This website does not provide legal advice.  It is for informational purposes only. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. The information contained in this web site, article or link may be outdated, incorrect or not applicable; it is your obligation to confirm the accuracy. Using this site or communicating with Law Office of D.L. Drain, or any agent/employee of our firm, through this site does not form an attorney/client relationship. This site is legal advertising. Please review the full disclaimer for more information.

It is very important that you obtain legal advice from an experienced attorney regarding your particular situation. Consultation before you take action will certainly cost you less than it will cost to fix your unintentional errors.

TENANTS AND BANKRUPTCY

IMPORTANT: THIS FIRM MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS AS TO THE ACCURACY OR CURRENT STATUS OF ANY LAW, CASE, ARTICLE OR PUBLICATION CITED HEREIN OR LINKED TO.  WARNING – SOME OF THESE REFERENCES ARE PRE-BAPCPA.

In re Kay Parker, BAP No. EC-19-1079-BSF, BK No. 17-90869, Adv. No. 18-9016 (filed 2/11/20) The debtor was involved in foreclosure of her home, and two bankruptcy cases.  The 9th Cir. BAP affirmed ruling of bankruptcy court (ED Cal.) granting creditor’s remand of unlawful detainer action to state court, after chapter 13 debtor removed it to bankruptcy court. Removal was untimely and remand was appropriate and within bankruptcy court’s discretion. Date creditor commenced unlawful detainer suit by filing and serving complaint triggered calendar for removal. Debtor’s notice of removal was nine months late. Debtor’s argument failed that her motion to quash should have been the date for triggering the deadline.