SCONC: Canteen v. Charlotte Metro Credit Union: Unilateral Addition of Arbitration Provision and Waiver of Class Action Ed Boltz Wed, 05/29/2024 - 00:15 Summary: Pamela Phillips opened a checking account with the Charlotte Metro Credit Union in 2013, agreeing to a membership agreement that included provisions for unilateral amendments by the Credit Union and specified governing laws. Following a class action lawsuit in 2020 (in which Ms. Phillips was not involved) Charlotte Metro, pursuant to its change-of-terms provision, amended the membership agreement to include an arbitration clause, notifying Ms. Phillips via email, but she did not opt out of the arbitration amendment within the given 30-day window. When Ms. Phillips filed a class action lawsuit in March of 2021 against the Charlotte Metro for illegal overdraft fees, the trial court denied the motion by Charlotte Metro to compel arbitration. While the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that the arbitration amendment was enforceable, a dissent argued that the amendment violated the covenant of good faith and rendered the contract illusory. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that while "a change-of-terms provision does not grant a party free rein to alter a valid agreement" but must comply with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Court agreed with the framework from other jurisdictions, see Badie v. Bank of Am, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 273 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998), and the North Carolina Court of Appeals, see SearsRoebuck and Co. v. Avery, 163 N.C. App. 207 (2004), stating that changes to a contract must relate to the "universe of terms" included in the original agreement. Since the original contract contained a "Governing Law" provision, which considered the allowable forums for resolving disputes, the arbitration amendment was within the reasonable contemplation of the parties. Change-of-terms provisions extend “insofar as the new or modified terms relate to subjects already addressed in some fashion in the original agreement.” Badie at 220. Further, the SCONC found both that the contract was not illusory because the Notice of Amendments provision was limited by law, requiring good faith and fair dealing in any modifications and that there was mutual assent as Phillips had agreed to the Notice of Amendments provision in 2014, which allowed unilateral changes by the Credit Union upon notice, thus binding her to the arbitration amendment. Justices Riggs and Earls dissented and would have instead held that the arbitration and class action waiver amendment should be void, as it breaches the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, renders the contract illusory, and unfairly deprives Ms. Phillips of her rights. The dissent called for a more balanced approach that considers the realities of consumer contracts and the need to protect consumers from unfair unilateral amendments by corporations. Commentary: It seems an overreach to hold that the statement in the Governing Law provision that "As permitted by applicable law, you agree that any legal action regarding this Agreement shall be brought in the county in which the credit union is located" is sufficiently related to arbitration to allow the unilateral amendment of the contract, when arbitration was not explicitly included in the 2014 member agreement, despite being fairly well known as an conflict resolution options since at least 1925, when the Federal Arbitration Act became law. That the option of arbitration is unused and unmentioned in the agreement would seem so indicate that it is outside the "universe of terms." It is not hard to imagine (as Justice Riggs does in her dissent) that if the members of a class action against Charlotte Metro Credit Union each individually sought to force arbitration over some issue that Charlotte Metro, being forced to pay the fees and costs of all of those arbitrators, would suddenly find a way out of arbitration. (Probably by unilaterally changing its terms and agreements in the middle of litigation.) See the recent White v. Title Max where a creditor played similar arbitration games. The majority opinion at least (?) does say the quiet part out loud in Footnote 6, where it shows its servitude to capital by bemoaning the idea that it would be impossible for "products and services be efficiently delivered if, under such a limited view of the modern market, consumer contracts had to be canceled and renegotiated with every necessary update...." And while these contracts absolutely never give the consumer any authority to unilaterally change the terms, the ability to alter the rights and duties of both borrowers and lenders is, to some extent, granted to a consumer who files a bankruptcy reorganization plan, whether Chapter 13 or 11. Perhaps it should not give pause to bankruptcy courts when creditors fail, just as Ms. Phillips did with her 30-day opt out right, to object to treatment in such their plans. At the very least, plan provisions that eliminate arbitration provisions and waivers of class action should be within the universe of terms. To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document canteen_v._charlotte_metro_credit_union.pdf (212.89 KB) Category NC Supreme Court Cases
4th Circuit: White v. Title Max- Federal Arbitration Act alone does not provide federal jurisdiction
