Law on Rice

• Are you afraid of bankruptcy?
  March 8, 2010
  Bankruptcy Law Network
  People tell me that they are afraid of filing for bankruptcy. Fear of the unknown is a reasonable emotion. I am afraid of the dentist. I’m afraid of the pain from the drilling. I am afraid that the shot will...
• 'Poor man's attorney' John Pintek most proud of miners' rights cases
  March 6, 2010
  Search Results - Arizona Daily Star
  Injustice infuriated John Pintek.
• Phoenix pays millions in vehicle-related claims
  March 6, 2010
  azcentral.com | news
  City of Phoenix vehicles are involved in at least one accident a day on average, according to an Arizona Republic analysis of liability claims filed against the city in the past five years.
• Chapter 13 Eligibility Limits Increase on April 1, 2010
  March 6, 2010
  BankruptcyProf Blog
  Debt limits for Chapter 13 increase April 1, 2010, to $360,475 of unsecured debt and $1,081,400 of secured debt. This change represents an increase of about 7% over the previous Chapter 13 debt limits.
• Meet the Clerk - Program by cdcbaa on March 20, 2010
  March 6, 2010
  BankruptcyProf Blog
  The program will be coordinated by KEITH HIGGINBOTHAM and moderated by JEFF SMITH. It will be entitled MEET THE COURT CLERKS OFFICE: THE POWER BEHIND THE POWER Location: Southwestern Law School, March 20, 2010...
• Plugin by C. Murray Consulting

• I've only been here for a few weeks, and my blood already thinned out. I'm freezing. It's 60 degrees. #

Powered by Twitter Tools

I took a peek around the internet to see what bloggers were saying about today’s Supreme Court decision in Milavetz, Gallop, & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, no. 08-1119.

Bob Lawless at the popular Credit Slips blog seems satisfied that the decision came out the way he expected, and chastised early reports for their inaccuracies. By contrast, M. Jonathon Hayes at the BankruptcyProf Blog was “shocked” given his read of the oral argument.

On the other hand, Scott Riddle at the Georgia Bankruptcy Blog was surprised that lawyers could be called anything but debt relief agencies under BAPCPA. Stephen Sather, an Austin bankruptcy, lawyer yawned along with Riddle on the designation, but made the point that BAPCPA survived its first constitutional salvo.

Steve Jakubowski at Bankruptcy Litigation Blog took the opportunity to remind us that today would have been Holmes’ 169th birthday. While Washington State bankruptcy lawyer Jay Jump lamented the decision as a lose-lose proposition for lawyers and their clients alike and rings the free speech warning siren in the process (maybe rightly) at the National Bankruptcy Forum.

As for the McLeod Law Offices, they are probably too busy to read the opinion, at least until the weekend. After all, if you haven’t heard, bankruptcy firms debt relief agencies are a little busy these days–just a little.

I was reading Ninth Circuit BAP case Dunn v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (In re Dunn), no. 09-1176 (9th Cir. B.A.P. Feb. 4, 2010) when I came across footnote two.  It says:

Dunn has provided us with little in the way of excerpts of record to work with.  For instance, she did not provide us with copies of her bankruptcy schedules and statements, nor do we have the transcripes . . . nonetheless [we] have independently reviewed [the electronic docket] . . . we have done our best to reconstruct what what transpired . . . [the appellant] bears the consequences of failing to meet [her] burden.

I’m pretty sure it was an oversight on the lawyer’s part, and I’m pretty sure the omissions alone would not prejudice the case too much, but this is the stuff that makes a geeky law student’s mouse finger twitch.

There are so many little twists and turns in procedure, so many chances to make a mistake.   I hope I never get my own footnote two from a panel of appellate judges. Or any judge.  Or equity partner, senior partner, junior partner, senior associate, associate, paralegal, or even copier repair guy.  I hate making mistakes.

Somewhat interestingly (again, to a geeky law student), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges, Markell, Montali, and Pappas, cited to Ehrenberg v. Cal. State Fullerton (In re Beachport Enter.), 396 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2005) for the seeming proposition that they could reconstruct the transcripts.  I wonder what that case says…

I’m skimming one of the long-awaited Supreme Court bankruptcy cases, Milavetz, Gallop, & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, no. 08-1119, a Justice Soyomayor opinion, for lunch at a Starbucks at Park Central Mall in Phoenix.

By now, far more intelligent pundits than I have surely commented on it. Hopeful they are not confused by one of it’s most important holdings like I am.

In ruling that BAPCPA prohibitions do not violate free speech, the Court argued that section 526(a) “prohibits a debt relief agency only from advising an assisted person to incur more debt when the impelling reason for the advice is the anticipation of bankruptcy.”

I’m still confused because I was hoping it would more clearly address the situation where a client says, “I’m thinking about filing for bankruptcy, should I pay my Visa bill considering they will charge a late fee and increased interest rates?”

Doesn’t that incur more debt?

• I am intensely jealous of Nick Spitzer #

Powered by Twitter Tools

One of the most important things a bankruptcy court offers is the so-called automatic stay.  One of my bankruptcy professors called it the most powerful tool any lawyer has in any field of law.

