F. Lee Bailey Files Chapter 13 In Portland Maine – Chapter 13 Trustee Annoyed

Think your chapter 13 trustee is tough?  This is what the trustee filed last week in F. Lee Bailey’s Chapter 13 case.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT District of Maine

In the matter of F. LEE BAILEY Chapter 13 Debtor Case # 17-20323

TRUSTEE’S COMMENTS ON CONFIRMATION OF DEBTOR’S PLAN

NOW COMES the standing Chapter 13 trustee Peter C. Fessenden and submits the following comments in connection with confirmation of the debtor’s plan. Read more…

Very Nice Profile of Kathy Campbell, Clerk of the Court

This was written by Corey Weber and published by the Insolvency Law Committee of the California State Bar

August 15, 2017 

The following is a profile of Kathleen J. (Kathy) Campbell, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (the “bankruptcy court”).  Ms. Campbell met members of the Insolvency Law Committee in her Roybal Courthouse office and discussed her personal and professional background, the bankruptcy court’s operations and pending issues and observations.

Ms. Campbell was appointed to her current bankruptcy court position in 2010. The Central District of California is home to the largest bankruptcy court in the country, with divisions located in Los Angeles, Riverside, Santa Ana, San Fernando Valley and Santa Barbara. Read more…

Outside Reverse Veil Piercing now available for LLCs in California

This is a case brief regarding Curci Investments, LLC v. Baldwin, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. G052764 (Aug. 10, 2017), which is a case about “reverse veil piercing” which the Court found can be applied to LLCs. Corporations continue to be protected by reverse veil piercing.

Ordinarily a corporation is considered a separate legal entity, distinct from its stockholders, officers and directors, with separate and distinct liabilities and obligations.[1] The same is true of a limited liability company (LLC) and its members and managers.[2]

Read more…

My Letter to Judge William H. Brown (Ret.) on the ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy

May 4, 2017

by email

ConsumerCommission@abiworld.org

Hon. William H. Brown (Ret.)

The ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy

 

Re:

Statement for Consideration

First Public Meeting, May 6, 2017

 

Dear Judge Brown,
Please submit this Statement to the ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy at the upcoming meeting on May 6, 2017.   The following are my comments to the ABI Commission “recommending improvements to the consumer bankruptcy system that can be implemented within its existing structure.”  These suggestions are mine and not those of any consumer bankruptcy organization.   I have practiced consumer bankruptcy, primarily from the debtor side, for most of my 37 years of practice of law.  My personal resume is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”  Read more…

Scotus Blog Stat Pack for Last Term

I just love these.  Every possible statistic you can imagine about last term can be found here.

A few tidbits:

The Supreme Court issued opinions on only 62 cases the entire year.  They also issued 7 summary reversals.

They affirmed only 15 of total 71 cases or 21%.  As to the 9th Circuit, they affirmed 1 out of 8 cases.  Only the 1st Circuit (1-0) had more affirmations than reversals.    Even the Federal Circuit was reversed 6 out of 7 cases.  State courts were reversed in 14 out of 17 matters. Read more…

Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society (Sept. 26, 2017 – City Club, Los Angeles)

Email this morning from Misty Perry Isaacson:

Good morning colleagues.  I hope you all had a wonderful time at the Ninth Circuit’s Judicial Conference in San Francisco last week.  For those of you who were unable to attend, we missed you.

Please see the attached Save the Date and Sponsorship flyers that I received from the Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society (“NJCHS”) regarding their upcoming gala event set for September 26, 2017 at the City Club in Los Angeles.  Tickets and sponsorship are also available off their website.  Read more…

Prof. Dan Schechter’s Comments on Sundquist

My post on In re Sundquist is here.  As part of his summary of cases distributed by the California Insolvency Law Committee, Prof. Dan Schechter had the following observations on In re Sundquist:

AUTHOR’S COMMENT: Given the court’s careful discussion of the evidence, I predict that the liability phase of this decision will withstand review. I also predict affirmance of the award of compensatory damages. I am not so sure, however, about the award of punitive damages. The United States Supreme Court has sharply curtailed the allowable ratio of compensatory damages to punitive damages. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003): “The wealth of a defendant cannot justify an otherwise unconstitutional punitive damages award.” Read more…

New Local Rule 9011-1 – Get Your Clients to Sign the Documents!

This rule goes into effect December 1, 2017.  Short summary:

Anything that is uploaded must have a signature – the holographic signature – in the person’s handwriting – on the form or pleading that is being signed and uploaded.

Exceptions?  Of course:

  • The “filer,” i.e., the person who is uploading the documents, i.e., the person who has the password to get on to ecf can upload a /s/ signature of his or her signature.
  • An “employee” of the filer can sign by /s/ signature – this means the proof of service essentially.

Any other comments?

  • Of course:  If there is no signature at all, the “filer” is treated as if he/she signed the document.
  • You must get the wet copy of the signature after it is signed.
  • You must keep the signatures for five years.

THE ACTUAL NEW RULE IS AFTER THE JUMP.   Read more…

Move Over Sundquist – 9th Circuit Says Enticing a Borrower to Apply for a Loan Mod It Knows Will be Rejected is a Violation of California B & P 17200

Oskoui v. JP Morgan Chase, 851 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. March, 2017)

Issue:   Did the bank’s offer to the borrower that she apply for a loan modification which it knew would be rejected because the borrower did not qualify constitute unfair competition under California B & P Section 17200?

Holding:   Yes, at least enough to overcome summary judgment.  The borrower “was the victim of an unconscionable process.”

Appeal from district court, Judge Fernando Olguin

Judge Stephen Trott

“Mahin Oskoui sued defendant J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) for damages allegedly suffered when she unsuccessfully attempted over a two-year period to modify the loan on her home.”  When she became delinquent on her house payments, she began responding to Chase letters offering her loan modifications which she found out later she did not qualify for under any circumstances.  With each application, she made certain required payments to Chase. Read more…

This is Huge . . . California Dismantling the State Board of Equalization . . . and there is very little news about it

The California Board of Equalization administers taxes that account for about a third of the state’s revenues: sales taxes, use taxes, excise taxes, even cannabis taxes.  It also serves as the state’s tax court: if you contest any audit performed by a state taxing agency (Franchise Tax Board or Board of Equalization), you would file a petition with the Board of Equalization.  Five members sit on the Board: the state controller, and four elected members who serve geographical districts.

Many of our clients owe taxes to this agency. The split will definitely affect attorneys who practice bankruptcy law

On Thursday, June 15, the California Assembly voted to dismantle the Board of Equalization and create two new agencies.  One will administer taxes, and the other will handle the tax appeals that the Board currently handles.  The change will take effect on July 1, 2017 – in two weeks. Read more…