Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

AZ, have you ever seen a similar situation such as with this Trustee asking to sell KC's rights, and if so, what was the outcome? In your professional opinion, does this Trustee stand a chance in getting this approved? As always, you are greatly appreciated here!
 
chefmom said:
AZ, have you ever seen a similar situation such as with this Trustee asking to sell KC's rights, and if so, what was the outcome? In your professional opinion, does this Trustee stand a chance in getting this approved? As always, you are greatly appreciated here!
Click to expand...

Yes, I have seen this happen before. If the Trustee can show that her rights have monetary value--and he can, because he already has an offer on the table--then the sale should be approved.
 
CA's BK atty has filed a response. It is on the interview thread. Could you peruse it and give your opinion?

TIA
 
?noanswer said:
CA's BK atty has filed a response. It is on the interview thread. Could you peruse it and give your opinion?

TIA
Click to expand...

ThinkTank said:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIaFpFV016amlXY2s/edit?pli=1

DEBTOR'S RESPONSE TO TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO SELL PROPERTY
Click to expand...

That is a really excellent brief. I think it certainly proves that the Trustee's motion was not some kind of trick by Casey's attorneys to sell the book rights--they are clearly not in favor of the plan. The argument about the rights being "future earnings" not subject to BK seizure is quite compelling. I don't intend to go out and do the research myself, but unless the Trustee comes back with some great case law, this argument might win.
 
AZlawyer said:
That is a really excellent brief. I think it certainly proves that the Trustee's motion was not some kind of trick by Casey's attorneys to sell the book rights--they are clearly not in favor of the plan. The argument about the rights being "future earnings" not subject to BK seizure is quite compelling. I don't intend to go out and do the research myself, but unless the Trustee comes back with some great case law, this argument might win.
Click to expand...

I know, I know we're not supposed to respond ~ but I have to say how disappointed I am. I just can't contain it.

Poop!​
 
AZlawyer said:
That is a really excellent brief. I think it certainly proves that the Trustee's motion was not some kind of trick by Casey's attorneys to sell the book rights--they are clearly not in favor of the plan. The argument about the rights being "future earnings" not subject to BK seizure is quite compelling. I don't intend to go out and do the research myself, but unless the Trustee comes back with some great case law, this argument might win.
Click to expand...

What if it can be shown in court that KC, or one of the attorneys working on her behalf, has fielded offers for an interview/book/movie/whatever? Doesn't it go to show that she does indeed possess something of value? Much as if a singer were trying to file for BK while his agent was fielding offers for concerts and tours? TIA.
 
AZlawyer said:
That is a really excellent brief. I think it certainly proves that the Trustee's motion was not some kind of trick by Casey's attorneys to sell the book rights--they are clearly not in favor of the plan. The argument about the rights being "future earnings" not subject to BK seizure is quite compelling. I don't intend to go out and do the research myself, but unless the Trustee comes back with some great case law, this argument might win.
Click to expand...

Is it possible for the Trustee to come back and modify the scope of the motion to exclude anything to do with Caylee?
 
chefmom said:
What if it can be shown in court that KC, or one of the attorneys working on her behalf, has fielded offers for an interview/book/movie/whatever? Doesn't it go to show that she does indeed possess something of value? Much as if a singer were trying to file for BK while his agent was fielding offers for concerts and tours? TIA.
Click to expand...

Well, I think the singer analogy undermines your argument, because IMO a trustee could not sell a singer's right to payment from a future concert.

I do think the trustee has an excellent point that this is something he can get money for that requires no cooperation from Casey now or in the future--but the brief filed by Casey's lawyers makes some really great points as well. Like I said, I'm not going to spend hours doing the research to figure out which one should win. This is not an issue you can figure out by reading the statutes--you would need to be familiar with the case law on this specific subject, and most likely would need to draw analogies from situations in the case law if there is nothing directly on point.
 
Tink56 said:
Is it possible for the Trustee to come back and modify the scope of the motion to exclude anything to do with Caylee?
Click to expand...

