Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[AZlawyer]

I posted this in the BK thread, but wondered if one of our wonderful WS attorneys had any insight into this question. Assuming that the Trustee is allowed to auction off KC's rights to "her story", and a bidding war ensues that brings the price up to, let's just say, 2 Million Dollars. Once the Trustee pays OCSO, IRS, OPD, etc, and they realize that she DOES NOT owe JB anything else, who gets the rest of the money? Even paying the court a generous fee, there would still be around a Million Dollars left. Would that go to KC or would it be held for her civil suits? I am wondering because I can't believe that Team KC didn't realize that the court might sell her rights to pay her debts. I CAN, however, picture them realizing that no one in their right mind would pay KCA anything for "her story", and what better way to start a bidding war than to let the courts sell it for her. I know that most of us feel cynical about anything that the DT does because they seem to use every underhanded, backdoor loophole they can find. I am now wondering if this is simply a way of getting KC some money by seliing her story without actually selling it. KWIM? TIA!

Well, no one is going to pay 2 million IMO for a story that Casey may (and probably will if someone else owns the rights) choose not to tell.

Whatever $$ is obtained would be distributed first to Trustee's fees and fees for the Trustee's attorneys, then to GENUINE creditors, which would include ZG and anyone else who has sued her, assuming they can prove their claims.

If the $$ obtained is in excess of the creditors' claims and all costs, fees, etc., then Casey would get the excess funds (assuming that the BK doesn't get dismissed on the ground that Casey isn't really bankrupt at that point).

 

[Tink56]

Anyone can write the story using released info, and/or using the depo if that is ever done and gets released. That "story" doesn't belong to Casey.

But if someone buys the rights to her "story" from Casey's BK trustee, then if she ever gets paid for telling the story, she will have to turn the $$ over to whomever purchased the rights.

Can Casey "buy back" the rights within a year for the same price the court was paid for the rights?

 

[?noanswer]

Anyone can write the story using released info, and/or using the depo if that is ever done and gets released. That "story" doesn't belong to Casey.

But if someone buys the rights to her "story" from Casey's BK trustee, then if she ever gets paid for telling the story, she will have to turn the $$ over to whomever purchased the rights.

Red by me. Hip, Hip, Hooray!!!

JMO

 

[?noanswer]

Does Bankruptcy court furnish petitioners with an attorney?

JMO

 

[AZlawyer]

Can Casey "buy back" the rights within a year for the same price the court was paid for the rights?

Not that I know of. Did you hear this somewhere??

Does Bankruptcy court furnish petitioners with an attorney?

JMO

No.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Not that I know of. Did you hear this somewhere??



No.

RBBM AZlawyer:

"A "Buy Back" case is where the debtor makes an offer to purchase their unencumbered, non-exempt assets back from the Trustee. When you file chapter 7, you are required to list all your assets. Your attorney will then put your state and constitutional exemptions on these assets to protect any equity they may have. If they can't be completely protected, then the Trustee has the right to sell them to the highest bidder. Generally, that is the debtor. Your attorney will make the offer to buy back the equity in the assets and request that the payments be made over a period of time. Generally, most trustees will allow 10-12 months with no interest for a buy back. This way the person isn't forced to give up their vehicle and or personal belongings that can't be exempt. Please hire an attorney. The cost of an attorney will likely be less than the property value you might lose because you didn't know the law."

. . . or maybe I'm misunderstanding?

http://www.keithdcollier.com/chapter-7-bankruptcy.php

 

[Tink56]

Not that I know of. Did you hear this somewhere??

See Expecting Unicorns...and I think the term is reaffirmation, but am not sure I understand what it is or how it might apply to "rights of an untold story."

 

[ZsaZsa]

RBBM AZlawyer:

"A "Buy Back" case is where the debtor makes an offer to purchase their unencumbered, non-exempt assets back from the Trustee. When you file chapter 7, you are required to list all your assets. Your attorney will then put your state and constitutional exemptions on these assets to protect any equity they may have. If they can't be completely protected, then the Trustee has the right to sell them to the highest bidder. Generally, that is the debtor. Your attorney will make the offer to buy back the equity in the assets and request that the payments be made over a period of time. Generally, most trustees will allow 10-12 months with no interest for a buy back. This way the person isn't forced to give up their vehicle and or personal belongings that can't be exempt. Please hire an attorney. The cost of an attorney will likely be less than the property value you might lose because you didn't know the law."

. . . or maybe I'm misunderstanding?

http://www.keithdcollier.com/chapter-7-bankruptcy.php

How would that work if the purchaser of those assets was not the trustee, but the man who has already bid on them?..... His stated purpose was to keep the story out of Casey's hands.

 

[AZlawyer]

Can Casey "buy back" the rights within a year for the same price the court was paid for the rights?

Not that I know of. Did you hear this somewhere??