4th Circuit: White v. Title Max- Federal Arbitration Act alone does not provide federal jurisdiction Ed Boltz Fri, 05/24/2024 - 20:38 Summary: Once through the captions and parties (which constitute the first 37 out of 39 pages of this decision), this appeal concerns the confirmation of arbitration awards by the district court under Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) against TitleMax of Virginia, Inc., which argued that the applications did not identify an independent jurisdictional basis. The appeals court agreed with TitleMax, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Badgerow v. Walters, which requires an independent jurisdictional basis for a district court to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 or 10 of the FAA. The applications in question did not provide a non-FAA basis for federal question jurisdiction, did not meet the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, and did not invoke the court's supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, as the district court lacked the necessary subject matter jurisdiction to grant the applications, its judgment was vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Commentary: Creditors love arbitration, except when suddenly borrowers use it against them. Federal courts also love arbitration, except, it seems, when borrowers suddenly use it against creditors. Shocking. To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document white.pdf (257.76 KB) Category 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
Law Review: David Y. Kamins, Punishing Debtors in Bankruptcy During COVID-19, 18 Brook. J. Corp. Fin. & Com. L. 247 (2023) Ed Boltz Thu, 05/23/2024 - 16:33 Abstract: The 2019 Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) led to widespread government-mandated lockdowns, causing numerous businesses to close their doors permanently. To assist financially distressed businesses and individuals during the pandemic, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The Small Business Administration (SBA)—the agency tasked with implementing the CARES Act—distributed funds to individuals and businesses through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Part of the SBA’s eligibility requirements to receive funding through the PPP included an exclusion provision that barred debtors presently involved in any bankruptcy proceeding from receiving any PPP funding. Many debtors in bankruptcy filed suits in federal bankruptcy courts across the United States to enjoin the SBA from excluding applicants solely based on their bankruptcy status. Courts, such as the Second Circuit and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine, were split on whether the SBA violated Section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code or was within its right to deny PPP funding to debtors in bankruptcy. This Note explores the SBA’s rationale for excluding debtors in bankruptcy from PPP funding solely based on their bankruptcy status. This Note further analyzes the split court decisions regarding whether the PPP functioned more as a typical loan program or more as a grant. This Note then argues that the SBA’s decision to exclude debtors in bankruptcy from receiving PPP funding violated the anti-discrimination provision of the Bankruptcy Code. This Note further asserts that the courts siding in favor of the SBA incorrectly classified the PPP as a typical loan program. Lastly, this Note proposes solutions for the United States government to adopt more inclusive measures for business owners of all backgrounds and financial statuses in a future crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. Commentary: The preclusion of PPP funds for businesses and individuals in bankruptcy case and the hostility by the SBA through its appeals of cases requiring it not to discriminate is unfortunately just one in a long chain of examples of government prejudice against bankruptcy. This includes the original ineligibility of debtors in bankruptcy from mortgage modification assistance under the HAMP program during the Housing Crisis and also the opposition by the Department of Education until 2018 to allow student borrowers in bankruptcy to participate in Income Driven Repayment plans. Fortunately, the federal government eventually relented and allowed homeowners in bankruptcy to participate in HAMP (but only after thousands unnecessarily lost their homes.) With the Buchanan provisions, I personally caused the Department of Education to give student loan borrowers the same access to IDR plans, which has led to the even more equitable relief starting July 1st of giving all Chapter 13 debtors IDR credit. While bankruptcy can certainly be a complicating factor in the administration of government relief programs, those difficulties can be managed and navigated by the bankruptcy courts (which are also parts of the government.) To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document punishing_debtors_in_bankruptcy_during_covid-19.pdf (415.28 KB) Category Law Reviews & Studies
4th Circuit: In re Bestwall- Contempt and Sanctions related to Discovery is not a Final Appealable Order Ed Boltz Wed, 05/22/2024 - 20:06 Summary: Bestwall, LLC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 2017 to address asbestos-related claims and sought discovery to estimate its asbestos liabilities, leading to a personal injury questionnaire (PIQ) order for all mesothelioma claimants. The PIQ order was contested but upheld, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce it. Claimants attempted to appeal the PIQ order, but the district court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Some claimants, represented by Maune, Raichle, Hartley, French & Mudd, LLC, filed a lawsuit in Illinois to block the PIQ order, leading Bestwall to seek enforcement in the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court found the plaintiffs and their counsel in contempt and sanctioned them for continuing the Illinois lawsuit. The appellants appealed the contempt and sanctions orders, but the district court dismissed these