Bannock Street | 11th Floor | Boise, Idaho 83702 > > Phone: (208) 536-3638 (Texting is great! Regular business hours only, > please.) > > Fax: (310) 553-2601 > > E-mail: holly at roarklawboise.com Website: > www.roarklawboise.com > > You can easily see my real-time availability and schedule time with me at https://calendly.com/hollyr (Appointments are by phone only unless otherwise noted.) > > *This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship. > > Unless you have signed a retainer agreement with Roark Law Offices, this > > communication may not be private or privileged. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ryan at averylaw.net Wed Feb 19 11:05:55 2020 From: ryan at averylaw.net (Ryan Farnsworth) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:05:55 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] CLBS subscription question Message-ID: How do I remove one email address from this list? I'm getting them to 2 emails. I'd like to remove it from refasu at gmail.com or refarnsworth at gmail.com Ryan On Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 6:39 PM Holly Roark wrote: > Debtor is in arrears $28K in mortgage and has saved up enough employment > income to fully catch up. There may be excess equity in the property above > the homestead by about $10K, according to Zillow, which is probably on the > high end. Will reinstating the mortgage and paying the lender $28K prior to > filing Ch 7 or Ch 13 cause an issue for the debtor in either chapter? This > is a CA case. > > > > Best regards, > > HOLLY ROARK > > Attorney at Law > > Certified Bankruptcy Specialist - > > By the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization > > > > ROARK LAW OFFICES > > 950 Bannock Street | 11th Floor | Boise, Idaho 83702 > > Phone: (208) 536-3638 (Texting is great! Regular business hours only, > please.) > > Fax: (310) 553-2601 > > E-mail: holly at roarklawboise.com > Website: > www.roarklawboise.com > > You can easily see my real-time availability and schedule time with me at > https://calendly.com/hollyr (Appointments > are > by phone only unless otherwise noted.) > > *This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship. > > Unless you have signed a retainer agreement with Roark Law Offices, this > > communication may not be private or privileged. > > > > _______________________________________________ > CLBS mailing list > CLBS at admws.idaho.gov > http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs > > From bartgreen at cableone.net Wed Feb 19 13:49:13 2020 From: bartgreen at cableone.net (Bart Green) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:49:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [CLBS] Are state disability benefits included in means test Message-ID: <143014475.130124038.1582145353583.JavaMail.zimbra@cableone.net> Holly, My reading of the statute, 11 U.S.C 101(10A), is that the only things that are excluded in the means test for purposes of calculating "current monthly income" are Social Security Benefits and now veteran's disability. benefits. If you get down in the weeds a little further it excludes payments to victims of war crimes or crimes against humanity, payments to victims of international and domestic terrorism. The veterans' benefits include any monthly compensation, annuity or allowance paid in connection with disability, combat-related injury or disability, or death of a member of the uniformed services. So, if your client were a member of the guard and were deemed to be ostensibly a state employee and received disability benefits from the state treasury as a result of one the of the enumerated categories above then you would likely have an argument that it should be excluded. Other than that I think that state disability benefits generally, that are not military-service connected, would be included in "current monthly income." Sincerely, Bart Green From bartgreen at cableone.net Wed Feb 19 13:53:41 2020 From: bartgreen at cableone.net (Bart Green) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:53:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [CLBS] Reinstatement of mortgage Message-ID: <1499809222.130131176.1582145621785.JavaMail.zimbra@cableone.net> Holly, The test is whether the secured creditor received more than it otherwise would have received in a Chapter 7 liquidation without the payment. If the creditor is over-secured then the payment did not improve its position because the bank would have been made whole in a Chapter 7 and if the property were going back to the bank, even though the payment would fall within the 90-day reach back period for recovery of preferences as to an "outside" creditor. But I'd rather not be put in the position of having to make that argument. If the lender is under-secured then there was an improvement in its position and the payment would be subject to recovery by the trustee. But more to the point, why risk it? Have your client reinstate the mortgage, and then continue to make the regular monthly payments, within the ordinary course of business, wait until the $28,000 reinstatement payment is at least outside the 90-day preference period, including allowing sufficient time for it to have gone through the bank clearinghouse system so that the payment has cleared your client's account and has clearly been processed and credited by the lender to the loan account balance, outside the 90-day period, and then file the case. That is the safer thing to do. Filing too soon is simply putting a big target on your client and inviting the trustee to seek a way to recover the payment, either as a preference, or to get creative and make an argument that is was a fraudulent conveyance because the debtor was building up his exempt equity under the homestead exemption at the expense of his creditors, essentially converting a non-exempt asset to an exempt asset. I'd wait at least the 90 plus days to file. If I could wait more than six months, I'd wait at least that long, preferably eight months or longer. Remember what the Honorable Joseph J. Meier used to say, when he was in private practice and would be speaking at a seminar, prior to going on the bench: "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered." Sincerely, Bart Green From carolyn.g.wade at doj.state.or.us Wed Feb 19 15:31:58 2020 From: carolyn.g.wade at doj.state.or.us (Wade Carolyn G) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:31:58 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? In-Reply-To: References: <7BB58CF4-0CFD-4BCD-BB12-D00CA6939234@cavallawoffice.com>, Message-ID: <5D93CDC3-8A1F-49C1-B830-1DA2E1871BE6@doj.state.or.us> I?d say you have a problem. You?re moving nonexempt cash into an asset that you?re hoping will be treated as an exempt asset. You?re endangering a discharge. > On Feb 19, 2020, at 9:53 AM, Matthew Christensen wrote: > > Good points. That's why I included my caveat at the end. :) > > MTC > > Matthew T. Christensen > (208) 384-8588 > mtc at 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: Alexandra Caval > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 6:37 PM > To: Matthew Christensen > Cc: holly at roarklawboise.com; Bankruptcy list > Subject: Re: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? > > Not sure that it meets all the elements of a preference because this is a secured creditor with a lien on property. Holly says there is equity above the homestead so if this is a CA case there?s presumably $85,000 in equity. This mortgage is fully secured and none of the cure payment would be toward unsecured debt. I don?t think a trustee could avoid it if it?s fully secured because trustee couldn?t show that creditor is getting more than it would in a chapter 7 case. > > The closest thing I?ve done to this is have a debtor make a partial cure payment of 6,000 on a mortgage default within 90 days of filing a chapter 13 (it brought the mortgage arrears down but didn?t fully cure it). The partial cure payment wasn?t as issue in the chapter 13 case but my creditor was oversecured in that case. I think that?s what you have going on here. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Feb 18, 2020, at 6:06 PM, Matthew Christensen wrote: >> >> ?Wouldn't it be a preference payment? They're obviously behind, so it's not an "ordinary course" payment, and there's no new value being provided by the lender - the value was already paid. I think there's a risk the Trustee pursues it as a preference (or the Ch. 13 Trustee wants that amount included in what has to be paid to creditors through the plan). >> >> Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. >> >> MTC >> >> >> Matthew T. Christensen >> (208) 384-8588 >> mtc at 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 On Behalf Of Holly Roark >> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 6:40 PM >> To: CLBS at admws.idaho.gov >> Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? >> >> Debtor is in arrears $28K in mortgage and has saved up enough employment income to fully catch up. There may be excess equity in the property above the homestead by about $10K, according to Zillow, which is probably on the high end. Will reinstating the mortgage and paying the lender $28K prior to filing Ch 7 or Ch 13 cause an issue for the debtor in either chapter? This is a CA case. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> HOLLY ROARK >> >> Attorney at Law >> >> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist - >> >> By the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization >> >> >> >> ROARK LAW OFFICES >> >> 950 Bannock Street | 11th Floor | Boise, Idaho 83702 >> >> Phone: (208) 536-3638 (Texting is great! Regular business hours only, >> please.) >> >> Fax: (310) 553-2601 >> >> E-mail: holly at roarklawboise.com Website: >> www.roarklawboise.com >> >> You can easily see my real-time availability and schedule time with me at https://calendly.com/hollyr (Appointments are by phone only unless otherwise noted.) >> >> *This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship. >> >> Unless you have signed a retainer agreement with Roark Law Offices, this >> >> communication may not be private or privileged. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 *****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE***** This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. ************************************ From MBennett at foleyfreeman.com Wed Feb 19 15:51:42 2020 From: MBennett at foleyfreeman.com (Matthew Bennett) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:51:42 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] Spanish Speaking Attorney In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am the Spanish speaking attorney at Foley Freeman. Let me know if I can help. Thanks. Matthew G. Bennett Attorney 953 S. Industry Way Meridian, ID 83642 Phone: 208-888-9111 Fax: 208-888-5130 Website: www.foleyfreeman.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The preceding message (including attachment, if any) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 2510-2521, is CONFIDENTIAL, and may also be protected by the ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR OTHER PRIVILEGE. If you believe that this message has been sent to you in error, do not read any further portion of the message other than the remainder of this notice, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete the message. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. We do not waive any attorney/client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. -----Original Message----- From: CLBS On Behalf Of Deborah Gates Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 10:15 AM To: Sarah Bratton Cc: CLBS at admws.idaho.gov Subject: Re: [CLBS] Spanish Speaking Attorney Barrera Legal Group in Nampa 208-466-1800. That?s my office and we speak Spanish. Foley and Freeman has a Spanish speaker too. Hope that helps. Have a great day! Deborah Gates > On Feb 19, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Sarah Bratton wrote: > > ?Do we have any Spanish speaking attorney's? Preferably in Central or > Eastern Idaho for this specific referral but Boise could work as well. > > > Sarah B. Bratton, Attorney > > Bratton Law, PLLC > > (208)918-0394 > > > 6126 W. State St. > > Suite 607 > > Boise, ID 83703 > > > *PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE* This e-mail is intended only > for the use of the recipient named and may contain information that is > confidential, privileged, and exempt from disclosure under applicable > laws. If you are not the named recipient, you may have received this > transmission in error. We ask that you immediately notify the sender > and remove this and all attached file(s) from your system. Receipt by > anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of the > attorney-client or work-product privileges. You are hereby notified > that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the > information contained in this transmission if you are not the intended > recipient is prohibited and may expose you to liability. > _______________________________________________ > 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 cavallawoffice.com Wed Feb 19 21:31:51 2020 From: alex at cavallawoffice.com (Alexandra Caval) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:31:51 -0700 Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? In-Reply-To: <5D93CDC3-8A1F-49C1-B830-1DA2E1871BE6@doj.state.or.us> References: <7BB58CF4-0CFD-4BCD-BB12-D00CA6939234@cavallawoffice.com> <5D93CDC3-8A1F-49C1-B830-1DA2E1871BE6@doj.state.or.us> Message-ID: Carolyn, It's interesting that you and Bart brought up this issue of turning non-exempt funds into exempt property. Are you thinking 11 U.S.C. 522(o) is the potential problem? The last Idaho case I remember reading on 522(o), In re Halinga, made me think it was hard for a trustee to show the 3rd element of 522(o) - that the debtor disposed of nonexempt property with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor. Trustee has to show actual intent as opposed to constructive intent. I'm by no means an expert on CA exemptions, but I would imagine that at least some portion of the $28,000 in pre-petition wages that the debtor saved up has to be exempt under a wage exemption statute. To that end, I would think that at least a portion of the $28,000 is exempt property turned into different exempt property. But the more important question is whether you've seen/read about a case where the debtor's desire to cure a mortgage default was sufficient to support a finding of actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor such the homestead exemption can be reduced by the amount of the payment under 522(o)? More generally, has anyone seen a 522(o) objection in the last few years? Alex On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Wade Carolyn G < carolyn.g.wade at doj.state.or.us> wrote: > I?d say you have a problem. You?re moving nonexempt cash into an asset > that you?re hoping will be treated as an exempt asset. You?re endangering a > discharge. > > > On Feb 19, 2020, at 9:53 AM, Matthew Christensen > wrote: > > > > Good points. That's why I included my caveat at the end. :) > > > > MTC > > > > Matthew T. Christensen > > (208) 384-8588 > > mtc at 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: Alexandra Caval > > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 6:37 PM > > To: Matthew Christensen > > Cc: holly at roarklawboise.com; Bankruptcy list > > Subject: Re: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before > filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? > > > > Not sure that it meets all the elements of a preference because this is > a secured creditor with a lien on property. Holly says there is equity > above the homestead so if this is a CA case there?s presumably $85,000 in > equity. This mortgage is fully secured and none of the cure payment would > be toward unsecured debt. I don?t think a trustee could avoid it if it?s > fully secured because trustee couldn?t show that creditor is getting more > than it would in a chapter 7 case. > > > > The closest thing I?ve done to this is have a debtor make a partial cure > payment of 6,000 on a mortgage default within 90 days of filing a chapter > 13 (it brought the mortgage arrears down but didn?t fully cure it). The > partial cure payment wasn?t as issue in the chapter 13 case but my creditor > was oversecured in that case. I think that?s what you have going on here. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On Feb 18, 2020, at 6:06 PM, Matthew Christensen > wrote: > >> > >> ?Wouldn't it be a preference payment? They're obviously behind, so > it's not an "ordinary course" payment, and there's no new value being > provided by the lender - the value was already paid. I think there's a > risk the Trustee pursues it as a preference (or the Ch. 13 Trustee wants > that amount included in what has to be paid to creditors through the > plan). > >> > >> Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. > >> > >> MTC > >> > >> > >> Matthew T. Christensen > >> (208) 384-8588 > >> mtc at 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 On Behalf Of Holly Roark > >> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 6:40 PM > >> To: CLBS at admws.idaho.gov > >> Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before > filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? > >> > >> Debtor is in arrears $28K in mortgage and has saved up enough > employment income to fully catch up. There may be excess equity in the > property above the homestead by about $10K, according to Zillow, which is > probably on the high end. Will reinstating the mortgage and paying the > lender $28K prior to filing Ch 7 or Ch 13 cause an issue for the debtor in > either chapter? This is a CA case. > >> > >> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> HOLLY ROARK > >> > >> Attorney at Law > >> > >> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist - > >> > >> By the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization > >> > >> > >> > >> ROARK LAW OFFICES > >> > >> 950 Bannock Street | 11th Floor | Boise, Idaho 83702 > >> > >> Phone: (208) 536-3638 (Texting is great! Regular business hours only, > >> please.) > >> > >> Fax: (310) 553-2601 > >> > >> E-mail: holly at roarklawboise.com > Website: > >> www.roarklawboise.com > >> > >> You can easily see my real-time availability and schedule time with me > at https://calendly.com/hollyr > (Appointments are by phone only unless otherwise noted.) > >> > >> *This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship. > >> > >> Unless you have signed a retainer agreement with Roark Law Offices, > this > >> > >> communication may not be private or privileged. > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > *****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE***** > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or > otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the > addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have > received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply > e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message > and any attachments from your system. > > ************************************ > -- Alexandra O. Caval Caval Law Office, P.C. P.O. Box 1716 Twin Falls, ID 83303-01716 T: 208.733.2035 F: 208.733.3919 alex at cavallawoffice.com *PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE* This e-mail is intended only for the use of the recipient named and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the named recipient, you may have received this transmission in error. We ask that you immediately notify the sender and remove this and all attached file(s) from your system. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of the attorney-client or work-product privileges. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in this transmission if you are not the intended recipient is prohibited and may expose you to liability. From carolyn.g.wade at doj.state.or.us Wed Feb 19 21:58:44 2020 From: carolyn.g.wade at doj.state.or.us (Wade Carolyn G) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 04:58:44 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? In-Reply-To: References: <7BB58CF4-0CFD-4BCD-BB12-D00CA6939234@cavallawoffice.com> <5D93CDC3-8A1F-49C1-B830-1DA2E1871BE6@doj.state.or.us> Message-ID: I don?t know anything about California exemptions except what I?ve Googled in the last ten minutes, but it does not appear that there is any exemption for an accumulation of wages?just 75% of the wages paid in the 30 days before bankruptcy. I haven?t seen any cases, I was just spitballing what I thought a trustee would think about seeing $28,000 in cash disappear into an asset that would not be available to creditors. What kind of debtor has been able to set aside enough employment income to make a single $28K payment to fully catch up his mortgage arrears (but wasn?t able to stay current on his mortgage) and still needs to file a bankruptcy? Something feels hinky. From: Alexandra Caval Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 8:32 PM To: Wade Carolyn G Cc: Matthew Christensen ; Bankruptcy list Subject: Re: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? Carolyn, It's interesting that you and Bart brought up this issue of turning non-exempt funds into exempt property. Are you thinking 11 U.S.C. 522(o) is the potential problem? The last Idaho case I remember reading on 522(o), In re Halinga, made me think it was hard for a trustee to show the 3rd element of 522(o) - that the debtor disposed of nonexempt property with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor. Trustee has to show actual intent as opposed to constructive intent. I'm by no means an expert on CA exemptions, but I would imagine that at least some portion of the $28,000 in pre-petition wages that the debtor saved up has to be exempt under a wage exemption statute. To that end, I would think that at least a portion of the $28,000 is exempt property turned into different exempt property. But the more important question is whether you've seen/read about a case where the debtor's desire to cure a mortgage default was sufficient to support a finding of actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor such the homestead exemption can be reduced by the amount of the payment under 522(o)? More generally, has anyone seen a 522(o) objection in the last few years? Alex On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Wade Carolyn G > wrote: I?d say you have a problem. You?re moving nonexempt cash into an asset that you?re hoping will be treated as an exempt asset. You?re endangering a discharge. > On Feb 19, 2020, at 9:53 AM, Matthew Christensen > wrote: > > Good points. That's why I included my caveat at the end. :) > > MTC > > Matthew T. Christensen > (208) 384-8588 > mtc at 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: Alexandra Caval > > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 6:37 PM > To: Matthew Christensen > > Cc: holly at roarklawboise.com; Bankruptcy list > > Subject: Re: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? > > Not sure that it meets all the elements of a preference because this is a secured creditor with a lien on property. Holly says there is equity above the homestead so if this is a CA case there?s presumably $85,000 in equity. This mortgage is fully secured and none of the cure payment would be toward unsecured debt. I don?t think a trustee could avoid it if it?s fully secured because trustee couldn?t show that creditor is getting more than it would in a chapter 7 case. > > The closest thing I?ve done to this is have a debtor make a partial cure payment of 6,000 on a mortgage default within 90 days of filing a chapter 13 (it brought the mortgage arrears down but didn?t fully cure it). The partial cure payment wasn?t as issue in the chapter 13 case but my creditor was oversecured in that case. I think that?s what you have going on here. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Feb 18, 2020, at 6:06 PM, Matthew Christensen > wrote: >> >> ?Wouldn't it be a preference payment? They're obviously behind, so it's not an "ordinary course" payment, and there's no new value being provided by the lender - the value was already paid. I think there's a risk the Trustee pursues it as a preference (or the Ch. 13 Trustee wants that amount included in what has to be paid to creditors through the plan). >> >> Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. >> >> MTC >> >> >> Matthew T. Christensen >> (208) 384-8588 >> mtc at 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 > On Behalf Of Holly Roark >> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 6:40 PM >> To: CLBS at admws.idaho.gov >> Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? >> >> Debtor is in arrears $28K in mortgage and has saved up enough employment income to fully catch up. There may be excess equity in the property above the homestead by about $10K, according to Zillow, which is probably on the high end. Will reinstating the mortgage and paying the lender $28K prior to filing Ch 7 or Ch 13 cause an issue for the debtor in either chapter? This is a CA case. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> HOLLY ROARK >> >> Attorney at Law >> >> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist - >> >> By the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization >> >> >> >> ROARK LAW OFFICES >> >> 950 Bannock Street | 11th Floor | Boise, Idaho 83702 >> >> Phone: (208) 536-3638 (Texting is great! Regular business hours only, >> please.) >> >> Fax: (310) 553-2601 >> >> E-mail: > holly at roarklawboise.com Website: >> www.roarklawboise.com >> >> You can easily see my real-time availability and schedule time with me at https://calendly.com/hollyr (Appointments are by phone only unless otherwise noted.) >> >> *This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship. >> >> Unless you have signed a retainer agreement with Roark Law Offices, this >> >> communication may not be private or privileged. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 *****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE***** This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. ************************************ -- Alexandra O. Caval Caval Law Office, P.C. P.O. Box 1716 Twin Falls, ID 83303-01716 T: 208.733.2035 F: 208.733.3919 alex at cavallawoffice.com PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail is intended only for the use of the recipient named and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the named recipient, you may have received this transmission in error. We ask that you immediately notify the sender and remove this and all attached file(s) from your system. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of the attorney-client or work-product privileges. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in this transmission if you are not the intended recipient is prohibited and may expose you to liability. From jlefevre at crowleyfleck.com Thu Feb 20 06:55:26 2020 From: jlefevre at crowleyfleck.com (Jared M. Le Fevre) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:55:26 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? In-Reply-To: References: <7BB58CF4-0CFD-4BCD-BB12-D00CA6939234@cavallawoffice.com> <5D93CDC3-8A1F-49C1-B830-1DA2E1871BE6@doj.state.or.us> Message-ID: I have defended a preference claim in a similar scenario from the perspective of the secured creditor. My position was that the secured creditor could receive the funds without them being deemed a preference. See In re LCO Enterprises, 12 F.3d 938, 941 (9th Cir. 1993): ?If a creditor is fully secured, a prepetition transfer to him is not preferential because the secured creditor is entitled to 100% of his claim.? Jared M. Le Fevre 490 North 31st Street, Suite 500 Billings, MT 59101 Main: 406.252.3441 | Fax: 406.252.3181 Direct: 406.255.7323 Licensed in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Idaho, Utah With Offices in Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming Billings Bismarck Bozeman Butte Casper Cheyenne Helena Kalispell Missoula Sheridan Williston -----Original Message----- From: CLBS On Behalf Of Wade Carolyn G Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 9:59 PM To: 'Alexandra Caval' Cc: Bankruptcy list Subject: Re: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? This message was received from an external email account. Please use caution when opening messages or links from unknown senders. I don?t know anything about California exemptions except what I?ve Googled in the last ten minutes, but it does not appear that there is any exemption for an accumulation of wages?just 75% of the wages paid in the 30 days before bankruptcy. I haven?t seen any cases, I was just spitballing what I thought a trustee would think about seeing $28,000 in cash disappear into an asset that would not be available to creditors. What kind of debtor has been able to set aside enough employment income to make a single $28K payment to fully catch up his mortgage arrears (but wasn?t able to stay current on his mortgage) and still needs to file a bankruptcy? Something feels hinky. From: Alexandra Caval Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 8:32 PM To: Wade Carolyn G Cc: Matthew Christensen ; Bankruptcy list Subject: Re: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? Carolyn, It's interesting that you and Bart brought up this issue of turning non-exempt funds into exempt property. Are you thinking 11 U.S.C. 522(o) is the potential problem? The last Idaho case I remember reading on 522(o), In re Halinga, made me think it was hard for a trustee to show the 3rd element of 522(o) - that the debtor disposed of nonexempt property with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor. Trustee has to show actual intent as opposed to constructive intent. I'm by no means an expert on CA exemptions, but I would imagine that at least some portion of the $28,000 in pre-petition wages that the debtor saved up has to be exempt under a wage exemption statute. To that end, I would think that at least a portion of the $28,000 is exempt property turned into different exempt property. But the more important question is whether you've seen/read about a case where the debtor's desire to cure a mortgage default was sufficient to support a finding of actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor such the homestead exemption can be reduced by the amount of the payment under 522(o)? More generally, has anyone seen a 522(o) objection in the last few years? Alex On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Wade Carolyn G > wrote: I?d say you have a problem. You?re moving nonexempt cash into an asset that you?re hoping will be treated as an exempt asset. You?re endangering a discharge. > On Feb 19, 2020, at 9:53 AM, Matthew Christensen > wrote: > > Good points. That's why I included my caveat at the end. :) > > MTC > > Matthew T. Christensen > (208) 384-8588 > mtc at 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: Alexandra Caval > > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 6:37 PM > To: Matthew Christensen > > Cc: holly at roarklawboise.com; Bankruptcy list > > Subject: Re: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? > > Not sure that it meets all the elements of a preference because this is a secured creditor with a lien on property. Holly says there is equity above the homestead so if this is a CA case there?s presumably $85,000 in equity. This mortgage is fully secured and none of the cure payment would be toward unsecured debt. I don?t think a trustee could avoid it if it?s fully secured because trustee couldn?t show that creditor is getting more than it would in a chapter 7 case. > > The closest thing I?ve done to this is have a debtor make a partial cure payment of 6,000 on a mortgage default within 90 days of filing a chapter 13 (it brought the mortgage arrears down but didn?t fully cure it). The partial cure payment wasn?t as issue in the chapter 13 case but my creditor was oversecured in that case. I think that?s what you have going on here. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Feb 18, 2020, at 6:06 PM, Matthew Christensen > wrote: >> >> ?Wouldn't it be a preference payment? They're obviously behind, so it's not an "ordinary course" payment, and there's no new value being provided by the lender - the value was already paid. I think there's a risk the Trustee pursues it as a preference (or the Ch. 13 Trustee wants that amount included in what has to be paid to creditors through the plan). >> >> Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. >> >> MTC >> >> >> Matthew T. Christensen >> (208) 384-8588 >> mtc at 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 > On Behalf Of Holly Roark >> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 6:40 PM >> To: CLBS at admws.idaho.gov >> Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? >> >> Debtor is in arrears $28K in mortgage and has saved up enough employment income to fully catch up. There may be excess equity in the property above the homestead by about $10K, according to Zillow, which is probably on the high end. Will reinstating the mortgage and paying the lender $28K prior to filing Ch 7 or Ch 13 cause an issue for the debtor in either chapter? This is a CA case. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> HOLLY ROARK >> >> Attorney at Law >> >> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist - >> >> By the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization >> >> >> >> ROARK LAW OFFICES >> >> 950 Bannock Street | 11th Floor | Boise, Idaho 83702 >> >> Phone: (208) 536-3638 (Texting is great! Regular business hours only, >> please.) >> >> Fax: (310) 553-2601 >> >> E-mail: > holly at roarklawboise.com Website: >> www.roarklawboise.com >> >> You can easily see my real-time availability and schedule time with me at https://calendly.com/hollyr (Appointments are by phone only unless otherwise noted.) >> >> *This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship. >> >> Unless you have signed a retainer agreement with Roark Law Offices, this >> >> communication may not be private or privileged. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 *****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE***** This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. ************************************ -- Alexandra O. Caval Caval Law Office, P.C. P.O. Box 1716 Twin Falls, ID 83303-01716 T: 208.733.2035 F: 208.733.3919 alex at cavallawoffice.com PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail is intended only for the use of the recipient named and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the named recipient, you may have received this transmission in error. We ask that you immediately notify the sender and remove this and all attached file(s) from your system. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of the attorney-client or work-product privileges. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in this transmission if you are not the intended recipient is prohibited and may expose you to liability. _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may constitute an Attorney-Client communication that is privileged at law. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail or by calling Crowley Fleck PLLP, 406-252-3441, so that our address record can be corrected. This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com From bartgreen at cableone.net Thu Feb 20 09:59:13 2020 From: bartgreen at cableone.net (Bart Green) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:59:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? In-Reply-To: References: <7BB58CF4-0CFD-4BCD-BB12-D00CA6939234@cavallawoffice.com> <5D93CDC3-8A1F-49C1-B830-1DA2E1871BE6@doj.state.or.us> Message-ID: <498376738.132975871.1582217953872.JavaMail.zimbra@cableone.net> Carolyn and Alex, Whether or not the source of funds to reinstate the mortgage were from an exempt or non-exempt source was not the topic of Holly's inquiry. So I mentioned it only in that I think it is something you'd want to ask your client about. Where did they get the funds? Did they save it from pre-petition wages? Did they do a hardship loan from a retirement account? Did they borrow the money from relatives? Again, partly depending on the source of funds, but other factors being taken into consideration, I do not think you'd want to pay a large sum to reinstate the mortgage and file shortly thereafter. Matt Christensen had a case a few years ago where there was a challenge by the trustee as to whether non-exempt assets were converted to exempt assets shortly before filing and should be disgorged by the debtor. I don't recall the name of the case or how it turned out, but Matt may be able to comment on this. My view is that too much planning done too aggressively shortly before filing can lead to problems. Sincerely, Bart Green ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexandra Caval" To: "Wade" Cc: "CLBS" Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 9:31:51 PM Subject: Re: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? Carolyn, It's interesting that you and Bart brought up this issue of turning non-exempt funds into exempt property. Are you thinking 11 U.S.C. 522(o) is the potential problem? The last Idaho case I remember reading on 522(o), In re Halinga, made me think it was hard for a trustee to show the 3rd element of 522(o) - that the debtor disposed of nonexempt property with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor. Trustee has to show actual intent as opposed to constructive intent. I'm by no means an expert on CA exemptions, but I would imagine that at least some portion of the $28,000 in pre-petition wages that the debtor saved up has to be exempt under a wage exemption statute. To that end, I would think that at least a portion of the $28,000 is exempt property turned into different exempt property. But the more important question is whether you've seen/read about a case where the debtor's desire to cure a mortgage default was sufficient to support a finding of actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor such the homestead exemption can be reduced by the amount of the payment under 522(o)? More generally, has anyone seen a 522(o) objection in the last few years? Alex On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Wade Carolyn G < carolyn.g.wade at doj.state.or.us> wrote: > I?d say you have a problem. You?re moving nonexempt cash into an asset > that you?re hoping will be treated as an exempt asset. You?re endangering a > discharge. > > > On Feb 19, 2020, at 9:53 AM, Matthew Christensen > wrote: > > > > Good points. That's why I included my caveat at the end. :) > > > > MTC > > > > Matthew T. Christensen > > (208) 384-8588 > > mtc at 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: Alexandra Caval > > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 6:37 PM > > To: Matthew Christensen > > Cc: holly at roarklawboise.com; Bankruptcy list > > Subject: Re: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before > filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? > > > > Not sure that it meets all the elements of a preference because this is > a secured creditor with a lien on property. Holly says there is equity > above the homestead so if this is a CA case there?s presumably $85,000 in > equity. This mortgage is fully secured and none of the cure payment would > be toward unsecured debt. I don?t think a trustee could avoid it if it?s > fully secured because trustee couldn?t show that creditor is getting more > than it would in a chapter 7 case. > > > > The closest thing I?ve done to this is have a debtor make a partial cure > payment of 6,000 on a mortgage default within 90 days of filing a chapter > 13 (it brought the mortgage arrears down but didn?t fully cure it). The > partial cure payment wasn?t as issue in the chapter 13 case but my creditor > was oversecured in that case. I think that?s what you have going on here. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On Feb 18, 2020, at 6:06 PM, Matthew Christensen > wrote: > >> > >> ?Wouldn't it be a preference payment? They're obviously behind, so > it's not an "ordinary course" payment, and there's no new value being > provided by the lender - the value was already paid. I think there's a > risk the Trustee pursues it as a preference (or the Ch. 13 Trustee wants > that amount included in what has to be paid to creditors through the > plan). > >> > >> Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. > >> > >> MTC > >> > >> > >> Matthew T. Christensen > >> (208) 384-8588 > >> mtc at 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 On Behalf Of Holly Roark > >> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 6:40 PM > >> To: CLBS at admws.idaho.gov > >> Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before > filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? > >> > >> Debtor is in arrears $28K in mortgage and has saved up enough > employment income to fully catch up. There may be excess equity in the > property above the homestead by about $10K, according to Zillow, which is > probably on the high end. Will reinstating the mortgage and paying the > lender $28K prior to filing Ch 7 or Ch 13 cause an issue for the debtor in > either chapter? This is a CA case. > >> > >> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> HOLLY ROARK > >> > >> Attorney at Law > >> > >> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist - > >> > >> By the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization > >> > >> > >> > >> ROARK LAW OFFICES > >> > >> 950 Bannock Street | 11th Floor | Boise, Idaho 83702 > >> > >> Phone: (208) 536-3638 (Texting is great! Regular business hours only, > >> please.) > >> > >> Fax: (310) 553-2601 > >> > >> E-mail: holly at roarklawboise.com > Website: > >> www.roarklawboise.com > >> > >> You can easily see my real-time availability and schedule time with me > at https://calendly.com/hollyr > (Appointments are by phone only unless otherwise noted.) > >> > >> *This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship. > >> > >> Unless you have signed a retainer agreement with Roark Law Offices, > this > >> > >> communication may not be private or privileged. > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > *****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE***** > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or > otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the > addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have > received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply > e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message > and any attachments from your system. > > ************************************ > -- Alexandra O. Caval Caval Law Office, P.C. P.O. Box 1716 Twin Falls, ID 83303-01716 T: 208.733.2035 F: 208.733.3919 alex at cavallawoffice.com *PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE* This e-mail is intended only for the use of the recipient named and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the named recipient, you may have received this transmission in error. We ask that you immediately notify the sender and remove this and all attached file(s) from your system. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of the attorney-client or work-product privileges. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in this transmission if you are not the intended recipient is prohibited and may expose you to liability. _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs From mtc at angstman.com Thu Feb 20 15:10:32 2020 From: mtc at angstman.com (Matthew Christensen) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 22:10:32 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? In-Reply-To: <498376738.132975871.1582217953872.JavaMail.zimbra@cableone.net> References: <7BB58CF4-0CFD-4BCD-BB12-D00CA6939234@cavallawoffice.com> <5D93CDC3-8A1F-49C1-B830-1DA2E1871BE6@doj.state.or.us> <498376738.132975871.1582217953872.JavaMail.zimbra@cableone.net> Message-ID: I think the case Bart's referring to is In re Preuit, 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 2331. Thanks for reminding me about a case I lost. :( MTC Matthew T. Christensen (208) 384-8588 mtc at 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 On Behalf Of Bart Green Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 9:59 AM To: Alexandra Caval Cc: CLBS Subject: Re: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? Carolyn and Alex, Whether or not the source of funds to reinstate the mortgage were from an exempt or non-exempt source was not the topic of Holly's inquiry. So I mentioned it only in that I think it is something you'd want to ask your client about. Where did they get the funds? Did they save it from pre-petition wages? Did they do a hardship loan from a retirement account? Did they borrow the money from relatives? Again, partly depending on the source of funds, but other factors being taken into consideration, I do not think you'd want to pay a large sum to reinstate the mortgage and file shortly thereafter. Matt Christensen had a case a few years ago where there was a challenge by the trustee as to whether non-exempt assets were converted to exempt assets shortly before filing and should be disgorged by the debtor. I don't recall the name of the case or how it turned out, but Matt may be able to comment on this. My view is that too much planning done too aggressively shortly before filing can lead to problems. Sincerely, Bart Green ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexandra Caval" > To: "Wade" > Cc: "CLBS" > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 9:31:51 PM Subject: Re: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? Carolyn, It's interesting that you and Bart brought up this issue of turning non-exempt funds into exempt property. Are you thinking 11 U.S.C. 522(o) is the potential problem? The last Idaho case I remember reading on 522(o), In re Halinga, made me think it was hard for a trustee to show the 3rd element of 522(o) - that the debtor disposed of nonexempt property with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor. Trustee has to show actual intent as opposed to