RBBM AZlawyer:

"A "Buy Back" case is where the debtor makes an offer to purchase their unencumbered, non-exempt assets back from the Trustee. When you file chapter 7, you are required to list all your assets. Your attorney will then put your state and constitutional exemptions on these assets to protect any equity they may have. If they can't be completely protected, then the Trustee has the right to sell them to the highest bidder. Generally, that is the debtor. Your attorney will make the offer to buy back the equity in the assets and request that the payments be made over a period of time. Generally, most trustees will allow 10-12 months with no interest for a buy back. This way the person isn't forced to give up their vehicle and or personal belongings that can't be exempt. Please hire an attorney. The cost of an attorney will likely be less than the property value you might lose because you didn't know the law."

. . . or maybe I'm misunderstanding?

http://www.keithdcollier.com/chapter-7-bankruptcy.php

OK. I see what you mean. What this guy is describing is just when the debtor is the winning bidder for his own property. Casey could certainly bid on her story rights if there is an auction, although the trustee would want to know where she's getting the money to bid. But if someone else bids and wins, Casey wouldn't have the right to buy back the sold property.

 

[john's mom]

Can some of her supposed debt be thrown out, ( of the bankruptcy ) such as Baez 500g ? Since he said he was paid out of the 200G for selling the photos? And she doesn't really owe Zenaida anything yet since the civil case is not done - I don't get how she can file at this point. And who on earth would give her a credit card with no job or means to pay it off? And the court fees and fines....oh, I could go on, but you know what I mean.

 

[?noanswer]

If the Judge approves the motion for the sale of CA's story, how would the proceeds be applied to the debts she listed. It appears that the trustee would get their fee first and the balance used to pay off the other creditors. Is that done on a % basis? Would they have to prove that she really owed what was listed on the filing?

JMO

 

[AZlawyer]

Can some of her supposed debt be thrown out, ( of the bankruptcy ) such as Baez 500g ? Since he said he was paid out of the 200G for selling the photos? And she doesn't really owe Zenaida anything yet since the civil case is not done - I don't get how she can file at this point. And who on earth would give her a credit card with no job or means to pay it off? And the court fees and fines....oh, I could go on, but you know what I mean.

The creditors will not be paid unless they can prove their claims. This goes for Baez, ZG, whomever. In the case of ZG, she would have to prove her claim by having a trial (either in BK court or in state court, depending on what the BK judge decides).

If the Judge approves the motion for the sale of CA's story, how would the proceeds be applied to the debts she listed. It appears that the trustee would get their fee first and the balance used to pay off the other creditors. Is that done on a % basis? Would they have to prove that she really owed what was listed on the filing?

JMO

The $$ would go to administrative expenses first (trustee fee etc.), then to creditors. As I noted above, the creditors will have to prove their claims. The creditors will be divided into classes--e.g., I believe the IRS and court cost claims would be given priority--and paid different %ages depending upon the class of the claim.

 

[ThinkTank]

AZLawyer - what does "The Trustee hereby gives notice of recovery of assets in the instant bankruptcy case" mean?

This was on the bankruptcy court docket.

full entry
The Trustee hereby gives notice of recovery of assets in the instant bankruptcy case. The Trustee respectfully requests that the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court set a claims bar date and give notice of need to file proofs of claims to all creditors and parties in interest. Filed by Stephen L Meininger. (Meininger, Stephen) (Entered: 03/20/2013)

 

[ThinkTank]

AZLawyer
"The creditors will not be paid unless they can prove their claims. This goes for Baez, ZG, whomever. In the case of ZG, she would have to prove her claim by having a trial (either in BK court or in state court, depending on what the BK judge decides)."

What is required to "prove a claim"?
Can Baez "manufacture" some kind of invoice for payment? Back-date it?
Does the invoice need to be itemized? Or can it just state the amount of $500,000 on Baez' letterhead?

 

[?noanswer]

Does BK laws allow a petitioner to list future debts such, as the lawsuits, that have not had a trial that resulted in damages against CA? That doesn't seem fair to me?

JMO

 

[AZlawyer]

AZLawyer - what does "The Trustee hereby gives notice of recovery of assets in the instant bankruptcy case" mean?

This was on the bankruptcy court docket.

full entry
The Trustee hereby gives notice of recovery of assets in the instant bankruptcy case. The Trustee respectfully requests that the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court set a claims bar date and give notice of need to file proofs of claims to all creditors and parties in interest. Filed by Stephen L Meininger. (Meininger, Stephen) (Entered: 03/20/2013)

It just means that the Trustee is announcing "all your stuff belongs to me."

AZLawyer
"The creditors will not be paid unless they can prove their claims. This goes for Baez, ZG, whomever. In the case of ZG, she would have to prove her claim by having a trial (either in BK court or in state court, depending on what the BK judge decides)."

