In a blow to debtors, the Ninth Circuit, in an en banc decision, has reversed its position with respect to the applicable commitment period when the debtor has less than or equal to zero disposable income. Danielson v. Flores (In re Flores), No. 11-55452 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2013). [Read more…] about Ninth Circuit en Banc Decision Overrules Kagenveama
Pliler v. Browning, No. 13-1445 (4th Cir.)
Type: Amicus
Date: June 20, 2013
Description: Whether section 1325(b)(4)(B) created a minimum plan length of sixty months for above-median debtors, and whether the disposable income formula set forth by Congress and reflected on Form 22C could be abandoned if it was inconsistent with income and expenses as reflected on Schedules I and J.
Result: Affirmed March 28, 2014
Pliler NACBA amicus
NACBA Files Amicus on Applicable Commitment Period
NCBRC filed an amicus brief on behalf of the NACBA membership in the case of In re Pliler, No. 13-1445 (4th Cir. June 20, 2013). NACBA’s brief argues that the Bankruptcy Court erred when it held that section 1325(b)(4)(B) created a minimum plan length of sixty months for above-median debtors, and that the disposable income formula set forth by Congress and reflected on Form 22C could be abandoned if it was inconsistent with income and expenses as reflected on Schedules I and J. [Read more…] about NACBA Files Amicus on Applicable Commitment Period
Danielson v. Flores (In re Flores), No. 11-55452 (9th Cir.)
Type: Amicus
Date: January 23, 2013
Description: Whether applicable commitment period applies to above-median debtor with zero or negative projected disposable income.
Result: Judgment affirmed, August 29, 2013
Applicable Commitment Period Where No Projected Disposable Income
The Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina found that the applicable commitment period outlined in section 1325(b)(1)(B) does not apply to above-median debtors with zero or negative disposable income and that early termination of the plan does not alter the debtor’s projected disposable income calculation. In re Ballew, 12-4059 (Bankr. E.D. N.C. Jan. 11, 2013). [Read more…] about Applicable Commitment Period Where No Projected Disposable Income
In re Bullard, No. 12-54 (B.A.P. 1st Cir.)
Type: Amicus brief
Date: November 20, 2012
Description: Whether Chapter 13 plan that bifurcates residential lien and pays secured portion outside plan and unsecured portion within plan must pay off entire mortgage within five years.
Result: Judgment affirmed, May 24, 2013, Case dismissed by First Circuit as interlocutory, No. 13-9009 (May 14, 2014); U.S. Supreme Court cert. granted No. 14-116 (Dec. 12, 2014)
Tennyson v. Whaley, No. 09-14628 (11th Cir.)
Type: Amicus
Date: November 25, 2009
Description: Whether debtor with negative disposable income on Form 22C must file chapter 13 plan with 60 month applicable commitment period.
Result: Reversed and remanded. Debtor lost.
In re Kagenveama, No. 06-17083 (9th Cir.)
Type: Amicus
Date: June 14, 2007
Description: Forward looking vs Mechanical approach to projected disposable income and applicable commitment period.
Result: Affirmed. Debtor won.
Kagenveama 9th Cir opinion
In re Frederickson, No. 07-3391 (8th Cir.)
Type: Amicus
Date: January 8, 2008
Description: Whether applicable commitment period is multiplier or temporal requirement and whether disposable income is projected using schedules I and J.
Result: Reversed. Supreme Court petition denied March 23, 2009.
Frederickson 8th Cir opinion