From paul at idbankruptcylaw.com  Sat Jan  4 17:31:15 2020
From: paul at idbankruptcylaw.com (Paul Ross)
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2020 17:31:15 -0700
Subject: [CLBS] Ch 13 at McCall Seminar
Message-ID: <CAByLFi5dRRmZQsiCZMhDoF5+qcHfX8h=mbQq88B9KsN_is=beg@mail.gmail.com>

Judge Lynch from Western Washington and Bob Drummond, the standing Ch 13
Trustee for Montana, will be presenting at our Seminar in February.

Judge Lynch and Mr. Drummond have asked for Chapter 13 practitioners to
send questions to be addressed.

Feel free to respond to me directly or Mr. Faucher (
rfaucher at hollandhart.com) with questions, thoughts, or insights.

Thank you,
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.

From ron at sheplawgroup.net  Tue Jan  7 09:32:45 2020
From: ron at sheplawgroup.net (Ron R. Shepherd)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 16:32:45 +0000
Subject: [CLBS] Hawaii creditor's attorney needed
Message-ID: <MW2PR20MB2025F43E4EB337BCE4715CD6D33F0@MW2PR20MB2025.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

I have a client looking for creditor's attorney in Hawaii in Chapter 13 recent filing.  Client needs to file nondischarge action and submit claim in Ch. 13 proceeding.  Referrals would be appreciated.   Thank you.

Ron R. Shepherd
(208) 887-3444 Office





From kam at kam13trustee.com  Tue Jan  7 09:34:08 2020
From: kam at kam13trustee.com (Kathleen McCallister)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 16:34:08 +0000
Subject: [CLBS] Hawaii creditor's attorney needed
In-Reply-To: <MW2PR20MB2025F43E4EB337BCE4715CD6D33F0@MW2PR20MB2025.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MW2PR20MB2025F43E4EB337BCE4715CD6D33F0@MW2PR20MB2025.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR22MB01045B9A5E047E4FB3BA2CB9C33F0@CY4PR22MB0104.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Ron - I will email my colleague in Hawaii for you.

K

-----Original Message-----
From: CLBS <clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov> On Behalf Of Ron R. Shepherd
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 9:33 AM
To: CLBS at admws.idaho.gov
Subject: [CLBS] Hawaii creditor's attorney needed

I have a client looking for creditor's attorney in Hawaii in Chapter 13 recent filing.  Client needs to file nondischarge action and submit claim in Ch. 13 proceeding.  Referrals would be appreciated.   Thank you.

Ron R. Shepherd
(208) 887-3444 Office




_______________________________________________
CLBS mailing list
CLBS at admws.idaho.gov
http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs

From holly at roarklawboise.com  Mon Jan 20 18:23:58 2020
From: holly at roarklawboise.com (Holly Roark)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:23:58 -0700
Subject: [CLBS] Need name of case - sale of house, Chapter 13,
	debtor entitled to keep funds resulting from postpetition increase
	in equity
Message-ID: <026401d5cff9$75016650$5f0432f0$@roarklawboise.com>

I could swear there was a case from WA that said a chapter 13 debtor is
entitled to keep the funds from the sale of his house during the chapter 13
which funds were the result of the postpetition increase in equity. Am I
just dreaming or is this a 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> holly at roarklawboise.com Website:
<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 (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 alex at cavallawoffice.com  Mon Jan 20 18:37:27 2020
From: alex at cavallawoffice.com (Alexandra Caval)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:37:27 -0700
Subject: [CLBS] Need name of case - sale of house, Chapter 13,
 debtor entitled to keep funds resulting from postpetition increase
 in equity
In-Reply-To: <026401d5cff9$75016650$5f0432f0$@roarklawboise.com>
References: <026401d5cff9$75016650$5f0432f0$@roarklawboise.com>
Message-ID: <CACg1PEUOT6Mr3X7JTVwDdNEfTecyud6dcUZ71QdhYhqhQ9vbmg@mail.gmail.com>

Try Burgie or Black if this is a post-confirmation sale. Black is pretty
recent out of the BAP (12/31/19). Burgie is the oldie. ~Alex

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 6:24 PM Holly Roark <holly at roarklawboise.com> wrote:

> I could swear there was a case from WA that said a chapter 13 debtor is
> entitled to keep the funds from the sale of his house during the chapter 13
> which funds were the result of the postpetition increase in equity. Am I
> just dreaming or is this a 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> holly at roarklawboise.com
> Website:
> <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 (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
>


-- 

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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: In re Burgie 239 B.R. 406.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 42372 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://admws.idaho.gov/pipermail/clbs/attachments/20200120/7f9bfa34/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Black Opinion Final 18-1351 (002).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 141376 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://admws.idaho.gov/pipermail/clbs/attachments/20200120/7f9bfa34/attachment-0003.pdf>

From PGeile at foleyfreeman.com  Fri Jan 24 10:53:07 2020
From: PGeile at foleyfreeman.com (Patrick Geile)
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:53:07 +0000
Subject: [CLBS] citing unpublished opinions
Message-ID: <BYAPR19MB22965E4C65802A298B102A92A80E0@BYAPR19MB2296.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>

I keep losing and therefore have to appeal.

Can someone direct me to information on citing unpublished bankruptcy court opinions to the district court on appeal in the 9th circuit?

Patrick J. Geile
Attorney
[cid:image001.png at 01D5D2A4.753D0360]
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: <http://admws.idaho.gov/pipermail/clbs/attachments/20200124/3be90d4b/attachment.png>

From james at macdonaldlawoffices.com  Tue Jan 28 14:32:17 2020
From: james at macdonaldlawoffices.com (James Macdonald)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 21:32:17 +0000
Subject: [CLBS] Montana Referral
Message-ID: <MWHPR1301MB2093FD1629BCAE8116F77E52AF0A0@MWHPR1301MB2093.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>

Can someone please give me a referral to a competent and ethical debtor's attorney in NW Montana?

Regards,

James S. Macdonald

MACDONALD LAW, PC
PO Box 1545
Lake Plaza Building - 123 South Third Avenue, Suite 24
Sandpoint, ID  83864
208.263.6546   PLEASE NOTE NEW PHONE NUMBER
208.263.0759 (Fax)

The information in this email message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.  If you think you received this email message in error, please reply to james at macdonaldlawoffices.com or call (208) 263-6546.


From llauder at crowleyfleck.com  Tue Jan 28 15:52:38 2020
From: llauder at crowleyfleck.com (Lindy M. Lauder)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 22:52:38 +0000
Subject: [CLBS] Montana Referral
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR1301MB2093FD1629BCAE8116F77E52AF0A0@MWHPR1301MB2093.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MWHPR1301MB2093FD1629BCAE8116F77E52AF0A0@MWHPR1301MB2093.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <BY5PR17MB3857927280F73E746BD46305CC0A0@BY5PR17MB3857.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>

Dan Morgan, Rusty Murphy, and Harold Dye are a few. 

 LINDY M. LAUDER
 305 SOUTH 4TH STREET EAST, SUITE 100
 MISSOULA, MT 59801
 MAIN: 406.523.3600 | FAX: 406.523.3636
 DIRECT: 406.523.3633
 
 WITH OFFICES IN MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA AND WYOMING:
 BILLINGS BISMARCK BOZEMAN BUTTE CASPER CHEYENNE HELENA KALISPELL MISSOULA SHERIDAN WILLISTON

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

-----Original Message-----
From: CLBS <clbs-bounces at admws.idaho.gov> On Behalf Of James Macdonald
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 2:32 PM
To: 'Bankruptcy list' <clbs at admws.idaho.gov>
Subject: [CLBS] Montana Referral

This message was received from an external email account. Please use caution when opening messages or links from unknown senders.



Can someone please give me a referral to a competent and ethical debtor's attorney in NW Montana?

Regards,

James S. Macdonald

MACDONALD LAW, PC
PO Box 1545
Lake Plaza Building - 123 South Third Avenue, Suite 24 Sandpoint, ID  83864
208.263.6546   PLEASE NOTE NEW PHONE NUMBER
208.263.0759 (Fax)

The information in this email message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.  If you think you received this email message in error, please reply to james at macdonaldlawoffices.com or call (208) 263-6546.