What is required to "prove a claim"?
Can Baez "manufacture" some kind of invoice for payment? Back-date it?
Does the invoice need to be itemized? Or can it just state the amount of $500,000 on Baez' letterhead?

Normally the "proof" for that type of claim would be invoices. Of course invoices can always be manufactured or backdated. In this case, however, I believe Casey already testified at the creditors' meeting that she didn't think she actually owed anything to Baez--and I believe both of them told Judge Perry that she hadn't agreed to pay anything more. So IMO this claim will disappear. Most likely Baez simply won't file a proof of claim at all.

Does BK laws allow a petitioner to list future debts such, as the lawsuits, that have not had a trial that resulted in damages against CA? That doesn't seem fair to me?

JMO

You can't list future debts in a bankruptcy. However, you do have to list alleged CURRENT debts, which would include any lawsuits seeking damages. ZG is not saying "Casey will owe me money in the future"--she is saying "Casey owes me money NOW." Her claim will be tried (or settled, or decided by motion) just as it would have been without the BK filing, and if she's right that Casey owes her money then her claim will be accepted.

 

[?noanswer]

It just means that the Trustee is announcing "all your stuff belongs to me."



Normally the "proof" for that type of claim would be invoices. Of course invoices can always be manufactured or backdated. In this case, however, I believe Casey already testified at the creditors' meeting that she didn't think she actually owed anything to Baez--and I believe both of them told Judge Perry that she hadn't agreed to pay anything more. So IMO this claim will disappear. Most likely Baez simply won't file a proof of claim at all.



You can't list future debts in a bankruptcy. However, you do have to list alleged CURRENT debts, which would include any lawsuits seeking damages. ZG is not saying "Casey will owe me money in the future"--she is saying "Casey owes me money NOW." Her claim will be tried (or settled, or decided by motion) just as it would have been without the BK filing, and if she's right that Casey owes her money then her claim will be accepted.

Does that mean that if any proceeds are realized from Casey's story rights, they can't be disbursed until any pending lawsuits are finalized. I guess that it also means that any monies that KC could accumulate after the BK is settled would not be subject to any monies that may be awarded in a lawsuit?

She mentioned at her hearing that her main reason for filing was to get rid of the lawsuits. I wonder that even if the attorneys in some of these lawsuits know there will be no money so to speak, they will still pursue the lawsuits just to get her on the stand.

JMO

 

[AZlawyer]

Does that mean that if any proceeds are realized from Casey's story rights, they can't be disbursed until any pending lawsuits are finalized. I guess that it also means that any monies that KC could accumulate after the BK is settled would not be subject to any monies that may be awarded in a lawsuit?

She mentioned at her hearing that her main reason for filing was to get rid of the lawsuits. I wonder that even if the attorneys in some of these lawsuits know there will be no money so to speak, they will still pursue the lawsuits just to get her on the stand.

JMO

Proceeds could, in theory, be distributed to a class of creditors that is ahead of the class containing the plaintiffs in litigation (e.g., the IRS and county). But in general you are correct--resolving the lawsuits is part of the BK process. The lawsuit awards, if any, would then be handled like any other BK claim, which means, in general, that the creditors would get whatever they can get out of the BK distributions but would not be allowed to continue to chase Casey's assets after the BK is over.

ZG's lawyers, though, think they can convince the BK court that ZG's claim is "nondischargeable," which would mean that ZG could continue to chase Casey for any award even after the BK is over. Her lawyers could be right about that, although they have to prove the claim first, and it's a tough one to prove (especially the damages part of the claim).

It has always been my opinion that ZG's lawyers act as though priority #1 for them is to get Casey on the stand.

 

[?noanswer]

Proceeds could, in theory, be distributed to a class of creditors that is ahead of the class containing the plaintiffs in litigation (e.g., the IRS and county). But in general you are correct--resolving the lawsuits is part of the BK process. The lawsuit awards, if any, would then be handled like any other BK claim, which means, in general, that the creditors would get whatever they can get out of the BK distributions but would not be allowed to continue to chase Casey's assets after the BK is over.

ZG's lawyers, though, think they can convince the BK court that ZG's claim is "nondischargeable," which would mean that ZG could continue to chase Casey for any award even after the BK is over. Her lawyers could be right about that, although they have to prove the claim first, and it's a tough one to prove (especially the damages part of the claim).

It has always been my opinion that ZG's lawyers act as though priority #1 for them is to get Casey on the stand.

red by me. I get that feeling too. As you probably know they have a motion before the Judge to do that. The Judge will have a hearing on that at the same time as the trustee's motion to sell CA's right to the story.

JMO

 

[ThinkTank]

AZLawyer - does this mean the whole APPEAL process is DONE? Kaput? No more taking the Appeal to any other higher court - EVER?


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9145823&postcount=812"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Current News **NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE**[/ame]

Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal Docket
Case Number: 5D11-2357

03/25/2013 Order Deny Rehearing