appeals as non-final. The Court of Appeals held that parties cannot immediately appeal a civil contempt order. Instead, they must wait for a final judgment to appeal. In bankruptcy, a final judgment can be either the end of the entire case or the end of a discrete proceeding within the case. Examples provided of the end of a discrete proceeding include the entry of a judgment in an Adversary Proceeding, the confirmation of a bankruptcy plan, or the adjudication of a motion for relief from the automatic stay. These contempt and sanctions orders for defying a discovery order, however, did not end a separate procedural unit, making them non-final and non-appealable. and the district court’s dismissal of the appeals for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed. Commentary: While contempt and sanctions for defiance of discovery are not the the end of a discrete proceeding, this should not lead to confusion about whether a contempt and sanctions order for violation of the automatic stay or discharge is final and appealable, as those are examples of where "the bankruptcy court unreservedly grants or denies relief." Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 582, 589 (2020). See also In re Webb, 472 B.R. 665 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (same for violating automatic stay); In re Nelson, No. BAP WW-15-1416, 2016 WL 7321196, at *1 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Dec. 15, 2016) Similarly, the resolution of an objection to claim should be a final appealable order. This decision, with its focus on how a discrete proceeding in bankruptcy is different from a the overarching bankruptcy case, also has collateral implications regarding the need for reaffirmations in Chapter 7 cases, Many retail installment sales contracts have language that states that it is an event of default if the Debtor "starts a proceeding in bankruptcy or a proceeding in bankruptcy is started against them or the property". "A proceeding in bankruptcy" IS NOT simply the filing of bankruptcy. Accordingly, most of these ipso facto provisions do not alone put a debtor in default merely because a bankruptcy was filed, making a reaffirmation unnecessary as absent any default the lender has no contractual basis for either repossession or refusal to accept payments. To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document bestwall.pdf (188.73 KB) Category 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
This month marks the 25th anniversary of Lakelaw! From a tiny office in Steve Simonian’s suite in Waukegan, Illinois, Lakelaw grew to five offices along the shore of Lake Michigan from Chicago to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Our team of bankruptcy lawyers have always focused on helping people and businesses with financial difficulties. We have also been proud of our public service, having won numerous awards for our pro bono service, including the prestigious Excellence in Pro Bono Service Award from the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. What’s In Store for the Next 25+ Years Now we celebrate the addition of two new members, John Hiltz and Blair Zanzig. These distinguished attorneys will ensure that Lakelaw will continue to serve clients excellently, retaining our core values of “Care, Kindness, Courtesy, Respect, and Dedication.” Stay tuned for more details and watch for updates on our website. Lakelaw thanks our loyal clients and friends for their support over the past 25 years. We look forward to even greater things in the next quarter century and beyond. Get a Free Confidential Consultation The post Lakelaw Celebrates 25-Year Anniversary! appeared first on Lakelaw.
Arizona Family Law Issues & Cohabitating Co-Parents The cost to buy a home or rent an apartment has shot up throughout Arizona in recent years. When two parents want to break up and separate households, it has become more difficult than ever thanks to inflation. This leaves many opposing parties in family law matters, such as divorce, custody, and child support, forced to continue living together while the matter is resolved. This can create unique questions and concerns that might not be relevant if the parents immediately separate into two households. The circumstances surrounding every family law situation are different, which means that they require different legal strategies. When family law matters seem overwhelming and confusing, a skilled divorce attorney can help simplify the process. Our family law team offers unparalleled legal services for family law clients in Phoenix and Tucson. To discuss your situation in detail with your free consultation, call 480-470-1504. Child Support Modifications If you are living with your ex while a family law matter is pending, chances are that you don’t intend for the situation to be permanent. If the orders in place aren’t temporary, they will need to be modified when the parents’ situation changes. More often, it will be the parents moving out of a shared household into individual households rather than the other way around. Separating households can have a significant effect on how much child support should be paid. Because child support can only be modified moving forward, the parent may want to request a modification as soon as possible after the lifestyle change occurs. However, child support modifications in Arizona can only be granted once every 12 months. If the parent expects another lifestyle change, it may be beneficial to wait until their situation has stabilized before petitioning the court to modify child support payments. If you are unclear on which course of action to take, you can discuss your situation free of charge with an experienced member of our Arizona family law team. To schedule your free