Debtors are (and were) eligible for chapter 13 based on those facts. If
it's a Riverside case and a certain judge is assigned however .... expect
the unexpected.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:53 PM, nancybonaccorso wrote:
> **
>
>
> We recently substituted into a chapter 7 where the former attorney had not
> listed all of debtors' assets. We filed a motion to convert and the chapter
> 7 trustee opposed on the basis that the debtors filed in bad faith.
>
> At the hearing I requested an evidentiary hearing which the Court granted.
> However, the Court stated that based on In re Scovis, In re Slack and 11
> U.S.C. Sec. 109(e), debtors were ineligible for chapter 13 on the date of
> the filing of the chapter 7 because of debtors' income. On the day of
> filing the chapter 7, debtor husband was receiving unemployment ($1,950/mo)
> and debtor wife was fully employed as a teacher. At the time of the motion
> to convert, debtor husband obtained employment which pays more than his
> unemployment by $500/ month and debtor wife continues to work as a teacher.
>
> 11 U.S.C. Sec. 101(30)which states that the term "individual with regular
> income" means individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to
> enable such individual to make payments under a chapter 13 plan. I
> understand that debtor husband might not be an "individual with regular
> income" on the date of the chapter 7 filing but debtors' income included
> his fully employed wife. Based on her employment alone, aren't they
> eligible for chapter 13?
>
> The chapter 7 trustee's attorney stated (off the record) that because of
> debtor husband's unemployment status at the time of the chapter 7 filing,
> debtors are ineligible for chapter 13.
>
> What is even stranger in this particular case is that on the date of the
> original filing, debtors' Schedule J shows excess income in the amount of
> $1,285. I believe the chapter 7 trustee's attorney is trying to argue that
> because the amount of the unemployment received during that time was more
> than the amount of the excess income, debtors are still ineligible for
> chapter 13.
>
> Am I mistaken in thinking that this reasoning is completely flawed?
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
> Thank you,
> Nancy B. Clark
> Borowitz & Clark, LLP
> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
> West Covina, CA 91791
> Office: (626) 332-8600
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
>
>
>
Kirk Brennan
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
Debtors are (and were) eligible for chapter 13 based on those facts. If it's a Riverside case and a certain judge is assigned however .... expect the unexpected.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:53 PM, nancybonaccorso <
nclark@blclaw.com> wrote:
We recently substituted into a chapter 7 where the former attorney had not listed all of debtors' assets. We filed a motion to convert and the chapter 7 trustee opposed on the basis that the debtors filed in bad faith.
At the hearing I requested an evidentiary hearing which the Court granted. However, the Court stated that based on In re Scovis, In re Slack and 11 U.S.C. Sec. 109(e), debtors were ineligible for chapter 13 on the date of the filing of the chapter 7 because of debtors' income. On the day of filing the chapter 7, debtor husband was receiving unemployment ($1,950/mo) and debtor wife was fully employed as a teacher. At the time of the motion to convert, debtor husband obtained employment which pays more than his unemployment by $500/ month and debtor wife continues to work as a teacher.
11 U.S.C. Sec. 101(30)which states that the term "individual with regular income" means individual whose income is sufficiently stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a chapter 13 plan. I understand that debtor husband might not be an "individual with regular income" on the date of the chapter 7 filing but debtors' income included his fully employed wife. Based on her employment alone, aren't they eligible for chapter 13?
The chapter 7 trustee's attorney stated (off the record) that because of debtor husband's unemployment status at the time of the chapter 7 filing, debtors are ineligible for chapter 13.
What is even stranger in this particular case is that on the date of the original filing, debtors' Schedule J shows excess income in the amount of $1,285. I believe the chapter 7 trustee's attorney is trying to argue that because the amount of the unemployment received during that time was more than the amount of the excess income, debtors are still ineligible for chapter 13.
Am I mistaken in thinking that this reasoning is completely flawed?
Please let me know your thoughts.
Thank you,
Nancy B. Clark
Borowitz & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
Office:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
