7th Circuit Opinion Summaries courtesy of Justia.com
United States v. Rogan
Bankruptcy, Criminal Law, Government, White Collar Crime
River Road Hotel Partners, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank
Bloomfield State Bank v. United States
Bankruptcy, Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law
Costello v. Grundon
Bankruptcy, Commercial Law, Securities Law
CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Assocs., et al
Bankruptcy, Business Law, Securities Law
Reedsburg Util. Comm’n v. Grede Foundries, Inc.
Bankruptcy, Utilities Law
Kimbrell v. Brown
Bankruptcy, Injury Law
Posted in 101, 109(h), 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3), 11 U.S.C. section 365(a), 1112(b), 1307, 1308, 1322(b)(11), 1325(a)(5), 1325(a)(9), 1325(b), 1326(a)(1)(C), 1328, 15 USC 1692k(c), 2002, 28 U.S.C. 1927, 3017(d), 342, 362(c)(3)(A), 362(c)(3)(B), 362(c)(4)(A)(i), 363, 451, 18.104.22.168, 502(b)(6), 510, 521, 522, 523, 526(a), 527(a)(2), 528(a), 528(a)(4), 528(b)(2)(B), 547(b), 550, 550(a), 707, 727, 9019, 9023, 9037, adequate protection, adversary, amendment, appellate court, assets, attorneys, audit, automatic stay, automobile, avoidance, bad faith, bank, bankruptcy, Bankruptcy Rules, BAPCPA, blogging, blogs, bubble, business, business filings, call, case update, cash collateral, ch 13, ch 7, cir 7, consumer, current-events, IL, individual, ND, small business
Tagged Bankruptcy, Commercial Law, Criminal Law, law, Lawyers and Law Firms, Services, United States, United States bankruptcy court
Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N.A., f/k/a MBNA America Bank, N.A.
Certiorari from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir., Case 09–907
Argued October 4, 2010—Decided January 11, 2011
The Issue: Here the question was whether a Chapter 13 debtor could deduct the allowable auto payment from his monthly budget even though he did not have a car payment (i.e the vehicle was paid for). Put another way, is it fair for all debtors to be entitled to the maximum allowable deduction from their monthly disposable income, or must debtors establish what they actually pay?
The Answer: The Court ruled 8 to 1 (Scalia J. dissenting) that if a debtor makes more than the median income for his State then he must establish that he incurrs the amounts deducted from his monthly living expenses. No more automatic deductions if debtor cannot prove what he pays.
The Gist: To determine “disposable income” BAPCPA gave us the Means Test, which starts with gross monthly income then deducts living expenses – i.e. “amounts reasonably necessary for maintenance or support” of the debtor. In a Chapter 13 case the expenses considered “reasonably necessary” are identified in 11 U.S.C. §1325(b)(2)(A)(i) and include “applicable monthly expense amounts” as specified in National and Local IRS standards. Since BAPCPA was adopted, it has become common practice to include expenses at the maximum allowable level even if the debtor does not have, or pay for, that type of asset. This case appears to say that the party is over for Chapter 13 debtors.
See Also: this post from Chicago Attorney Steve Jacobowski on the Bankruptcy Litigation Blog regarding the Scalia dissent.
Posted in 101, 109(h), 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3), 11 U.S.C. section 365(a), 1112(b), 1307, 1308, 1322(b)(11), 1325(a)(5), 1325(a)(9), 1326(a)(1)(C), 1328, 15 USC 1692k(c), 28 U.S.C. 1927, 362(c)(3)(A), 362(c)(3)(B), 362(c)(4)(A)(i), 363, 451, 502(b)(6), 510, 521, 522, 523, 526(a), 527(a)(2), 528(a), 528(a)(4), 528(b)(2)(B), 547(b), 550, 550(a), 707, 727, 9019, 9023, 9037, adequate protection, administrative, Administrative Office of the Courts, amendment, appellate court, Bankruptcy Rules, BAPCPA, ch 13, cir 9, confirmed plan, Congress, consumer, conversion, cramdown, credit, credit card, credit cards, credit counseling, creditor, current affairs, current-events, data, debt, docket, economics, economy, Executive Office of the UST, fair credit reporting act, FDCPA, Fed. R. Bankr. Proc., Fed. R. Civ. P., individual, interest, legislation, means test, median income, memorandum opinion, Middle class, modification, opinion, research
Tagged BAPCPA, disposable income, IRS, J, Kagan, means test, Scalia, SCotUS
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case with the potential to radically change current bankruptcy law. At issue are three provisions of the 2005 amendments to the Code.
Petitioner, Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, alleges that an attorney is not a “debt-relief agency” and therefore §526(a), which prohibits attorneys from encouraging clients considering filing bankruptcy to take on more debt, is a violation of free speech. Petitioners claim that §528(a)(4) and §528(b)(2)(B), which require attorneys to make certain disclosures when advertising, also violate the 1st Amendment.
The Justices are set to make their decision in about 90 days.
Posted in 526(a), 528(a), 528(a)(4), 528(b)(2)(B), amendment, attorneys, Bankrupt, bankruptcy, ch 13, code, debt relief agency, discharge, disclosure, first amendment, free speech, judge, supreme ct, u.s. constitution