PonyFans.com

Not to be obnoxious, Eaststang, but where's the fraud?

Edit: Intent to cause delay is not fraud. You would be surprised to know how often fractional interests are transferred in an attempt to stop foreclosure. I have never seen someone prosecuted for it. The only deterent is the new 11 USC 362(d)(4), providing for in rem relief. Of course the drafting of that section was totally screwed up and it has come back to bite the mortgage companies on the @ss. they were getting better relief pre-BAPCPA under Section 105.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled non-bankruptcy law programming.

What moron agrees to file for bankruptcy for 10% ownership in a condo. Even if Vodicka gets a windfall settlement/judgement for himself and his "tenants", 10% of 1 condo could not be worth the damage to your credit...Idiots.

I hope this [deleted] Vodicka guy get his. Regardless of your political affiliation, you have to hate this guy for trying to screw SMU.

Current STUDent wrote:What moron agrees to file for bankruptcy for 10% ownership in a condo. Even if Vodicka gets a windfall settlement/judgement for himself and his "tenants", 10% of 1 condo could not be worth the damage to your credit...Idiots.

I hope this [deleted] Vodicka guy get his. Regardless of your political affiliation, you have to hate this guy for trying to screw SMU.

If I understand correctly what I have read, the tenant (or at least one of them) actually refused to file bankruptcy for the 10% interest in the condo at which point Vodicka threw the tenant out. I would think the tenant would have a case against Vodicka for that.

Here's a taste of the Motion in BK court:
Quote:
37. Perkins was another of Plaintiff’s alleged tenants. Perkins’ sworn declaration states that approximately six weeks ago Plaintiff proposed to make a ten percent (10%) “gift” to Perkins of the condominium unit leased by her from Plaintiff. Perkins was told by Plaintiff that the gift was to be made to Perkins in exchange for Perkins’ agreement to file bankruptcy when and as directed by Plaintiff for the purpose of delaying the State Suit. Perkins was told that a bankruptcy attorney would be provided for her.

38. Perkins was told by Plaintiff that he planned to have other of his tenants also serially file a succession of bankruptcies to further delay the State Court litigation. Perkins was told by Plaintiff that Debtor was to file first under Plaintiff’s direction. Perkins was to be the second to file. Perkins was informed by Plaintiff that he would be the third to file because Plaintiff’s bankruptcy would “buy the most time” and take the longest, because of Plaintiff’s assets.

39. Perkins refused to participate in Plaintiff’s proposal to file bankruptcy. Perkins was then told by Plaintiff that he would force her out of her unit by June 19, 2006. On June 20, 2006, Plaintiff entered Perkins’ unit and removed her belongings.

Current STUDent wrote:What moron agrees to file for bankruptcy for 10% ownership in a condo. Even if Vodicka gets a windfall settlement/judgement for himself and his "tenants", 10% of 1 condo could not be worth the damage to your credit...Idiots.

You would be surprised how a lot of people think so little of their credit. But then again, for a lot of people, their credit is screwed and a bankruptcy won't things that much anyway.

I hope this [deleted] Vodicka guy get his. Regardless of your political affiliation, you have to hate this guy for trying to screw SMU.

Agreed. This guy is a scumbag.

I think it is interesting that the Perkins girl that signed the affidavit was quoted in the paper a month ago as supporting Vodicka against SMU. This guy has overplayed his hand.

Vodicka's been publicly repremanded by the Texas bar before. Don't know what for, but those are often for ethical violations.

jtstang wrote:Vodicka's been publicly repremanded by the Texas bar before. Don't know what for, but those are often for ethical violations.

I believe it was for practicing law when he didn't pay the occupation tax.

The fact is that the Justice Department prosecutes bankruptcy fraud. While you've never seen them prosecute this type of case, it falls within the definition of an attempt to conspire to commit fraud and given that Vodicka is doing this because he wants to get money from SMU by annoying the President of United States who happens to be the boss of the Attorney General who runs the Justice Department. Vodicka may have stuck his head in the lion's mouth this time. Remember, indictments are issued without the defendant even having a chance to open his mouth. The U.S. Attorney for Dallas would have no trouble securing an indictment on these facts against Vodicka.

SMU Football Blog wrote:

jtstang wrote:Vodicka's been publicly repremanded by the Texas bar before. Don't know what for, but those are often for ethical violations.

I believe it was for practicing law when he didn't pay the occupation tax.

Now that you mmention that, I recall it as well. Apparently they also reprimand for stupidity violations.

It isn't fraud. I actually read Collier's on Bankruptcy on the subject last night. It isn't fraud. It isn't bankruptcy fraud. The remedy for what the Debtor and Vodicka did in BK Court is broadly under 11 USC 105 (sanctions) and specifically under 11 USC 362 (d)(4)(in rem relief from the automatic stay), which is relief that isn't requested in SMU's Motion.

I'm not going to argue with you. It is what it is and in my view it meets the definition of 18-157 USC. If you disagree that's fine. That's why they have judges so lawyers can argue about disagreeing about what a statute means. Can the US attorney if he chose to do so get an indictment against Vodicka based upon the language of the statute? Maybe? As the old saying goes you can get an indictment against someone for eating a chicken sandwich. Would the US Attorney try to do so? That is the $64 question.

I have a former partner who represented a person (and/or his company, not sure) in that case and when he sent written discovery to Vodicka he non-suited them. That'll show you the guy's approach to litigation.

non-suited. For we lay people, is that like casual Fridays?

mrydel wrote:non-suited. For we lay people, is that like casual Fridays?

Not sure. What's a casual Friday?

EastStang wrote:I'm not going to argue with you. It is what it is and in my view it meets the definition of 18-157 USC. If you disagree that's fine. That's why they have judges so lawyers can argue about disagreeing about what a statute means. Can the US attorney if he chose to do so get an indictment against Vodicka based upon the language of the statute? Maybe? As the old saying goes you can get an indictment against someone for eating a chicken sandwich. Would the US Attorney try to do so? That is the $64 question.

The transfer of a fractional interest in real property that is properly perfected in the County Record is unusual but it is not fraud. Was there a scheme? Yes. But where is the fraud? The litigation itself is not fraud. Bogus? Yes. Fraud? No.

There are published cases on the transfer of fractional interests to debtors in an attempt to stay foreclosure. In none of those cases is it argued that it is fraud. See, e.g. In re Roeben, 294 B.R. 840, 846 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2003); In re Graham, 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 961 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 1998); In re Feldman, 309 B.R. 422, 428 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2004); In re Price, 304 B.R. 769 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2004); In re Keefer, 2005 Bankr. LEXIS 2149 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005).

I once wrote a memo on this for a client.

jtstang wrote:

mrydel wrote:non-suited. For we lay people, is that like casual Fridays?

Not sure. What's a casual Friday?

I guess you lawyers would call it naked happy hour.