It stops almost everything, stops it immediately.  That collection company has to stop garnishing your wages. The county judge has to stop that lawsuit. The foreclosure sale on your house stops.  Visa cannot so much as dial the phone to call you.  Yet, if you owe a bank (or other creditor) for a payment on a car or house, the bank is likely going to be able to convince the bankruptcy court to lift the stay if they can convince the judge that they are not “adequately protected.”  Why?

At first, I thought “adequate protection” was Congress’s way of trying to throw creditors a bone.  That is, Congress gave a bankruptcy filers a lot of power, but Congress also wanted a way to protect a secured creditor’s collateral.

But when I looked at the legislative commentary, Congress didn’t mention that particular concern in 1978. Instead, it seems like Congress was more concerned about Fifth Amendment Takings issues.

• A-PEE-als Court: Tucson ban on public urination legal
  March 4, 2010
  Search Results - Arizona Daily Star
  An Arizona appellate court's ruling upholds the constitutionality of Tucson's ordinance against urinating in public.
• New Rules for "Free" Credit Reports
  March 3, 2010
  California Credit Law Blog
  In 2003, the federal Government required the three national credit agencies to establish a website where consumers could download their credit reports free, once a year. Unfortunately, the Government foolishly...
• Lap-band promoters' troubled history
  March 3, 2010
  RSS Personalised Feed
  My Note: These signs were evvvvvverywhere while I was driving through LA.
  The waiting room of the Beverly Hills surgery clinic was teeming with customers on a recent Saturday, with many of the patients there for the weight-loss operation hawked on freeway billboards, bus placards, a...
• Creditors file suits vs. car-wash mogul
  March 4, 2010
  azcentral.com | business
  Four creditors have filed lawsuits against Valley car-wash mogul, restaurateur and developer Daniel "Danny" Hendon, his business partners and their various companies, claiming a total debt of more than $50 mill...
• Valet Your Bike For FREE In Santa Monica!
  March 3, 2010
  Shortcuts
  Sustainable Santa Monica just posted this on their Face Book Page.      How cool is this!!! The City is hosting a free Bike Valet on Friday evenings on Main Street, including Last Fridays. The Bike...
• Bank of America moves to foreclose on Viad Tower in midtown Phoenix
  March 3, 2010
  Downtown Voices Coalition
  [Source: Ken Alltucker, Arizona Republic] — A lender is seeking to foreclose on the Viad Corporate Center, a high-rise office tower on Central Avenue in Phoenix, the latest example of the region’s commercia...
• Plugin by C. Murray Consulting

• Senate kills texting while driving ban
  March 3, 2010
  Arizona Capitol Times
  My Note: This surprises me in surprising ways.
  For the second year in a row, the Arizona Senate on March 2 shot down an attempt to ban texting while driving amid concerns about imposing too much government regulation.
• Senate votes to tighten evidence standard
  March 3, 2010
  Arizona Capitol Times
  My Note: Interesting. Good law review fodder.
  State court judges would have a tighter screen to use when deciding expert testimony that juries hear in civil cases under a bill approved 20-8 by the Arizona Senate, sending the measure to the House.
• A Tucson Monorail?
  March 2, 2010
  Tucson Weekly
  This week in his column in Inside Tucson Business (which shares office space, a coffee machine and ownership with the Weekly), David Hatfield asks why the city is building a streetcar system when a monorail sys...
• Orange officials sue couple who removed their lawn
  March 2, 2010
  RSS Personalised Feed
  City codes require that live landscaping cover 40% of the yard. Quan and Angelina Ha say their water use has dropped 80% since they replaced the grass with wood chips and drought-tolerant plants. Some Southern...
• Feds may force mods
  March 2, 2010
  Bankrate.com: Mortgage Matters Blog Headlines
  My Note: Interesting idea.
  Feds might prohibit foreclosures until borrowers have been found ineligible for mods.
• Foreclosure scams add to homeowner misery  
  March 1, 2010
  Arizona Capitol Times
  Gregory Nave wanted justice after he was bilked out of $3,495 by a foreclosure consultant, but the state Attorney General's Office told him there were no laws to protect against the kind of scam that victimized...
• Legislature attacks foreclosure problem with 16 bills 
  March 1, 2010
  Arizona Capitol Times
  Sen. John Nelson's S1130 would establish rules for mortgage consultants who claim to negotiate with lenders on behalf of homeowners facing foreclosure.
• Plugin by C. Murray Consulting

I am working as a law clerk until April for a creditors’ rights firm learning about foreclosures and creditors’ law in bankruptcy in a big building in downtown Phoenix.  And tonight, I just saw this article:

A lender is seeking to foreclose on the Viad Corporate Center, a high-rise office tower on Central Avenue in Phoenix, the latest example of the region’s commercial real-estate woes. Bank of America has asked a Maricopa County Superior Court judge to appoint a receiver for the signature tower at 1850 N. Central Ave. The lender said the building’s owner has not kept current since December on a $65 million loan.

Here’s the full article.