consultation today, call 480-470-1504. In order for a family law judge to grant a child support modification in Arizona, there must have been a significant and continuing change in circumstances as compared to when the orders were first issued. For child support purposes, “significant” means a financial change of about 10% or more. For example, a parent paying child support may have been let go from their job and had to take a lower-paying job. The parent should modify their child support payments to reflect their reduction in income. But if a parent has to miss a few weeks of work for a vacation or medical procedure, this would only be a temporary reduction in income that is likely insufficient for a child support modification. If you have more questions about child support modifications in Phoenix and Tucson, don’t hesitate to contact our Arizona family law firm for your free consultation at 480-470-1504. Do I Have To Pay Child Support If We Still Live Together? Parents have a legal obligation to financially provide for their children. This obligation doesn’t end just because two parents end their romantic relationship. But if two parents continue living together despite breaking up, their share of financial responsibilities for their children in common probably won’t change much. Here, the court usually doesn’t find it necessary for court-ordered child support to be in place. However, if one parent decides to stop their financial contributions due to the breakup, the other parent can make a request for child support with the court. Child support may also be necessary if the parents began living together after one parent was awarded government assistance to care for the child, such as TANF, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. If you are being pursued for child support despite still living with your child’s other parent, you probably need family law representation. To schedule your free consultation with My AZ Lawyers today, call 480-470-1504. Cohabitation During Divorce & The Marital Home Whether it’s to save money or to ease the family transition into separate households, many spouses continue to live together during and after getting divorced. But this can be a challenging lifestyle to keep up in the long term. Moving is a hassle, and so is adjusting to living in a new home and neighborhood. Therefore, which parent gets to remain in the marital home can be a contentious issue in cases like these. There are a few factors that can impact a judge’s decision when two spouses can’t agree on who should get to stay in the marital home. A marital home may not necessarily be a community property asset, or entirely a community property asset. If one spouse made the down payment and some of the mortgage payments before marriage, a portion of the home equity would be that spouse’s separate property. Additionally, if the home was acquired through inheritance or a gift, the home could be that spouse’s separate property. So, for example, the spouse with a separate property share might own 75% of the house with their spouse owning the other 25% of the house. Here, the judge would likely rule that the spouse with the 75% share gets to remain in the home. Another factor that can impact the ruling on a marital home is if the couple has minor children. Arizona family law judges have an interest in preserving a child’s way of life, which can include the home in which they live. If one parent is considered the primary caregiver for the children, this can give the judge cause to keep that parent in the marital home. But there need to be enough marital assets to give to the other spouse for this to be an acceptable outcome under Arizona’s community property laws. If available, that spouse can be awarded a larger share of assets like bank accounts, investments and retirement savings, vehicles, and more. One spouse being awarded the marital home can be considered as a factor for spousal support issues. Otherwise, the home may need to be sold to achieve a fair division of marital assets. Do you want to learn more about community property and how it will apply to your Arizona divorce case? Our Arizona family law lawyers offer skilled representation and free consultations by phone. Call 480-470-1504 to get started today. Skilled Family Law Attorneys For Contested & Uncontested Divorces In Arizona No one wants to end up in family law court, but sometimes it is an inevitable fact of life. Retaining a high-quality family law firm to handle your legal matter is the best way to prepare for all the unexpected issues that could arise throughout your case. Our attorneys are dedicated to achieving favorable outcomes for our clients, no matter their circumstances. When you’re involved in a family law matter, just about every aspect of your life is at stake. Trust your case with experienced professionals with the knowledge to take your case from start to finish. When you’re ready to get started with your free consultation, call 480-470-1504 to speak with one of our Phoenix and Tucson family law lawyers. Contact us at My Az Lawyers today! MY AZ LAWYERS Email: [email protected] Website: www.myazlawyers.com Mesa Location 1731 West Baseline Rd., Suite #100 Mesa, AZ 85202 Office: 480-448-9800 Phoenix Location 343 West Roosevelt, Suite #100 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Office: 602-609-7000 Glendale Location 20325 N 51st Avenue Suite #134, Building 5 Glendale, AZ 85308 Office: 602-509-0955 Tucson Location 2 East Congress St., Suite #900-6A Tucson, AZ 85701 Office: 520-441-1450 Avondale Location 12725 W. Indian School Rd., Ste E, #101 Avondale, AZ 85392 Office: 623-469-6603 The post Arizona Family Law Issues & Cohabitating Co-Parents appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.
