I had a bad day in court, with the judge denying my motion to abstain from the lien, even saying that he is considering dismissing my bankruptcy case, so I can "duke it out" in state court - something that I just can't do - I am now insolvent!!! This is why I needed a powerful cite - I still have another chance to convince him, because my confirmation is on Nov. 10 - but I have to really make a good case - I want to stay in Chap. 13 - I filed just to avoid the attachment writ, not to have all my assets sold!!! That's a killer!!! The judge seems to think I don't qualify for Chap. 13, but I make all the limits and I have a steady income - it's this "lien" that he is stuck on. He called it a lien, but it's not!!!The following is what I found as a relevant cite. It is an appellate decision after the BAP ruled that a trustee
can use an attachment lien as a claim - the appellate court understood their reasoning but reversed their ruling. I picked out some choice references, but it's good reading about liens. They clearly side with me here; however I would like to find the code that state the California law says that a writ of attachment is not enforceable by a creditor until a judgement has been obtained - I haven't been able to get that yet. Maybe you could help?IN RE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLASTICS, INC., Debtor. Lawrence A. Diamant, Chapter 7
Trustee, Appellant, v. Vartan Kasparian, Appellee.
No. 97-55874. Decided: January 20, 1999
Unlike the holder of a security interest, however, the attachment creditor has no right to proceed against the property until after the creditor obtains a judgment. See Arcturus Mfg. Corp. v. Superior Court, 223 Cal.App.2d 187, 35 Cal. Rptr. 502, 505 (1964). “The attaching creditor obtains only a potential right or a contingent lien,” Puissegur v. Yarbrough, 29 Cal.2d 409, 175 P.2d 830, 831 (1946), which is perfected or converted to a judgment lien upon judgment for the creditor, Arcturus, 35 Cal.Rptr. at 505; cf. Cal. Prob.Code § 9304 (describing the procedure for converting an attachment lien into a judgment lien in the context of a probate action). The priority of the judgment lien relates back to the date of the attachment lien. Thus, an attachment lien acts as a placemarker, ensuring the creditor's spot in the priority line until the creditor can obtain judgment.The procedure for allowance of a claim, however, is similar but not identical to that for obtaining a judgment. In the allowance process, the validity and legality of claims are determined by applicable nonbankruptcy law. See e.g., Christison v. Norm Ross Co. (In re Eastview Estates II ), 713 F.2d 443, 447 (9th Cir.1983). A claim cannot be allowed if it is unenforceable under nonbankruptcy law. See 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1).But it is axiomatic that, even in the bankruptcy context, state law governs the validity and extent of liens. Moreover, the Bankruptcy Code intends to preserve, to the extent possible, the state law rights possessed by parties outside of the bankruptcy context. See HAL, Inc. v. United States (In re Hal, Inc.), 122 F.3d 851, 852 (9th Cir.1997). Permitting an allowance of claim to substitute for a judgment perfecting an attachment lien undermines the rights and protections created by the California Legislature. We therefore reverse the BAP.