Things to do with Caylee are absolutely the only things in which any buyer would be interested. Why would the Trustee exclude those things? But no, I don't think that would change the analysis anyway.
 
AZlawyer said:
Things to do with Caylee are absolutely the only things in which any buyer would be interested. Why would the Trustee exclude those things? But no, I don't think that would change the analysis anyway.
Click to expand...

I think she meant allow Casey to have all her "personal memories" with the exclusion of all things concerned with Caylee.
 
logicalgirl said:
I think she meant allow Casey to have all her "personal memories" with the exclusion of all things concerned with Caylee.
Click to expand...

The Trustee could offer that. I just don't see how that would get around the objection that the thing being sold is Casey's right to payment for future work (writing/speaking the story about what happened to Caylee).

There could be some good, on-point case law out there for the Trustee--I don't know--but if not, I think Casey's attorneys are likely to win this one.
 
Can they sell her rights re discussing any of the events of June 08 to the date of her bankruptcy- or anything concerning Caylee? Nothing else in her life
going forward is likely to be of interest, enough for anyone to pay $$$ anyway...
 
ZsaZsa said:
Can they sell her rights re discussing any of the events of June 08 to the date of her bankruptcy- or anything concerning Caylee? Nothing else in her life
going forward is likely to be of interest, enough for anyone to pay $$$ anyway...
Click to expand...

The argument they are making is that Casey hasn't yet done the "work" to put her thoughts down on paper, tell them in an interview, etc. And in BK the trustee doesn't get to sell your right to get paid for future work. So it doesn't matter whether the memories are past or future--it matters whether the work to put them down on paper/tape is past or future.
 
It has been reported on some sources that the Judge denied Zenida's & Kronk's attorneys request to question CA. It also said the Judge wants those cases to go forward.

If the Judge wants those trials to go forward, does that mean the BK case won't be settled until after?

JMO
 
AZlawyer said:
The argument they are making is that Casey hasn't yet done the "work" to put her thoughts down on paper, tell them in an interview, etc. And in BK the trustee doesn't get to sell your right to get paid for future work. So it doesn't matter whether the memories are past or future--it matters whether the work to put them down on paper/tape is past or future.
Click to expand...

Isn't the point of this motion that they don't want her to do this "work" and sell it commercially? I don't think anyone is trying to contain her private thoughts or whatever she puts on paper as long as there isn't a price tag attached it it.

It's surely can't be proven that speaking for profit or in writing articles, books etc.,leading seminars or counseling II'm trying not to laugh at these concepts) is how she earns a living or ever has in the past, and the trustee wants to prevent her from doing the same in the future.

No where does it say in the Bankruptcy Trustee's motion that he is trying to prevent her from earning a living by working.
 
?noanswer said:
It has been reported on some sources that the Judge denied Zenida's & Kronk's attorneys request to question CA. It also said the Judge wants those cases to go forward.

If the Judge wants those trials to go forward, does that mean the BK case won't be settled until after?

JMO
Click to expand...

I checked the docket and there's no order yet. The news article I read was pretty confused, but I think the point was that the judge wants those cases handled in state court, not in BK court. Which is fine.

The BK case would continue, but couldn't be fully resolved until those cases were resolved.
 
logicalgirl said:
Isn't the point of this motion that they don't want her to do this "work" and sell it commercially? I don't think anyone is trying to contain her private thoughts or whatever she puts on paper as long as there isn't a price tag attached it it.

It's surely can't be proven that speaking for profit or in writing articles, books etc.,leading seminars or counseling II'm trying not to laugh at these concepts) is how she earns a living or ever has in the past, and the trustee wants to prevent her from doing the same in the future.

No where does it say in the Bankruptcy Trustee's motion that he is trying to prevent her from earning a living by working.
Click to expand...

BBM

Yes, and that's the problem. Normally the trustee can't take the value of work you haven't done yet. It has nothing to do with whether or not this is her usual way of making a living.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 224 more.
Total: 530 (members: 225, guests: 305)

Online statistics

Members online
225
Guests online
305
Total visitors
530
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,542
Messages
18,240,879
Members
234,392
Latest member
FamilyGal
Back
Top