LACBA and CLA Insolvency Law Committee Joint Program September 26, 2019

Meet with a Bankruptcy Judge and the Insolvency Experts to Discuss Bankruptcy, ABC’s, and Receiverships – September 26, 2019

Sign up here.

September 26, 2019

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION |
The joint MCLE program with the Insolvency Law Standing Committee from CLA will examine bankruptcy and alternatives to bankruptcy. Topics will include bankruptcy, receivership sales, ABC’s, the pros and cons of bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy options, and an examination of when bankruptcy cannot be avoided. Read more…

Supreme Court Stat Pack available at Scotusblog

If you are a numbers nerd, be prepared to blow an hour just scrolling through the 46 pages of numbers.  You can get the final package for the last term here.

One statistic I found intriguing is the makeup of the 5-4 decisions.  Last term 20 cases were decided 5-4.  That is out of 66 cases in total – so 28% of the total.  You would think that the 5-4 decisions were all the five “conservatives” v. the four “liberals.”  But that was the lineup on only seven of the 20.  Justice Gorsuch voted with the four liberals in four cases to make the 5-4 majority.  Justice Roberts voted with the four liberals in two cases.  Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsburg were on the same side in three of the 5-4 cases!  Thomas and Sotomayor were on the same side in two of the 5-4 cases.

Another stat that jumps out at me is that Justice Kavenaugh voted with the majority 89% of the time.   He and Roberts voted together 92% of the time.

I better get to work.  Have fun.

When the IRS violates the automatic stay

Email from Renay Rodriguez:

Taxpayers in bankruptcy cases who believe the IRS has violated the bankruptcy automatic stay or discharge injunction may file claims with the IRS for relief from the violations and for damages. The filing of a claim with the Service is a prerequisite for seeking damages and attorney fees under the Internal Revenue Code for violations of the automatic stay or discharge injunction. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 7430(a) and (b)(1), 7433(d)(1) and (e). Regulations provide that such claims should be sent in writing to the Chief, Local Insolvency Unit, for the judicial district in which the taxpayer filed the underlying bankruptcy case giving rise to the alleged violation. See 26 CFR § 301.7433-2(e). These bankruptcy related claims can be mailed to:

Internal Revenue Service
Chief, Local Insolvency Unit
Centralized Insolvency Operation
P.O. Box 7346
Philadelphia, PA 19101-7346

For further details regarding the procedures and requirements applicable to the filing of these types of bankruptcy related administrative claims for relief see 26 CFR § 301.7433-2 (Civil cause of action for violation of section 362 or 524 of the Bankruptcy Code), 26 CFR § 301.7430-1 (Exhaustion of administrative remedies), and 26 CFR § 301.7430–8 (Administrative costs incurred in damage actions for violations of section 362 or 524 of the Bankruptcy Code).

May the Light shine our way on.
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.

San Fernando Valley Bar Association, Bankruptcy Section Program, Friday September 13, 2019, 12 noon: Woodland Hills Tentative Opinions

Email from Steve Fox:

Dear All:

Welcome back to the SFVBA Bankruptcy Section programs!  We are starting this season (through June) with a perennial and a real popular program – Fascinating tentative opinions from the judges sitting at the Woodland Hills Bankruptcy Court.  There is a lot of good material this year and attending attorneys will learn a lot. The panel includes Yi Sun Kim and Jeremy Rothstein (both of Greenberg and Bass) and Andrew Goodman.  They are well experienced and will have a lot of good insights.

This is the one program to which we do not invite the Woodland Hills judges.  Sorry judges.  Law clerks may attend.

Here are the particulars for the program: Read more…

Update on In re Brace – pending at the California Supreme Court

This is the case where the California Supremes will decide whether property held by husband and wife as joint tenants is owned 50-50 by each or is owned as community property.   California law presumes both.  The BAP agreed with Judge Scott Yun and ruled that the ”record title presumption of Cal. Evid. Code § 662″ does not trump “the community property presumption of Cal. Fam. Code § 760″ citing Valli v. Valli (In re Marriage of Valli), 58 Cal. 4th 1396 (2014).

The 9th Circuit punted the issue over to the California Supreme Court.  They are still doing briefing so we are probably a ways from a result.  The Supremes must rule within 90 days after oral argument but there is no deadline re when oral argument must be set.

