The Fourth Circuit has accepted two direct appeals presenting the issue of whether the applicable commitment period for a chapter 13 plan applies when there is no projected disposable income. Both cases first treat the issue of whether an expected change in payments during the course of the plan should be considered when determining the debtor’s projected disposable income at the outset, and then deal with the relevance of the applicable commitment period where the debtor has zero or negative disposable income as calculated by the means test. Read More
Tag Archive: ACP
-
Fourth Circuit Takes on Applicable Commitment Period Issue
Posted by NCBRC - June 6th, 2013
-
Kagenveama Survives Direct Assault
Posted by NCBRC - September 7th, 2012
Wielding Hamilton v. Lanning, 130 S. Ct. 2464 (2010), the trustee in the Ninth Circuit case of In re Flores, launched a full-scale attack on Maney v. Kagenveama (In re Kagenveama), 541 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2008). Kagenveama won. The Ninth Circuit stood by its previous position that an above-median debtor with zero or negative disposable income does not need to confirm a 60 month plan under section 1325(b). Danielson v. Flores (In re Flores), No. 11-55452 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2012). NACBA assisted in drafting the debtor’s brief in this case. Read More
-
NACBA Amicus Brief on Issue of Applicable Commitment Period
Posted by NCBRC - March 6th, 2012
NACBA has filed an amicus brief in the case of American Express Centurion Bank v. Henderson, No. 11-35864 (9th Cir.), arguing that a chapter 13 plan for an above-median debtor with negative disposable income need not extend for 60 months under the plain language of section 1325(b)(4) because there is no “projected disposable income.” Read More
-
Supreme Court Denies Cert. in Baud v. Carroll
Posted by NCBRC - January 9th, 2012
Today the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case of Baud v. Carroll, which raised the issue of the appropriate applicable commitment period for an above-median income debtor with no “projected disposable income.” The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held below that above-median income debtors with no projected disposable income must propose five year plans if the trustee or unsecured creditor objects to a shorter plan period. See 634 F.3d 327 (6th Cir. 2011). Attention will now turn to Flores v. Danielson, No. 11-55452 (9th Cir.), where the Ninth Circuit will consider whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hamilton v. Lanning, 130 S.Ct.2464 (2010), abrogated the Ninth’s Circuit prior ruling on the applicable commitment period in Kagenveama v. Maney, 541 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2008).
-
Request Assistance
Request assistance with a case.
-
Help NCBRC
NCBRC needs your support to protect the rights of consumer bankruptcy debtors. The most effective way to support NCBRC is with a direct donation.
There are many other ways to give to NRBRC:
iGive.com: When you purchase items at over 1,400 online stores, a percentage of your purchase will be donated to NCBRC. Stores include Macy’s, Melissa and Doug, Bed Bath & Beyond, Nike, Petsmart, and more. Shop and Give today!
-
Keep up with NCBRC
Thank you!
Thank you to the following organizations without whose support our work would not be possible.
American College of Bankruptcy
The American College of Bankruptcy is an honorary public service association of bankruptcy and insolvency professionals who are invited to join as Fellows based on a proven record of the highest standards of professionalism plus service to the profession and their communities. Together with its affiliated Foundation, the College is the largest financial supporter of bankruptcy and insolvency-related pro bono legal service programs in the United States.NACBA
Visit NACBA.org
The only national organization dedicated to serving the needs of consumer bankruptcy attorneys and protecting the rights of consumer debtors in bankruptcy. Formed in 1992, NACBA has more than 3,000 members located in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.