Chapter 13 info from Aki on tax refunds and economic relief payments

Post by Aki on Facebook:


There are two additional issues that our office has been requested to address which I now have answers for:


As the tax refund turnover requirement is mandated by the plan and the order confirming the plan, your client will need to file a motion to modify the plan (MOMOD) to suspend the turnover requirement for tax refunds from the 2019 tax year. The trustee does not have the legal authority to waive the tax refunds without a court order.

For the MOMOD, please indicate why your client needs to retain the tax refund. This will usually include evidence that your client’s income has been directly affected by employer actions taken to deal with the COVID-19 threat or business income being reduced due to loss of business directly related to COVID-19. Your client will not have to file the MOMOD immediately and please indicate in your motion if your client wants the relief Nunc Pro Tunc.


The Trustee will not be seeking a turn over of any economic relief payments related to the COVID-19 threat.

Bankruptcy filings from years past

I found an old chart I made several years ago.  Central District total petitions filed by month.l  My how times have changed.

Central District of California
2008 2009 2010 2011
Jan 3,694 6,004 9,013 10,868
Feb 3,787 6,971 9,659 10,631
March 4,381 8,529 12,840 13,543
April 5,023 8,512 12,114 12,087
May 5,177 8,967 11,906 11,669
June 5,351 9,595 12,190 11,718
July 5,983 9,894 12,737 10,418
Aug 6,195 9,748 12,720 11,496
Sept 6,290 9,214 12,412 10,006
Oct 6,364 10,322 11,753 9,887
Nov 6,029 9,462 10,900 9,099
Dec 6,615 9,864 10,925 9,089
64,889 107,082 139,169 130,511

Bankruptcy filings in the Central District in February 2020

Filings in February compared to last three months and compared to Feb in last three years are all within couple % of each other.

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Jan 2,828 2,745 2,741 2,839 2,872 3,364 4,704
Feb 2,781 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 2,934 2,772 3,071 3,168 3,493 4,317
Oct 3,355 3,259 3,170 3,235 3,751 4,554
Nov 2,636 2,821 3,004 3,025 3,531 3,642
Dec 2,723 2,419 2,416 2,902 2,718 3,733
Total 5,609 37,117 35,961 37,262 39,819 44,880 55,445

Filings by chapter year to date:

Non-Comm’l Commercial Chapter 7 Chapter 13 Chapter 11
5,110 501 4,285 1,256 69
91% 9% 76% 22% 1%

“Commercial” I believe means a corporate type entity.  That means there have been more than 400 corporate chapter 7s.  I’m always surprised there are any much less that many.

Updated means test numbers

Email from Hale Antico this morning:

Good morning, CDCBAA community! A few updates as we start off the week:

1. The means test numbers are adjusting for cases filed after 4/1/2020. My summary:

    • 1-person household: $59,286, but after April 1, 2020 it’s $60,360
    • 2-person household: $77,860, but after April 1, $79,271
    • 3-person household: $86,665, and after April 1, $88,235
    • 4-person household: $99,512, and after April 1, $101,315
    • Each additional person: $9,000

Note that this is the first time in recent memory, if ever, that a 1-person household median in Calif is over $60,000, and a four-person household median is six figures, over $100,000.

2. With social distancing being encouraged to battle the coronavirus outbreak, you can offer Zoom consultations with potential clients, and for a small meeting Zoom is free. Caveat: the meeting may be limited to 40 minutes for that free number, but the next tier up is only $14.99/month.


Hale Andrew Antico

(888) 54-BKLAW

President, Central Dist Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys’ Assn.(CDCBAA)
Past President, James T. King Bankruptcy Inn of Court
Member, National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA)

Letter from BMW in SBRA case

This is kind of galling if you ask me.  I just got this letter from a “a bankruptcy servicing company” relating to new Small Business case I just filed.  What is the point, I wonder, of instantaneously and unilaterally discontinuing “online access, monthly statements, notification emails,” and the “easy pay program”?


We are AIS Portfolio Services, LP a bankruptcy servicing company for BMWF Financial Services. BMW Financial Services received a notice of bankruptcy filing on the above referenced account. As a result, online access, monthly Account Statement mailings, statement notification emails and, if applicable, the Easy Pay Program, have been discontinued.

Please be aware this letter is not an attempt to collect a debt nor is it a demand for payment. The information below, including payment options, is being provided for informational purposes only.

