[CNYBBA-LISTSERV] worker's comp exemption

Thu Jun 8 15:28:24 CDT 2006

I believe that a pending worker's comp claim is 100% exempt. No limit
while pending (Am I correct?)  However, what about a lump sum worker's
comp settlement of say $100,000.00 received and than put in the bank? If
it's invested is it exempt?  If it is invested in home ownership is it
exempt. 

Wayne R. Bodow
Attorney at Law
Bodow Law Firm, PLLC
1925 Park Street
Syracuse, New York 13208

Telephone (315) 422-1234
Facsimile (315) 422-9113

wbodow at bodowlaw.com

This message may contain attorney/client privileged information and is
intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. This
message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, or their employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly
prohibited, and you are requested to please notify us immediately by
telephone at (315) 422-1234 and return the original message to the
sender. Thank you.

________________________________

From: cnybba-bounces at cnybba.org [mailto:cnybba-bounces at cnybba.org] On
Behalf Of Ruth Babbitt
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:46 AM
To: Central New York Bankruptcy Bar Association
Subject: Re: [CNYBBA-LISTSERV] June 28 Means Test seminar

Dear Michelle:

One of the peripheral issues raised in the litigation before Judge
Gerling concerning the 2005 homestead exemption amendment involved a
question of the application of the constitutional requirement that
bankruptcy legislation be uniform. The seminal case on this is Hanover
National Bank v. Moyses, 186 U.S. 181 (1902). That case resolved the
question, whether the uniformity requirement would permit a bankruptcy
statute that relied on a multiplicity of state created exemptions or,
whether a state law exemptions or required a uniform national exemption
scheme was necessary. I have not been able to square the Hanover
National Bank holding with the Means Test inasmuch as the Means Test
draws various distinctions on quasi-national (excepting Alaska and
Hawaii), regional, state and county bases. The principle established by
Hanover National Bank was that even though each state's exemption scheme
differed, there was an underlying uniformity because in bankruptcy
creditors were given in each state all they would have recovered had
there been no bankruptcy. I do not see in the Means Test a similar
uniformity. This, though, is probably beyond the scope of the topic as
Guy envisions it; and probably would not be of general interest. 

-Ed Crossmore

Ruth Babbitt 
Secretary to Edward Y. Crossmore, Esq. 
The Crossmore Law Office 
115 West Green Street 
Ithaca, New York  14850 
Tel.:  (607) 273-5787 
Fax:  (607) 273-0291 

This e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the named
recipient(s) above and may contain information that is privileged,
attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
you have received this message in error, or are not the named
recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender at (607) 273-5787 and
delete this e-mail message from your computer. Thank you.

	-----Original Message-----
	From: cnybba-bounces at cnybba.org
[mailto:cnybba-bounces at cnybba.org]On Behalf Of mcmarans at aol.com
	Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 4:37 PM
	To: cnybba at cnybba.org
	Cc: Guy.A.VanBaalen at usdoj.gov; Sherry.Doran at usdoj.gov
	Subject: [CNYBBA-LISTSERV] June 28 Means Test seminar

	Guy Van Baalen has asked me to solicit questions for the  CNYBBA
seminar on June 28 seminar on the Means Test.  Please post your
questions on the listserv as Guy is a subscriber and will make note of
your questions.  Alternatively, you may e-mail Guy.A.VanBaalen at usdoj.gov
<mailto:Guy.A.VanBaalen at usdoj.gov>  or Sherry.Doran at usdoj.gov directly
with your questions.

	Thanks.

	Michelle C. Marans, Esq.
	Edward J. Fintel & Associates
	430 E. Genesee St., Ste. 205
	PO Box 6451
	Syracuse, NY 13217-6451
	Telephone: 315-424-8252
	Facsimile: 315-424-7990

	-----Original Message-----
	From: erin <erin at bcbattorneys.com>
	To: CNYBBA at cnybba.org
	Sent: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 15:36:34 -0400
	Subject: [CNYBBA-LISTSERV] cram down question

	What's the consensus on cramming down a pop-up travel camper
purchased within 910 days of filing?  Is it considered a motor vehicle
for puposes under the new 1325(a)?  Is it a "motor vehicle"?  I note
that it a tow-hitch camper, not one that can be driven on its own.

	_______________________________________________

	CNYBBA mailing list

	CNYBBA at cnybba.org <mailto:CNYBBA%40cnybba.org> 

	http://cnybba.org/mailman/listinfo/cnybba_cnybba.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/cnybba_cnybba.org/attachments/20060609/9e351c8d/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Wayne Bodow (Business Fax).vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 478 bytes
Desc: Wayne Bodow (Business Fax).vcf
Url : /pipermail/cnybba_cnybba.org/attachments/20060609/9e351c8d/attachment.vcf 