constructive intent. I'm by no means an expert on CA exemptions, but I would imagine that at least some portion of the $28,000 in pre-petition wages that the debtor saved up has to be exempt under a wage exemption statute. To that end, I would think that at least a portion of the $28,000 is exempt property turned into different exempt property. But the more important question is whether you've seen/read about a case where the debtor's desire to cure a mortgage default was sufficient to support a finding of actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor such the homestead exemption can be reduced by the amount of the payment under 522(o)? More generally, has anyone seen a 522(o) objection in the last few years? Alex On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Wade Carolyn G < carolyn.g.wade at doj.state.or.us> wrote: > I?d say you have a problem. You?re moving nonexempt cash into an asset > that you?re hoping will be treated as an exempt asset. You?re > endangering a discharge. > > > On Feb 19, 2020, at 9:53 AM, Matthew Christensen > > wrote: > > > > Good points. That's why I included my caveat at the end. :) > > > > MTC > > > > Matthew T. Christensen > > (208) 384-8588 > > mtc at 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: Alexandra Caval > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 6:37 PM > > To: Matthew Christensen > > > Cc: holly at roarklawboise.com; Bankruptcy list > > > Subject: Re: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right > > before > filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? > > > > Not sure that it meets all the elements of a preference because this > > is > a secured creditor with a lien on property. Holly says there is equity > above the homestead so if this is a CA case there?s presumably $85,000 > in equity. This mortgage is fully secured and none of the cure payment > would be toward unsecured debt. I don?t think a trustee could avoid it > if it?s fully secured because trustee couldn?t show that creditor is > getting more than it would in a chapter 7 case. > > > > The closest thing I?ve done to this is have a debtor make a partial > > cure > payment of 6,000 on a mortgage default within 90 days of filing a > chapter > 13 (it brought the mortgage arrears down but didn?t fully cure it). > The partial cure payment wasn?t as issue in the chapter 13 case but my > creditor was oversecured in that case. I think that?s what you have going on here. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On Feb 18, 2020, at 6:06 PM, Matthew Christensen > > wrote: > >> > >> ?Wouldn't it be a preference payment? They're obviously behind, so > it's not an "ordinary course" payment, and there's no new value being > provided by the lender - the value was already paid. I think there's > a risk the Trustee pursues it as a preference (or the Ch. 13 Trustee > wants that amount included in what has to be paid to creditors through > the plan). > >> > >> Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. > >> > >> MTC > >> > >> > >> Matthew T. Christensen > >> (208) 384-8588 > >> mtc at 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 > On Behalf Of Holly Roark > >> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 6:40 PM > >> To: CLBS at admws.idaho.gov > >> Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before > filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? > >> > >> Debtor is in arrears $28K in mortgage and has saved up enough > employment income to fully catch up. There may be excess equity in the > property above the homestead by about $10K, according to Zillow, which > is probably on the high end. Will reinstating the mortgage and paying > the lender $28K prior to filing Ch 7 or Ch 13 cause an issue for the > debtor in either chapter? This is a CA case. > >> > >> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> HOLLY ROARK > >> > >> Attorney at Law > >> > >> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist - > >> > >> By the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization > >> > >> > >> > >> ROARK LAW OFFICES > >> > >> 950 Bannock Street | 11th Floor | Boise, Idaho 83702 > >> > >> Phone: (208) 536-3638 (Texting is great! Regular business hours > >> only, > >> please.) > >> > >> Fax: (310) 553-2601 > >> > >> E-mail: holly at roarklawboise.com > Website: > >> www.roarklawboise.com > >> > >> You can easily see my real-time availability and schedule time with > >> me > at https://calendly.com/hollyr > (Appointments are by phone only unless otherwise noted.) > >> > >> *This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship. > >> > >> Unless you have signed a retainer agreement with Roark Law Offices, > this > >> > >> communication may not be private or privileged. > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > *****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE***** > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, > or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are > not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you > have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by > reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete > the message and any attachments from your system. > > ************************************ > -- Alexandra O. Caval Caval Law Office, P.C. P.O. Box 1716 Twin Falls, ID 83303-01716 T: 208.733.2035 F: 208.733.3919 alex at cavallawoffice.com *PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE* This e-mail is intended only for the use of the recipient named and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the named recipient, you may have received this transmission in error. We ask that you immediately notify the sender and remove this and all attached file(s) from your system. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of the attorney-client or work-product privileges. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in this transmission if you are not the intended recipient is prohibited and may expose you to liability. _______________________________________________ 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 PGeile at foleyfreeman.com Mon Feb 24 09:30:22 2020 From: PGeile at foleyfreeman.com (Patrick Geile) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 16:30:22 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] Officer travel costs associated with a corporate bankruptcy Message-ID: Good morning, has anyone had any success getting reimbursement for Officer expenses in travelling to the 341 hearing, in a chapter 7 case? In my mind they would be administrative costs that benefit the estate? Typically not a big issue because they are local, but I have a case where they will be travelling from out of state. Patrick J. Geile Attorney [cid:image001.png at 01D5EAF5.08EE26D0] 953 S. Industry Way Meridian, ID 83642 Phone: 208-888-9111 Direct:208-947-1563 Fax: 208-888-5130 Website: www.foleyfreeman.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The preceding message (including attachment, if any) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 2510-2521, is CONFIDENTIAL, and may also be protected by the ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR OTHER PRIVILEGE. If you believe that this message has been sent to you in error, do not read any further portion of the message other than the remainder of this notice, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete the message. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. We do not waive any attorney/client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 7837 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From bartgreen at cableone.net Mon Feb 24 10:12:25 2020 From: bartgreen at cableone.net (Bart Green) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 12:12:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? In-Reply-To: References: <7BB58CF4-0CFD-4BCD-BB12-D00CA6939234@cavallawoffice.com> <5D93CDC3-8A1F-49C1-B830-1DA2E1871BE6@doj.state.or.us> <498376738.132975871.1582217953872.JavaMail.zimbra@cableone.net> Message-ID: <447975668.144583725.1582564344988.JavaMail.zimbra@cableone.net> Matt, My intent was not to rub salt in the wound. But thanks for the cite, I thought that case was a good example. We all lose cases. My father used to say, "Any attorney who claims to have never lost a case has not tried more than one." Sincerely, Bart Green From: "Matthew Christensen" To: "Bart Green" , "Alexandra Caval" Cc: "CLBS" Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 3:10:32 PM Subject: RE: Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? I think the case Bart's referring to is In re Preuit , 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 2331. Thanks for reminding me about a case I lost. :( MTC Matthew T. Christensen (208) 384-8588 mtc at 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 On Behalf Of Bart Green Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 9:59 AM To: Alexandra Caval Cc: CLBS Subject: Re: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? Carolyn and Alex, Whether or not the source of funds to reinstate the mortgage were from an exempt or non-exempt source was not the topic of Holly's inquiry. So I mentioned it only in that I think it is something you'd want to ask your client about. Where did they get the