If you wish to make voluntary payments, you may do so anytime using BMW Financial Services automated phone system, paying by check, bank bill pay, or Western Union.  For all payments made, please include your account number and remit to:

BMW Financial Services NA, LLC
PO Box 78066
Phoenix, AZ 85062
Toll free – 800 – 398 – 3939

If you have any questions, please contact a Bankruptcy Specialist at (888) 455-6662, Monday through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 5: 00 p.m.ET

Standing to appeal?

Another case I want to remember.  Seems to come up all the time.

Palmdale Hills Prop., LLC v. Lehman Commer. Paper, Inc., 654 F.3d 868, 874 (9th Cir. 2011) (“those persons who are directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by an order of the bankruptcy court . . . have standing to appeal that order”).

Great Judicial Profile of Judge Margaret Mann

I told Judge Mann in San Diego once that she always has a smile on her face.   One of my favorite people.  Now I find out she is catholic and from the south side of Chicago!  We are kindred obviously – although my family left Chicago when I was three.  Take a look at the Judicial Profile just published by the California Lawyers Association.   

Meet the BAP judges at The James T. King Southern California Bankruptcy Inn of Court – February 27, 2020

The James T. King Southern California Bankruptcy Inn of Court with our President Tamar Terzian invites you to join us on Thursday, February 27, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. for the reception and 6:30 p.m. dinner and presentation of

– Nomenclature Education:

Ex. Roll ups, Whole Premiums, DIP Financing and Who is in Control, Interest Pre vs. Post Petition

by pupillage team 3 Team Leaders Roksana Moradi-Brovia and Adojoa Anim-Appiah with special guests, the BAP Judges

Our program moderator for the meeting is the Honorable Judge Sheri Bluebond Read more…

Do you have to add three days to the notice period when serving by mail – or not?

I noticed the following tentative ruling continuing a motion for relief hearing recently:

The Motion [for relief] was . . . served on Debtor by mail, and set for hearing exactly 21 days later.   While LBR 9013-1(d)(2) specifies that notice must be filed and served not later than 21 days before the hearing date, FRBP 9006(f) requires that an additional 3 days be provided for motions served by mail.

I recalled several years ago being told by a judge that the three day rule doesn’t apply to MFR.  Yikes.  Have I been neglecting a defense since it seems to be more common these days that these motions are served on exactly 21 days notice?

No – FRBP 9006(f) applies only to certain motions.  FRBP 9006(f) states:

When there is a right or requirement to act or undertake some proceedings within a prescribed period after being served and that service is by mail . . . three days are added after the prescribed period would otherwise expire under Rule 9006(a).

Meaning?  When the motion tells the debtor he must do something within a certain am0unt of time after being served, he gets three more days if served by mail.  Most of our motions require a response within 14 days of the hearing, not within some amount of time after being served.  So the additional three days doesn’t apply to most motions.

On a side note:  a year or so ago I was served with a MFR on a very large piece of property, we thought worth $25 million.  The big-firm creditor lawyers gave us exactly 21 days notice – giving me 7 days to prepare the opposition.  When I complained (a little) to the judge at the hearing he scowled at me and I immediately dropped the comment.  The scowl told me – “why didn’t you file a motion for continuance?”  “You can’t just show up at the hearing and complain about the short time.”  I’m pretty sure he would have granted the request for a continuance.

San Fernando Valley Bar Assn 9th Circuit Review

Email from Steve Fox:

Dear All:

This is one of our perennial programs.  Usually a 9th circuit review program tries to run through 50 or 60 opinions in one hour’s time.  Our program is different.  We try to get through as many as 20 opinions in 75 minutes.  The difference allows our panelists, the Honorable Victoria Kaufman, Stella Havkin and Nancy Zamora, to take time to examine each case, to consider them a bit more slowly and to draw out their meanings.  I understand that a key rule in cigar smoking competition, yes there is such a thing (and a recent speaker for the section was recently in an international competition in cigar smoking contest) is to take your time.  We do the same with the Ninth Circuit review program.

This is a good program.  Good speakers.  Good location.  Good food.  Great price, far, far below that which the other bars charge and parking is validated.  You cannot spent a better lunchtime than with us on Friday.

Here are the details.

Location:             San Fernando Valley Bar Asso, 20750 Ventura Blvd #140, Woodland Hills, CA 91364

Date/Time:         Friday, February 21, 2020, lunch, 12 noon to 1:30 p.m. Read more…