_______________________________________________
CLBS mailing list
CLBS at admws.idaho.gov
http://admws.idaho.gov/mailman/listinfo/clbs

From paul at idbankruptcylaw.com  Fri Jan 31 09:37:03 2020
From: paul at idbankruptcylaw.com (Paul Ross)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 09:37:03 -0700
Subject: [CLBS] Rodenbough and Wilson adverse exemption decisions
Message-ID: <CAByLFi5g2JKFQkx-V5603dHjD781Bw6nOmzST_OZBbsVRHprKw@mail.gmail.com>

Here is a message written by John Bates of Exemption Express (now within
NACBA) regarding two Idaho decisions on exemptions.  Please be aware and
hopefully point out Mr. Bates' point so we don't see more of these
decisions in Idaho.

Paul



This message explains how failure to use the proper exemption selection
method described in exemptionsexpress resulted in two erroneous court
decisions and it comments on the nature of this process and the task of
explaining it to a court.

The cases are In Re Rodenbough, 579 B.R. 545 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2018) and In
Re Wilson, 2015 WL 1850919 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2015).

In Rodenbough and Wilson, the court erred in deciding what exemptions were
available to the debtor, resulting in prejudice to the debtors in both
cases. This was the result of the court's failure to understand the proper
exemptions selection method as explained in exemptionsexpress.

These cases were decided by the same Idaho bankruptcy court (different
judges). They involved the same basic facts and same mistake by the court.
At the time of filing these cases, the "applicable states," that is, the
states whose exemptions laws were applicable to these debtors under the
code's selection scheme, were states other than Idaho, the venue state. So,
the Idaho court had to examine the laws of those foreign states, North
Dakota and Colorado, to determine whether these Idaho residents could use
the exemptions of those states and/or the federal exemptions.

State exemptions of the applicable states, North Dakota and Colorado

Regarding the state exemptions of the applicable states, the Court
concluded correctly that their exemption statutes did not state that they
were to be used by "residents." So, these states' exemptions could be used
by the Idaho debtors. The court also held correctly that these states'
statutes allowed only limited use of their exemptions by nonresidents.
Specifically, Colorado's homestead exemption was not applicable to property
located outside that state and North Dakota's statutes permitted
non-residents to use only some of North Dakota's own exemptions. So, in
both cases, the Idaho debtors were at a significant disadvantage, not
having the full exemption rights of residents of those states.

Federal exemptions

So, could these debtors use the federal exemptions as an alternative?
Regarding possible use of the federal exemptions, the court noted correctly
that both of these foreign states (Colorado and North Dakota) had opted out
of the federal exemptions by statute. So, the court concluded that these
debtors could not use the federal exemptions. This was a mistake. The court
failed to realize or notice that, as with their state exemptions, these
states (Colorado and North Dakota) had expressly specified that their
opt-out statutes apply to "residents" and residents of other states were
therefore not prevented from using the federal exemptions.

Clearly, the Court was not made aware of that point, that is, that a
state's opt-out statute can be limited to residents in the same manner as a
state's own exemptions simply by stating in the applicable statute that it
applies to "residents." That the court failed to realize this is clear
because the Court does not even touch on it in its opinion. So the court
wrongly concluded that because the state had opted out of the federal
exemptions, those exemptions were not available to residents and
nonresidents of those states and therefore, these debtors could not use the
federal exemptions and had to use the limited set of state exemptions that
were available to nonresidents. So, these debtors were left with fewer
exemptions than those available to residents of those states.

Every other case (at least twelve) to have dealt with this situation, that
is, where the state has an opt-out statute expressly applicable to
residents of that state, has concluded that non-residents may use the
federal exemptions when that state is the applicable state. I am inserting
next a list of those cases. It is found on exemptionsexpress for all states
that have opt-out statutes applicable only to residents. As you can see,
the list is so extensive that if it had been presented to the court, it
would have been impossible to dismiss or ignore. But if the court is not
aware of this authority, mistakes like this can occur. (These cases are not
easily collected using Westlaw, which makes use of exemptionsexpress more
important.)