 IN RE CLIFFORD ALLEN BRACE, JR. 
Case Number S252473 (See docket below) Read more…

Bankruptcy filings in Central District – August 2019

2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Jan 2,745 2,741 2,839 2,872 3,364 4,704
Feb 2,754 2,708 2,795 3,299 3,829 4,574
March 3,481 3,363 3,782 3,923 4,496 5,430
April 3,631 3,277 3,209 3,584 4,486 5,364
May 3,347 3,226 3,384 3,484 3,971 5,500
June 2,967 2,981 3,252 3,545 3,966 4,386
July 3,270 3,057 2,953 3,239 3,731 4,701
Aug 3,274 3,337 3,387 3,543 3,544 4,540
Sept 2,772 3,071 3,168 3,493 4,317
Oct 3,259 3,170 3,235 3,751 4,554
Nov 2,821 3,004 3,025 3,531 3,642
Dec 2,419 2,416 2,902 2,718 3,733
Total 25,469 35,961 37,262 39,819 44,880 55,445

Filings by chapter so far this year.

Non-Comm’l Commercial Chapter 7 Chapter 13 Chapter 11
23,195 2,085 19,831 5,200 249
91% 8% 78% 20% 1%

Ransom – My ABA summary of the Supreme Court case

I forgot about this summary I wrote for the ABA on the Ransom case at the Supreme Court.  http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/ABA-Preview.Ransom.pdf

 

From Kathy Dockery Staff Atty Aki re Chapter 13 payments

*****IMPORTANT*****

Best Practice Advice

If your client is making a plan payment within 5 days of a confirmation hearing date, please have them purchase a cashier’s check or money order instead of making the payment electronically via TFS. The TFS payments take about 3-5 days to process and the delay is causing an increase in conditionally continued or confirmed matters and even causing dismissal of cases.

An alternate strategy for making sure your client’s plan payments are made timely is to set up your client in TFS with a plan payment due date that is 7 days prior to the legal due date. This way, the posting delay will not be an issue.

For electronic payment evidence to be sufficient with this office, the payment must be in the status row which is titled “Processing Transactions”. An electronic payment which is in the status row for “Upcoming Transactions” is not sufficient.

Thank you.

Nice quote on Chief Justice John Marshall

I finally finished reading Miracle at Philadelphia by Catherine Drinker Bowen.  It’s a great book that really puts into perspective how we wound up with our constitution.  And how close it came to never happening, and then to not being ratified.   It’s pretty amazing that neither John Adams nor Thomas Jefferson were there.  Both were in Europe that summer.  George Washington and Benjamin Franklin “laid their shoulders to the great points, knowing that the little ones would follow of themselves.”

Anyway, there is a great comment on John Marshall that I want to remember.  The scene is the convention in Virginia brought afterwards to consider adopting the new constitution.

John Marshall, now in his thirty-third year, was a great strength to the Constitutionalists.  Ruddy and handsome, with wild black hair, a piercing dark eye, as a concession to the occasion he had draped his tall frame in a new coat which however had cost but a pound and looked it.  The assembly knew Marshall, respected him for his soldierly record in the Revolution and loved him for his sociability – which says Grisby primly, at times verged on excess.

John Marshall was with Washington at Valley Forge.

I want to add a quote from a poem at the end of Ms. Bowen’s Preface to the book:

If all the tales are told, retell them, Brother,
If few attend, let those who listen feel.

Attorney’s fees for enforcing judgments

Can a judgment creditor get attorneys fees for its efforts in collecting the judgment?  No – unless the fees are “authorized” by contract, statute or law.”  If there is a “contract, statute or law,” can the creditor get fees for fighting with the debtor in bankruptcy court?  Probably yes if “the underlying judgment includes an award of attorneys’ fees.”

CCP 685.040.  The judgment creditor is entitled to the reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment. Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are not included in costs collectible under this title unless otherwise provided by law.  Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are included as costs collectible under this title if the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 1033.5.

CCP 1033.5. (a) The following items are allowable as costs under Section 1032:

(10) Attorney’s fees, when authorized by any of the following:

(A) Contract.

(B) Statute.

(C) Law.

So opposing the discharge, opposing claimed exemptions, motions for relief?  See BAP decision in In re Gilman – here.