<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Recent Purchase of Vehicle May Defeat Chapter 13</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/2007/08/13/recent-purchase-of-vehicle-may-defeat-chapter-13/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/2007/08/13/recent-purchase-of-vehicle-may-defeat-chapter-13/</link>
	<description>Real Lawyers, Real Solutions</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:25:57 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Otto, Attorney at Law</title>
		<link>http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/2007/08/13/recent-purchase-of-vehicle-may-defeat-chapter-13/comment-page-1/#comment-16513</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Otto, Attorney at Law</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:34:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/2007/08/13/recent-purchase-of-vehicle-may-defeat-chapter-13/#comment-16513</guid>
		<description>As long as the Debtor isn&#039;t trying to cram the recently vehicle down (something which is impossible under BAPCPA anyway due to the so-called 910 day rule), I don&#039;t understand what this Trustee&#039;s beef is. The Trustee should be thankful that this Debtor has made an investment in his employment and will have reliable transportation to and from work; if he didn&#039;t have this, the Debtor would probably not be in Chapter 13 at all and the unsecured creditors would be getting far less than 10%.

Again, I do not understand the Trustee&#039;s argument. Hopefully Mr. Ginsberg will post again on this topic subsequent to the hearing, where hopefully the Judge will find that this Trustee&#039;s argument has no merit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As long as the Debtor isn&#8217;t trying to cram the recently vehicle down (something which is impossible under BAPCPA anyway due to the so-called 910 day rule), I don&#8217;t understand what this Trustee&#8217;s beef is. The Trustee should be thankful that this Debtor has made an investment in his employment and will have reliable transportation to and from work; if he didn&#8217;t have this, the Debtor would probably not be in Chapter 13 at all and the unsecured creditors would be getting far less than 10%.</p>
<p>Again, I do not understand the Trustee&#8217;s argument. Hopefully Mr. Ginsberg will post again on this topic subsequent to the hearing, where hopefully the Judge will find that this Trustee&#8217;s argument has no merit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