In re Camp, 631 F.3d 757 (F.3d 2011) (Debtor, not a resident of applicable
state, Florida, could use federal exemptions because Florida opt-out
provision, by its plain terms, applies only to Florida residents);
In re Townsend, 2012 WL 112995 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2012) (Debtors who are not
residents of Oklahoma on the date of filing bankruptcy may choose the
federal exemptions because Oklahoma's opt-out statute does not apply to
them);
In re Long, 470 B.R. 186 (Bank. D. Kan. 2012) (Debtor who is not Nebraska
resident may use federal exemptions because Nebraska opt-out statute
applies only to cases filed in Nebraska);
In re Rody, 468 B.R. 384 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2012) (Because Arizona opt-out
statute applies only to Arizona residents, non-resident may use federal
exemptions)
In re Beckwith, 448 B.R. 757 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2011) (Ohio resident for
whom Florida is the applicable state may use federal exemptions because
Florida has limited its exemptions and federal opt-out statute to
residents.);
In re George, 440 B.R. 164, (Bankr. E.D. Wisc. 2010) (Debtor, nonresident
of applicable state, Illinois, whose exemptions apply only to residents,
could use federal exemptions under the "safe harbor" provision in 11 USC
522(b)(3) or because the Illinois opt-out statute applies only Illinois
residents};
In re Chandler, 362 B.R. 723 (Bankr. N.D.W.Va.2007) (Because applicable
state, Georgia, had not opted out for nonresidents, debtor was eligible for
federal exemptions);
In re Battle, 2006 WL 3702734 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2006) (Because debtor was
not resident of Florida on date of filing, debtor could not claim Florida's
exemptions, but Florida's opt-out statute, which was limited to residents,
did not bar debtor from claiming federal exemptions);
In re Underwood, 342 B.R. 358 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 2006) (Because debtor was
not a resident of Colorado on date of filing and Colorado's exemptions and
opt-out statute were limited to residents, debtor was eligible for federal
exemptions);
In re Schulz, 101 B.R. 301 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1989) (Because debtor was not
Florida resident on date of filing and Florida's exemptions and opt-out
statute were limited to residents, debtor was not eligible for state
exemptions, but was entitled to federal exemptions);
In re Volk, 26 B.R. 457 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1983) (Exemptions of South Dakota
were limited to residents and, therefore, were not available to debtors who
were not residents of South Dakota on date of filing, but debtors were
eligible for federal exemptions because South Dakota's opt-out statute was
limited to residents);
In re Walley, 9 B.R. 55 (Bankr. S.D. Ala.1981) (Because Alabama's
exemptions and opt-out statute were limited to residents and debtor was not
a resident of Alabama on date of filing, Alabama's opt-out statute did not
apply and she could use the federal exemptions).

As far as I know, there are no cases to the contrary, that is, there are no
cases holding that if a State's opt-out statute states that it applies to
"residents," it nevertheless denies non-residents the right to choose
federal exemptions. After all, it would be inconsistent for a court to say
that state exemptions statutes that refer to "residents" apply only to
residents but state opt-out statutes that say the same, do not.

So, it is highly likely that this court, if presented with these cases,
would have permitted debtors to use the federal exemptions instead of
limiting them to a portion of the foreign states' exemptions.

In exemptions selection cases, it is likely that debtor's lawyer will have
to explain to the court the entire method of exemption selection for
finding the applicable state (unlikely to be contested). Then, if some
state other than the state of venue is the state whose exemption laws
apply, the lawyer can use exemptionsexpress research to explain whether
that state's statutes limits its exemptions only to residents and, if the
state has opted out of the federal exemptions, whether the opt-out statute
applies only to residents. Also, the site covers any issue that may exist
regarding application of that state's homestead exemption to property
located outside the state.

There is a only one right way for a court to apply this selection method.
It does not require an assessment or weighing of vague concepts (hardship,
definiteness, intent, equities etc.). It involves a series of essential
steps. In the two cases discussed above, the court got every step right
except the one requiring it to determine whether the applicable state's
opt-out statute applies to all debtors or only to debtors of the applicable
state. The process involved is somewhat analogous to finding your way
through a maze. There's only one right way to do it, but if that is known,
reaching the destination is assured. There is little judgment involved,
only knowledge of the method.

In nearly all the cases I have seen in which the court got the exemption
selection wrong, it resulted from failure of the court to know the correct
method, not a rejection of it. It was not that the court had a philosophy
or point of view that had to be confronted. It is quite possible to explain
to the court how to do this correctly. But some attorneys don't know this
area of law. Everything the attorney needs is on exemptionsexpress. It is
interesting that in some of the decisions on exemption selection, it is
evident that exemptionsexpress was used by counsel because the cases cited
and language used by the court is the same as that on the site.

John R. Bates
johnbatesmail at gmail.com
436 Fair Avenue NW
New Philadelphia, OH 44663

-- 
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.