Jin Far Liang

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-	MEMO RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re 	)
)
JIN FAR LIANG, 	)
)
)
)
)
Debtor. 	)
)
Case No. 08-32577 SFC
Chapter 13
MEMORANDUM RE DEBTOR’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Debtor brought a motion against judgment lien creditor MGM
Grand Hotel, LLC (MGM) to avoid MGM’s lien against Debtor’s
residence on the basis that it impaired Debtor’s homestead. 	After
a short trial, the court denied the motion, determining that the
residence was community property, that the debt owed to MGM was a
community obligation, and that the value of the residence was
sufficient to pay both the judgment lien and Debtor’s homestead
exemption. 	Debtor argued at trial that he was separated from his
wife at the time the debt was incurred, but offered no evidence to
support that claim. 	The court found on the basis of the evidence
presented at trial that Debtor and his wife were married and living
together when the debt was incurred.
Signed and Filed: December 10, 2010
________________________________________
THOMAS E. CARLSON
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
December 13, 2010
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 08-32577 Doc# 95 Filed: 12/10/10 Entered: 12/13/10 17:03:46 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-	MEMO RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Debtor then brought the present motion for reconsideration,
seeking to reopen the case to introduce evidence that he and his
wife were separated. 	At the hearing on the motion for
reconsideration, Debtor then raised for the first time the argument
that the debt was by its very nature not a community obligation,
because it was a gambling debt, citing Cairo v. Cairo, 204 Cal.
App. 3d 1255 (1988).
Debtor’s motion for reconsideration should be denied. 	The
case should not be reopened to allow Debtor to introduce evidence
that he was separated when he incurred the debt, because the
evidence (Debtor’s own testimony) is not newly discovered evidence
that was not known to Debtor before trial. 	The Cairo decision did
not hold that a gambling debt may not be enforced against community
property. 	That case involved the allocation of debt between
spouses upon dissolution of marriage, not the enforcement of a debt
by a creditor.
MGM’s counter-motion for sanctions should also be denied. 	The
argument made for imposition of sanctions–-that Debtor’s motion was
frivolous--indicates that MGM is seeking sanctions under Rule 11
(Bankruptcy Rule 9011). 	MGM’s request must be denied, because the
request for sanctions was not made by a separate motion. 	See Fed.
R. Bankr. P. 9011(c)(1)(A). 	The court declines to act on its own
motion. 	Id. 9011(c)(1)(B).
**END OF MEMORANDUM**
Case: 08-32577 Doc# 95 Filed: 12/10/10 Entered: 12/13/10 17:03:46 Page 2 of 2