BAPCPA

Issues

In October 2010, Heidi Heffron-Clark and Brandon Clark filed a voluntary joint Chapter 7 bankruptcy and claimed an inherited IRA under the retirement funds exemption of Section 522 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy trustee and creditors objected to the claimed exemption. The district court concluded that inherited IRAs are exempted because they do not lose their character as retirement funds once they are passed onto the beneficiary. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision, stating that an inherited IRA does not qualify for a retirement fund exemption because it was not set aside for the debtor’s retirement. The United States Supreme Court must decide if an inherited IRA constitutes a “retirement fund” under Section 522. This case implicates debtors’ and creditors’ access to inherited IRAs once a debtor files for bankruptcy.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

This case concerns the extent of a bankruptcy court's flexibility in determining the "projected disposable income" of a debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B). Stephanie Kay Lanning filed for bankruptcy in October 2006 and proposed monthly payments of $144, based on her current income and expenses. Jan Hamilton, Lanning's bankruptcy trustee, objected and said that Lanning's "projected disposable income" was actually over $1,000 per month. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas overruled the objection and approved Lanning's plan. The court found that, while Hamilton's calculation of "projected disposable income" based on Lanning's income from the prior six months was correct under Form 22C, the results were inequitable because Lanning's income was artificially inflated for two months because of a buyout from her prior employer. The Bankruptcy Appeals Panel and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals both affirmed. Hamilton argues that the plain language of the statute mandates his “mechanical” approach, while Lanning argues that her "forward-looking" approach avoids absurd results. The Supreme Court's decision in this case will provide clarity to a statutory term that has flummoxed the lower courts, while simultaneously affecting the flexibility of bankruptcy judges.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Robert Marrama sought to convert his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case to a Chapter 13 after meeting the requirements for Chapter 13. The bankruptcy court denied Marrama’s motion to convert based on Marrama’s prior bad faith conduct in failing to report in his bankruptcy schedules the value of a tax refund and vacation home. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether courts have discretion to deny conversions based on an evaluation of the debtor’s conduct. The decision will hinge on the statutory language and legislative history of the Bankruptcy Code. While this issue may be limited to filings that occurred before Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, it will give the court the opportunity to clarify the scope of the good faith requirement in bankruptcy proceedings and the amount of discretion afforded to bankruptcy judges.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case reflects a lack of certainty in the bankruptcy code regarding the proper treatment of the vehicle ownership deduction when calculating an above-median Chapter 13 debtor’s disposable income. Courts are split on whether the deduction can be taken where the debtor owns a vehicle in full and is not responsible for monthly payments on the vehicle. Jason Ransom filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 and claimed a vehicle ownership deduction based on his ownership of an automobile that he owned free and clear. The Ninth Circuit found that the vehicle ownership deduction was not permitted if there was no existing obligation on the vehicle. Ransom argues that the court misinterpreted the statute and failed to recognize that a plain reading of the statute supports the deduction. The Supreme Court’s decision will clarify the availability of the vehicle ownership deduction to Chapter 13 debtors who own their vehicles outright.​

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources