Legal Opinion · Dissent

American Express Bank, FSB v. Smith (In Re Smith)

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 5, 2009No. BAP Nos. WW-08-1311-MoJuH, WW-08-1312-MoJuH, WW-08-1313-MoJuH. Bankruptcy No. 07-43853-PBSPublished

1DissentHollowell, J.

Under the guise of a plain meaning statutory analysis, the majority holds that § 1325(b)(2) and (b)(3) must be read sequentially, thereby arriving at a “common sense” result which only permits an above median-income debtor to use the means test to calculate expenses after the debtor demonstrates the expense is reasonably necessary. While I sympathize with the majority’s desire to achieve a common sense result, I cannot agree with its contorted statutory analysis.

Section 1325(b)(3) provides that when a debtor has an above-median income, the reasonably necessary expenses to be deducted from…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. In Re AlexanderUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2006
  2. Maney v. KagenveamaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  3. In Re Farrar-JohnsonUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 2006
  4. In Re Van Bodegom SmithUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2008
  5. Drummond v. Wiegand (In Re Wiegand)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2008

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API