funds? Did they save it from pre-petition wages? Did they do a hardship loan from a retirement account? Did they borrow the money from relatives? Again, partly depending on the source of funds, but other factors being taken into consideration, I do not think you'd want to pay a large sum to reinstate the mortgage and file shortly thereafter. Matt Christensen had a case a few years ago where there was a challenge by the trustee as to whether non-exempt assets were converted to exempt assets shortly before filing and should be disgorged by the debtor. I don't recall the name of the case or how it turned out, but Matt may be able to comment on this. My view is that too much planning done too aggressively shortly before filing can lead to problems. Sincerely, Bart Green ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexandra Caval" < [ mailto:alex at cavallawoffice.com | alex at cavallawoffice.com ] > To: "Wade" < [ mailto:carolyn.g.wade at doj.state.or.us | carolyn.g.wade at doj.state.or.us ] > Cc: "CLBS" < [ mailto:CLBS at admws.idaho.gov | CLBS at admws.idaho.gov ] > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 9:31:51 PM Subject: Re: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? Carolyn, It's interesting that you and Bart brought up this issue of turning non-exempt funds into exempt property. Are you thinking 11 U.S.C. 522(o) is the potential problem? The last Idaho case I remember reading on 522(o), In re Halinga, made me think it was hard for a trustee to show the 3rd element of 522(o) - that the debtor disposed of nonexempt property with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor. Trustee has to show actual intent as opposed to constructive intent. I'm by no means an expert on CA exemptions, but I would imagine that at least some portion of the $28,000 in pre-petition wages that the debtor saved up has to be exempt under a wage exemption statute. To that end, I would think that at least a portion of the $28,000 is exempt property turned into different exempt property. But the more important question is whether you've seen/read about a case where the debtor's desire to cure a mortgage default was sufficient to support a finding of actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor such the homestead exemption can be reduced by the amount of the payment under 522(o)? More generally, has anyone seen a 522(o) objection in the last few years? Alex On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Wade Carolyn G < [ mailto:carolyn.g.wade at doj.state.or.us | carolyn.g.wade at doj.state.or.us ] > wrote: > I?d say you have a problem. You?re moving nonexempt cash into an asset > that you?re hoping will be treated as an exempt asset. You?re > endangering a discharge. > > > On Feb 19, 2020, at 9:53 AM, Matthew Christensen < [ mailto:mtc at angstman.com | mtc at angstman.com ] > > wrote: > > > > Good points. That's why I included my caveat at the end. :) > > > > MTC > > > > Matthew T. Christensen > > (208) 384-8588 > > [ mailto:mtc at angstman.com | mtc at 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: Alexandra Caval < [ mailto:alex at cavallawoffice.com | alex at cavallawoffice.com ] > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 6:37 PM > > To: Matthew Christensen < [ mailto:mtc at angstman.com | mtc at angstman.com ] > > > Cc: [ mailto:holly at roarklawboise.com | holly at roarklawboise.com ] ; Bankruptcy list < [ mailto:CLBS at admws.idaho.gov | CLBS at admws.idaho.gov ] > > > Subject: Re: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right > > before > filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? > > > > Not sure that it meets all the elements of a preference because this > > is > a secured creditor with a lien on property. Holly says there is equity > above the homestead so if this is a CA case there?s presumably $85,000 > in equity. This mortgage is fully secured and none of the cure payment > would be toward unsecured debt. I don?t think a trustee could avoid it > if it?s fully secured because trustee couldn?t show that creditor is > getting more than it would in a chapter 7 case. > > > > The closest thing I?ve done to this is have a debtor make a partial > > cure > payment of 6,000 on a mortgage default within 90 days of filing a > chapter > 13 (it brought the mortgage arrears down but didn?t fully cure it). > The partial cure payment wasn?t as issue in the chapter 13 case but my > creditor was oversecured in that case. I think that?s what you have going on here. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On Feb 18, 2020, at 6:06 PM, Matthew Christensen < [ mailto:mtc at angstman.com | mtc at angstman.com ] > > wrote: > >> > >> Wouldn't it be a preference payment? They're obviously behind, so > it's not an "ordinary course" payment, and there's no new value being > provided by the lender - the value was already paid. I think there's > a risk the Trustee pursues it as a preference (or the Ch. 13 Trustee > wants that amount included in what has to be paid to creditors through > the plan). > >> > >> Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. > >> > >> MTC > >> > >> > >> Matthew T. Christensen > >> (208) 384-8588 > >> [ mailto:mtc at angstman.com | mtc at 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 | clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov ] > On Behalf Of Holly Roark > >> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 6:40 PM > >> To: [ mailto:CLBS at admws.idaho.gov | CLBS at admws.idaho.gov ] > >> Subject: [CLBS] Any issues with reinstating a mortgage right before > filing Ch 7 or Ch 13? > >> > >> Debtor is in arrears $28K in mortgage and has saved up enough > employment income to fully catch up. There may be excess equity in the > property above the homestead by about $10K, according to Zillow, which > is probably on the high end. Will reinstating the mortgage and paying > the lender $28K prior to filing Ch 7 or Ch 13 cause an issue for the > debtor in either chapter? This is a CA case. > >> > >> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> HOLLY ROARK > >> > >> Attorney at Law > >> > >> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist - > >> > >> By the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization > >> > >> > >> > >> ROARK LAW OFFICES > >> > >> 950 Bannock Street | 11th Floor | Boise, Idaho 83702 > >> > >> Phone: (208) 536-3638 (Texting is great! Regular business hours > >> only, > >> please.) > >> > >> Fax: (310) 553-2601 > >> > >> E-mail: < [ mailto:holly at roarklawboise.com | mailto:holly at roarklawboise.com ] > [ mailto:holly at roarklawboise.com | holly at roarklawboise.com ] > Website: > >> < [ http://www.roarklawboise.com/ | http://www.roarklawboise.com/ ] > [ http://www.roarklawboise.com/ | www.roarklawboise.com ] > >> > >> You can easily see my real-time availability and schedule time with > >> me > at < [ https://calendly.com/hollyr | https://calendly.com/hollyr ] > [ https://calendly.com/hollyr | https://calendly.com/hollyr ] > (Appointments are by phone only unless otherwise noted.) > >> > >> *This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship. > >> > >> Unless you have signed a retainer agreement with Roark Law Offices, > this > >> > >> communication may not be private or privileged. > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> CLBS mailing list > >> [ mailto:CLBS at admws.idaho.gov | CLBS at admws.idaho.gov ] > >> [ http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs | http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs ] > >> _______________________________________________ > >> CLBS mailing list > >> [ mailto:CLBS at admws.idaho.gov | CLBS at admws.idaho.gov ] > >> [ http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs | http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs ] > > _______________________________________________ > > CLBS mailing list > > [ mailto:CLBS at admws.idaho.gov | CLBS at admws.idaho.gov ] > > [ http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs | http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs ] > > *****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE***** > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, > or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are > not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you > have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by > reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete > the message and any attachments from your system. > > ************************************ > -- Alexandra O. Caval Caval Law Office, P.C. P.O. Box 1716 Twin Falls, ID 83303-01716 T: 208.733.2035 F: 208.733.3919 [ mailto:alex at cavallawoffice.com | alex at cavallawoffice.com ] *PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE* This e-mail is intended only for the use of the recipient named and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the named recipient, you may have received this transmission in error. We ask that you immediately notify the sender and remove this and all attached file(s) from your system. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of the attorney-client or work-product privileges. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in this transmission if you are not the intended recipient is prohibited and may expose you to liability. _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list [ mailto:CLBS at admws.idaho.gov | CLBS at admws.idaho.gov ] [ http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs | http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs ] _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list [ mailto:CLBS at admws.idaho.gov | CLBS at admws.idaho.gov ] [ http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs | http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs ] From PGeile at foleyfreeman.com Tue Feb 25 08:29:09 2020 From: PGeile at foleyfreeman.com (Patrick Geile) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:29:09 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] FW: SBRA decision.pdf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is the new 9th circuit SBRA case that is all the rage right now. Thanks Ford. Patrick J. Geile Foley Freeman PLLC (208) 947-1563 From: Ford Elsaesser Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 8:26 AM To: clbs at admws.idaho.gov Subject: SBRA decision.pdf All-pending ch 11 cases can be converted to SBRA via amendment of schedules under this case-Ford -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SBRA decision.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 539307 bytes Desc: SBRA decision.pdf URL: From PGeile at foleyfreeman.com Wed Feb 26 08:47:06 2020 From: PGeile at foleyfreeman.com (Patrick Geile) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:47:06 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] local IP attorney Message-ID: >From time to time I have clients with "great ideas" who are interested in trademarking or patenting those great ideas. Can I get some recommendations for counsel in the treasure valley that can handle these initial meetings with inventors. Patrick J. Geile Attorney [cid:image001.png at 01D5EC81.52600B20] 953 S. Industry Way Meridian, ID 83642 Phone: 208-888-9111 Direct:208-947-1563 Fax: 208-888-5130 Website: www.foleyfreeman.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The preceding message (including attachment, if any) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 2510-2521, is CONFIDENTIAL, and may also be protected by the ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR OTHER PRIVILEGE. If you believe that this message has been sent to you in error, do not read any further portion of the message other than the remainder of this notice, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete the message. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. We do not waive any attorney/client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 7837 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From SSchwager at hawleytroxell.com Wed Feb 26 08:49:54 2020 From: SSchwager at hawleytroxell.com (Sheila Schwager) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:49:54 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] local IP attorney In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Brad Frazer Hawley Troxell 208.344.600 Bfrazer at hawleytroxell.com ________________________ Sheila R. Schwager Partner direct?208-388-4928 fax 208-954-5261 e-mail sschwager at hawleytroxell.com Licensed in Idaho, Oregon, & Washington HAWLEY?TROXELL Attorneys and Counselors? 877? Main Street, Suite 1000 Boise, Idaho 83701 General Number 208-344-6000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This e-mail message from the law firm of Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley, LLP is intended only for named recipients.?? It contains information that may be confidential, privileged, attorney work product, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law.?? If you have received this message in error, are not a named recipient, or are not the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to a named recipient, be advised that any review, disclosure, use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message or its contents is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately at 208.344.6000 if you have received this message in error, and delete the message. ???Please consider the environment before printing this email. -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Patrick Geile Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 8:47 AM To: clbs at admws.idaho.gov Subject: [CLBS] local IP attorney From time to time I have clients with "great ideas" who are interested in trademarking or patenting those great ideas. Can I get some recommendations for counsel in the treasure valley that can handle these initial meetings with inventors. Patrick J. Geile Attorney [cid:image001.png at 01D5EC81.52600B20] 953 S. Industry Way Meridian, ID 83642 Phone: 208-888-9111 Direct:208-947-1563 Fax: 208-888-5130 Website: www.foleyfreeman.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The preceding message (including attachment, if any) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 2510-2521, is CONFIDENTIAL, and may also be protected by the ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR OTHER PRIVILEGE. If you believe that this message has been sent to you in error, do not read any further portion of the message other than the remainder of this notice, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete the message. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. We do not waive any attorney/client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. From rdickinson at hcollc.com Wed Feb 26 09:08:54 2020 From: rdickinson at hcollc.com (Rob Dickinson) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:08:54 +0000 Subject: [CLBS] local IP attorney In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8622DB242361014593D5F3A77C935C6C5200B096@HawkEmail2.hawkinscompanies.com> Tom Morris Morris Bower & Haws PLLC 12550 W Explorer Dr #100 Boise, ID 83713 (208) 345-3333 Rob Dickinson General Counsel Hawkins Companies LLC | 855 W Broad Street, Suite 300 | Boise, ID? 83702 208.376.8522 (main) | 208.908.5540 (direct) | rdickinson at hcollc.com -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Sheila Schwager Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 8:50 AM To: 'Patrick Geile'; clbs at admws.idaho.gov Subject: Re: [CLBS] local IP attorney Brad Frazer Hawley Troxell 208.344.600 Bfrazer at hawleytroxell.com ________________________ Sheila R. Schwager Partner direct?208-388-4928 fax 208-954-5261 e-mail sschwager at hawleytroxell.com Licensed in Idaho, Oregon, & Washington HAWLEY?TROXELL Attorneys and Counselors? 877? Main Street, Suite 1000 Boise, Idaho 83701 General Number 208-344-6000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This e-mail message from the law firm of Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley, LLP is intended only for named recipients.?? It contains information that may be confidential, privileged, attorney work product, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law.?? If you have received this message in error, are not a named recipient, or are not the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to a named recipient, be advised that any review, disclosure, use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message or its contents is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately at 208.344.6000 if you have received this message in error, and delete the message. ???Please consider the environment before printing this email. -----Original Message----- From: CLBS [mailto:clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov] On Behalf Of Patrick Geile Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 8:47 AM To: clbs at admws.idaho.gov Subject: [CLBS] local IP attorney From time to time I have clients with "great ideas" who are interested in trademarking or patenting those great ideas. Can I get some recommendations for counsel in the treasure valley that can handle these initial meetings with inventors. Patrick J. Geile Attorney [cid:image001.png at 01D5EC81.52600B20] 953 S. Industry Way Meridian, ID 83642 Phone: 208-888-9111 Direct:208-947-1563 Fax: 208-888-5130 Website: https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.foleyfreeman.com&c=E,1,psAcBI0Zt1iC7rk1Fw5qrymcXq-1mMAybF5wwSBT5C6Ss5ojQUXPkEoJeVX3v6Er96x3oSZjkl2JfwWaspjbt_kpx6LbfH-wXD3bklmaCZ66&typo=1 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The preceding message (including attachment, if any) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 2510-2521, is CONFIDENTIAL, and may also be protected by the ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR OTHER PRIVILEGE. If you believe that this message has been sent to you in error, do not read any further portion of the message other than the remainder of this notice, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete the message. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. We do not waive any attorney/client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. _______________________________________________ CLBS mailing list CLBS at admws.idaho.gov https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fadmws.idaho.gov%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fclbs&c=E,1,ZdGNKneFdXkWif9AUpbsg7rAXTkvu9ElJi_sxcBiMhl6Naxl5SoQ8DnTuZhOyI1F49CsdN18us2MF7weO_hemZISyHEfGFCl57TqfndJBLFJmwSqMdWCUz78h64,&typo=1