Publications
'Hamilton' Redefines Consumer Bankruptcy Practice
-
Reno
Macdonald Fernandez LLP
In Hamilton v. Lanning, 10 C.D.O.S. 6973, the justices ruled, 8-1, that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 does not prohibit a bankruptcy court from taking into account a debtor's likely future income in determining the minimum payments to be made under a chapter 13 plan. In upholding the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals' "forward looking" approach, the court overruled the Ninth Circuit's "mechanical" approach established by In re Kagenveama , 541 F.3d 868 (2008), which held that a debtor's income for purposes of calculating minimum Chapter 13 plan payments is deemed to be the average income received in the six months before filing the bankruptcy petition, without regard to later increases or decreases in income.
Fernandez, R. 2010, "'Hamilton' Redefines Consumer Bankruptcy Practice". In: The Recorder, The Recorder, California.
Tags: Bankruptcy, Consumer Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Chapter 7, Means Test, Supreme Court,
More Publications by Reno Fernandez
- BASF Because: Reno Fernandez
- Social Security Cannot Be Attached to Reimburse Insurer
- Discharging Trust-Related Claims in Bankruptcy
- The Business Judgment Rule in the Central District of California
- Enforcement of Non-Debtor Releases in International Insolvency Proceedings
- Partnership That Never Existed Cannot Create Nondischargeable Debt
- Junior Mortgage Discharged Notwithstanding Fraud Allegations
- Changing the Light at the End of the Tunnel: Distressed Financing Roundtable