Arizona Family Law Issues & Cohabitating Co-Parents The cost to buy a home or rent an apartment has shot up throughout Arizona in recent years. When two parents want to break up and separate households, it has become more difficult than ever thanks to inflation. This leaves many opposing parties in family law matters, such as divorce, custody, and child support, forced to continue living together while the matter is resolved. This can create unique questions and concerns that might not be relevant if the parents immediately separate into two households. The circumstances surrounding every family law situation are different, which means that they require different legal strategies. When family law matters seem overwhelming and confusing, a skilled divorce attorney can help simplify the process. Our family law team offers unparalleled legal services for family law clients in Phoenix and Tucson. To discuss your situation in detail with your free consultation, call 480-470-1504. Child Support Modifications If you are living with your ex while a family law matter is pending, chances are that you don’t intend for the situation to be permanent. If the orders in place aren’t temporary, they will need to be modified when the parents’ situation changes. More often, it will be the parents moving out of a shared household into individual households rather than the other way around. Separating households can have a significant effect on how much child support should be paid. Because child support can only be modified moving forward, the parent may want to request a modification as soon as possible after the lifestyle change occurs. However, child support modifications in Arizona can only be granted once every 12 months. If the parent expects another lifestyle change, it may be beneficial to wait until their situation has stabilized before petitioning the court to modify child support payments. If you are unclear on which course of action to take, you can discuss your situation free of charge with an experienced member of our Arizona family law team. To schedule your free consultation today, call 480-470-1504. In order for a family law judge to grant a child support modification in Arizona, there must have been a significant and continuing change in circumstances as compared to when the orders were first issued. For child support purposes, “significant” means a financial change of about 10% or more. For example, a parent paying child support may have been let go from their job and had to take a lower-paying job. The parent should modify their child support payments to reflect their reduction in income. But if a parent has to miss a few weeks of work for a vacation or medical procedure, this would only be a temporary reduction in income that is likely insufficient for a child support modification. If you have more questions about child support modifications in Phoenix and Tucson, don’t hesitate to contact our Arizona family law firm for your free consultation at 480-470-1504. Do I Have To Pay Child Support If We Still Live Together? Parents have a legal obligation to financially provide for their children. This obligation doesn’t end just because two parents end their romantic relationship. But if two parents continue living together despite breaking up, their share of financial responsibilities for their children in common probably won’t change much. Here, the court usually doesn’t find it necessary for court-ordered child support to be in place. However, if one parent decides to stop their financial contributions due to the breakup, the other parent can make a request for child support with the court. Child support may also be necessary if the parents began living together after one parent was awarded government assistance to care for the child, such as TANF, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. If you are being pursued for child support despite still living with your child’s other parent, you probably need family law representation. To schedule your free consultation with My AZ Lawyers today, call 480-470-1504. Cohabitation During Divorce & The Marital Home Whether it’s to save money or to ease the family transition into separate households, many spouses continue to live together during and after getting divorced. But this can be a challenging lifestyle to keep up in the long term. Moving is a hassle, and so is adjusting to living in a new home and neighborhood. Therefore, which parent gets to remain in the marital home can be a contentious issue in cases like these. There are a few factors that can impact a judge’s decision when two spouses can’t agree on who should get to stay in the marital home. A marital home may not necessarily be a community property asset, or entirely a community property asset. If one spouse made the down payment and some of the mortgage payments before marriage, a portion of the home equity would be that spouse’s separate property. Additionally, if the home was acquired through inheritance or a gift, the home could be that spouse’s separate property. So, for example, the spouse with a separate property share might own 75% of the house with their spouse owning the other 25% of the house. Here, the judge would likely rule that the spouse with the 75% share gets to remain in the home. Another factor that can impact the ruling on a marital home is if the couple has minor children. Arizona family law judges have an interest in preserving a child’s way of life, which can include the home in which they live. If one parent is considered the primary caregiver for the children, this can give the judge cause to keep that parent in the marital home. But there need to be enough marital assets to give to the other spouse for this to be an acceptable outcome under Arizona’s community property laws. If available, that spouse can be awarded a larger share of assets like bank accounts, investments and retirement savings, vehicles, and more. One spouse being awarded the marital home can be considered as a factor for spousal support issues. Otherwise, the home may need to be sold to achieve a fair division of marital assets. Do you want to learn more about community property and how it will apply to your Arizona divorce case? Our Arizona family law lawyers offer skilled representation and free consultations by phone. Call 480-470-1504 to get started today. Skilled Family Law Attorneys For Contested & Uncontested Divorces In Arizona No one wants to end up in family law court, but sometimes it is an inevitable fact of life. Retaining a high-quality family law firm to handle your legal matter is the best way to prepare for all the unexpected issues that could arise throughout your case. Our attorneys are dedicated to achieving favorable outcomes for our clients, no matter their circumstances. When you’re involved in a family law matter, just about every aspect of your life is at stake. Trust your case with experienced professionals with the knowledge to take your case from start to finish. When you’re ready to get started with your free consultation, call 480-470-1504 to speak with one of our Phoenix and Tucson family law lawyers. Contact us at My Az Lawyers today! MY AZ LAWYERS Email: [email protected] Website: www.myazlawyers.com Mesa Location 1731 West Baseline Rd., Suite #100 Mesa, AZ 85202 Office: 480-448-9800 Phoenix Location 343 West Roosevelt, Suite #100 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Office: 602-609-7000 Glendale Location 20325 N 51st Avenue Suite #134, Building 5 Glendale, AZ 85308 Office: 602-509-0955 Tucson Location 2 East Congress St., Suite #900-6A Tucson, AZ 85701 Office: 520-441-1450 Avondale Location 12725 W. Indian School Rd., Ste E, #101 Avondale, AZ 85392 Office: 623-469-6603 The post Arizona Family Law Issues & Cohabitating Co-Parents appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.
