All posts in Community

My interview with Judge Maureen Tighe

Some good articles in the Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys Association (cdcbaa) latest newsletter.  You can get it here.

Invitation to join the James T. King Inn of the Court

The James T. King Bankruptcy Inn of Court

sponsored by the American Inns of Court

Our President Lucy Mavyan

&

Program Moderator, Honorable Sheri Bluebond

invite you to join the 2020-2021 Year

of the James T. King Bankruptcy Inn of Court

The Bankruptcy Inn of Court board has planned an exciting new year!  The board has compiled interesting and informative topics for our members to present.  Our six meetings this year will be through Zoom beginning at 6:00 p.m. for meet and greet time.

Our first meeting will be on Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 6:00 p.m with a presentation beginning at 6:30 p.m.  Each of our meetings offers 1.5 hours of MCLE credit.

For your convenience, our membership form is here.  Inn of the Court 2020-2021 Inn Invitation.doc (2)   Should you have any questions or concerns, you may email us at

jamestkingbankruptcyinnofcourt@gmail.com Read more…

Everything Preclusion: cdcbaa Program on Claim and Issue Preclusion, September 12, 2020

To help mitigate the spread of COVID-19, this CLE Program will ONLY be available as a WEBINAR via Zoom.

Please join us on September 12th, 2020 as the cdcbaa presents:

SEVENTH ANNUAL JAMES T. KING BANKRUPTCY SYMPOSIUM: ISSUE AND CLAIM PRECLUSION

PANELISTS:
Hon. Meredith Jury (ret.) | U.S. Bankruptcy Court – Central District of California, Riverside Division
Hon. Laura Taylor | U.S. Bankruptcy Court – Southern District of California
Prof. M. Jonathan Hayes | Resnik Hayes Moradi LLP

Program: 11:00am - 1:00pm

2 Hours of MCLE Credit Provided
Haven’t renewed yet for 2020? Now is the perfect time! Our membership dues for the balance of the year are reduced and a tremendous bargain at only $150. Your 2020 membership includes up to 2 remaining seminars of 2 MCLE credits each for four (4) MCLE hours total, one ticket to the annual Calvin Ashland Awards Dinner in November (subject to state and local restrictions on large gatherings), remote webinar participation in MCLE programs (when available), and access to the listserve, on which you can discuss the latest bankruptcy issues with knowledgeable and experienced members. That’s like receiving up to four hours of MCLE credits in subject-matter that’s relevant to you at $38 per unit, and getting a fancy ballroom dinner and message board access for free! Read more…

All things In Twyne’s Case

I have seen this case cited here and there, supposedly the genesis of the now familiar concept that a transfer of property with actual intent to delay, hinder or defraud creditors may be avoided.  But yesterday I stumbled on Prof. Bob Lawless’s post on Credit Slips about this fascinating new law review article by Northwestern Law Professor Emily Kadens, entitled New Light on Twyne’s CaseThe article is here.  She writes, “Twyne’s Case today stands for the point that even transfers made for good consideration can be fraudulent if they were made with the intent to defraud other creditors. ”

The facts are surprisingly familiar.  In 1600, the undersheriff of Hampshire, Brian Chamberlain, is instructed by a creditor to execute a writ and seize property of one John Pearce.   When he gets to Pearce’s farm, he is told the sheep, the cattle, grains, “leases,” and everything else is owned by John Twyne, not John Pearce.  Twyne was a cousin of Pearce and a man of some stature and wealth.  There is a confrontation over the next two-three days (called a “riot” in the legal papers of the time) but when the dust settles, nothing is removed from the farm.  It seems that months earlier, Twyne  agreed in writing to pay certain of Pearce’s debts in exchange for a transfer of Pearce’s property to Twyne.  Possession of the property remained with Pearce, apparently not unusual since it wasn’t that easy to move sheep, cattle and grain and the arrangement provided that if Pearce came up with the money, he would get his property back.   The paperwork of course was confusing, contradictory in places, incomplete and the “deeds” may have been back-dated.  But the court later agreed that “Twyne gave greater consideration than the total worth of Pearce’s property.” Read more…

Brace Yourself! Nice program coming up on the new California Supreme Court analysis of community property

“BRACE YOURSELF”
THE SHOCKWAVE CAUSED BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN BRACE, THE EXTENT OF ITS IMPACT ON BANKRUPTCY CASES, OTHER COMMUNITY PROPERTY ISSUES, AND AN UPDATE ON RECENT HOMESTEAD CASES

