PonyFans.com

But are you really sure? I love it when you and Stallion sword fight.

ew

See, I knew this was going to happen:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 15c41.html

Does he have title to the three he is renting out? And with the fence up around the place how are they getting in and out of the place?

abezontar wrote:Does he have title to the three he is renting out? And with the fence up around the place how are they getting in and out of the place?

If he does, it belongs to the trustee now.

jtstang wrote:

abezontar wrote:Does he have title to the three he is renting out? And with the fence up around the place how are they getting in and out of the place?

If he does, it belongs to the trustee now.

No, it don't. Yes, it is property of the estate, but Vodicka filed a Chapter 13. Under Chapter 13, Vodicka can, for the most part, keep non-exempt assets. Please don't make me cite to anything, but it starts with Section 1306.

The over/under on the number of days until a motion to remand and abstain will be filed, as well as motions to dismiss or convert is set at three. I am taking the under.

SMU Football Blog wrote:No, it don't. Yes, it is property of the estate, but Vodicka filed a Chapter 13. Under Chapter 13, Vodicka can, for the most part, keep non-exempt assets. Please don't make me cite to anything, but it starts with Section 1306.

The over/under on the number of days until a motion to remand and abstain will be filed, as well as motions to dismiss or convert is set at three. I am taking the under.

I will not be baited into arguing bankruptcy points with a bankruptcy lawyer. Or making bets.

Blogster, how about a little PACER update?

jtstang wrote:Blogster, how about a little PACER update?

Nothing filed over the weekend. I did see SMU's lead counsel John McElhaney at the game on Saturday.

There actually is a case in the N.D. Tex. that is troubling for SMU's position in the bankruptcy. A great opinion. Written by a great Judge. Argued by an even greater lawyer who wrote incredibly brilliant briefs on the issue of whether a bankruptcy court should hear litigation that is paramount to success of a plan filed by a debtor. That was a Chapter 11 case, however. Yes, that was a day when the truly good, just and righteous were able to thwart the evil wrongdoings of an unscrupulous few , all in the name of unsecured creditors (and a lawyer with a hefty fee application). The world needs more lawyers like that.

jtstang wrote:Blogster, how about a little PACER update?

Had a 1969 Pacer. Cool car.

mrydel wrote:

jtstang wrote:Blogster, how about a little PACER update?

Had a 1969 Pacer. Cool car.

My mother graduated high school in 1969.

Did the cars have electricity back then?

In the Bankruptcy case today, SMU filed a motion to transfer the case to Judge Hale. It is currently with Hauser who earlier recused herself in the other bankruptcy case. I can't imagine it won't be granted. Also a Motion for an emergency hearing on that was filed; no date set.

In the lawsuit, which was removed to bankruptcy court, SMU filed the inevitable Motion to remand and abstain was filed. Also a Motion for an emergency hearing on that was filed as well; no date set. I fully expect Vodicka to try and withdraw the reference, though on what basis, I am not sure because his filing submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court.

The remand and abstention motions, which I havn't read yet, are a slightly trickier situation than they were in the last bankruptcy case. Still, this may be Vodicka's last card to play.

Where the case goes from here gets a little complicated. SMU has only a contingent claim, if any claim, against this guy. Vodicka hasn't filed schedules or a plan yet. The failure to do so is a no-no, but he has until the 10th to get them done (code citation available upon request of anal retentive lawyers). If I am SMU, after getting the suit back in state court, I try and find one of his smaller creditors that files a proof of claim and buy it and then openly challenge the creditors treatment under the bankruptcy plan, when it is filed. Arguably, you can do that without having a claim better than what they have now, but it is a bit more complicated. Then, I pressure the Chapter 13 trustee to sue the tenant that previously filed for bankruptcy for a fraudulent transfer, which is an absolute winner of a case. Then I get the trustee to take 1/10 interest in the suit and condo and settle with SMU. Or even better, I get the trustee to sell the whole unit free and clear to SMU under 11 U.S.C. 363. That last part however, is skirting the fringes of what is allowable.

I thought you said you used to do this? It sounds like you do it every bloody day for 22 hrs/day.

smu diamond m wrote:I thought you said you used to do this? It sounds like you do it every bloody day for 22 hrs/day.

Unlike SMU freshman band members, some of us alums actually remember what happened yesterday. Present company not necessarily included. Having spoken with the blogster on occasion, I can tell you he's pretty sharp.

jtstang wrote:Unlike SMU freshman band members, some of us alums actually remember what happened yesterday. Present company not necessarily included. Having spoken with the blogster on occasion, I can tell you he's pretty sharp.

Go easy on him - he's succeding in destroying his short-term memory faster than most of us could manage!