The SubV Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Debt Limit Historical Background:Prior to passage of the Cares Act, the debt limit for SubV Chapter 11 cases was $2,725,625. With passage of the Cares Act, the debt limit was raised to $7.5 million thru June 21, 2024. If Congress does not otherwise amend or enact a new law, the debt limit will revert to $2,725,625 on June 21, 2024. Fortunately, a bill is pending in Congress that will extend or increase the debt limit to $7.5 million. This bill has the support of debtors, creditors, and bankruptcy attorneys. One might wonder why Congress does not enact a bill to permanently raise the debt limit to $7,500,000.Clients or their advisors with questions about Sub V cases should contact Jim ShenwickJim Shenwick, Esq 917 363 3391 [email protected] Please click the link to schedule a telephone call with me.https://calendly.com/james-shenwick/15minWe held individuals & businesses with too much debt!
Let’s schedule a meeting now. We know the Trustee will object. When your Zoom meeting with Thomas Gorman is over, he’ll go back to his desk and send us his objections to our Chapter 13 plan. He always does. Chapter 13 Trustee Thomas Gorman will have objections to our proposed Chapter 13 plan. He (almost) always does. Mostly he doesn’t like our math. Sometimes he finds mistakes in our paperwork. It can be anything. I’m sometimes surprised by his objection. I’m never surprised that he finds something to object to. So we are putting an Objection Review on the calendar. Fifteen days after your Chapter 13 Zoom hearing, we’re scheduling an objection review. That’s Wednesday, two weeks after your Zoom meeting with Trustee Gorman. I’ll be ready to call or Zoom or email you at 3:00–to deal with whatever we need to. We’ll talk about what he doesn’t like and how we are gonna deal with it When you get his objections to your Chapter 13 plan in the mail–you will–collect your thoughts and questions, so we are ready to dela with them, Wednesday, two weeks after the Zoom with Trustee Gorman. The post The Chapter 13 Trustee Will Have Objections appeared first on Robert Weed Bankruptcy Attorney.
Let’s schedule a meeting now. We know the Trustee will object. When your Zoom meeting with Thomas Gorman is over, he’ll go back to his desk and send us his objections to our Chapter 13 plan. He always does. Chapter 13 Trustee Thomas Gorman will have objections to our proposed Chapter 13 plan. He (almost) always does. Mostly he doesn’t like our math. Sometimes he finds mistakes in our paperwork. It can be anything. I’m sometimes surprised by his objection. I’m never surprised that he finds something to object to. So we are putting an Objection Review on the calendar. Fifteen days after your Chapter 13 Zoom hearing, we’re scheduling an objection review. That’s Wednesday, two weeks after your Zoom meeting with Trustee Gorman. I’ll be ready to call or Zoom or email you at 3:00–to deal with whatever we need to. We’ll talk about what he doesn’t like and how we are gonna deal with it When you get his objections to your Chapter 13 plan in the mail–you will–collect your thoughts and questions, so we are ready to dela with them, Wednesday, two weeks after the Zoom with Trustee Gorman. The post The Chapter 13 Trustee Will Have Objections appeared first on Robert Weed Bankruptcy Attorney.