Panelists:
Hon. Margaret M. Mann, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Southern District of California
D. Edward Hays, Marshack Hays LLP
Roksana D. Moradi-Brovia, Resnik Hayes Moradi LLP

Moderator:
Richard Marshack, Marshack Hays LLP

Topics to Include:
• What will be estate property when filing for just one spouse?
• How can a transmutation avoid the result in Brace?
• Are transmutations avoidable as fraudulent transfers?
• Is bankruptcy advisable when a divorce is pending?
• What claims will community property pay?
• The type of interest in property required to support a homestead under In re Nolan, __ B.R. __ (Bankr. C.D.Cal. July 21, 2020, J. Clarkson)

Thursday, September 10, 2020

Hosted by the Inland Empire Bankruptcy Forum – the flyer is here.  Brace Flyer_IEBF_9-10-209(b)

Secretary of State UCC-1 and Judgment Lien new search engine

This new search engine is amazing.  Find UCC-1s and tax liens in seconds.  Download a copy in seconds – no charge.
It even shows if the entity has a UCC-1 or judgment lien in its favor.

Wherein my 1111(b) article is cited by a Judge!

A thanks and tip of the hat to Bankruptcy Judge Eric Frank, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, for citing my article  The Section 1111(b) Election: A Primer, 31 Cal. Bankr. J. 755 (2011), written with Roksana Moradi-Brovia.   You can access the case here, In re Body Transit, Inc.  Pretty fun to be called a “commentator.”  Judge Frank writes, “One commentator explained it concisely as follows:” and goes on to quote two paragraphs from the article.

The issue to Judge Frank was whether the the bank’s “interest on account [of its claim] in [property of the estate] is of inconsequential value,” because if so, the bank cannot make the 1111(b) election.  The court said it was “inconsequential” under the facts of the case and pitched out the election.  Apparently here the value of the property was around $80,000 and the debt was $917,000 so the property was 8.2% of the debt.  Judge Frank rules that that is inconsequential, although comments that it is a close call.  I do not see it as a close call.  To force the debtor to pay the bank $917,000, certainly money taken away from other unsecured creditors, because its collateral is worth $80,000 is not a close call to me.

Judge Frank states astutely:

“[W]hile ‘the numbers’ provide an important starting point in deciding how much value is ‘inconsequential,’ the court also must consider other relevant circumstances presented in the case and make a holistic determination that takes into account the purpose and policy of the statutory provisions that govern the reorganization case.”

Here the bank was simply trying to scuttle the plan, in a subchapter V case by the way.  Judge Frank is absolutely correct here.

SFVBA Program on Homestead Exemption – this Friday, August 14, 2020 – noon

Email from Steve Fox:

Dear All:

We have a nifty program for you this time around.  We have an all-Riverside area panel, Judge Meredith Jury (ret’d), Todd Turoci and Summer Shaw speaking about two important topics: the homestead exemption; and abandonment.  They will dig deep into the meat of the subjects.  Attending attorneys will learn a lot.  We have good, thick materials.  I have been reading them.  If you feel that you know these topics, guess again.  I was lucky to participate in the early discussions the panelists had, discussions that were fast, furious and lively, arguing the homestead exemption and abandonment.  This is a practical program that will enhance your legal abilities including the quality of legal advice you can render.

The program will be held through Zoom so you need to register for the program in order to receive the link and access password.

Here is basic information about the program:

Friday, August 14, 2020   12 noon
1 and ¼ hour MCLE

Charges:              $20 member;
$30 non-members  (So much less expensive than other bar associations – and better programs to boot!)

Here are the signup options:  Read more…

Update on Self-Help Desk in Woodland Hills

Email from Barbara Sanchez:

Good morning, wonderful volunteers,

I hope that you and your loved ones are happy, safe, and well.

Self-Help services are still being offered remotely. There is no date set for reopening in Woodland Hills, but we are not likely to open before mid-September. We have been able to help debtors file for Chapter 7 online, through electronic Self-Representation (eSR), sharing screens in MS Teams. It’s time-consuming, but it works well, and debtors appreciate the support.

Neighborhood Legal Services has hired a wonderful new employee, Daniel Calzadillas-Rodriguez. Daniel has been helping with calls to Spanish-speaking debtors, as well as translating bankruptcy materials. He is warm and supportive with debtors, yet professional, and has excellent computer and administrative skills. I look forward to introducing him to you when we reopen. Read more…

Nice post by evidence guru Wayne Silver on whether settlement discussions are really confidential

This is worth reading.  Gives you little shivers about the prospect of hearing your “confidential settlement discussions” being discussed with the judge.