Pak v. eCast Settlement Corp. (In Re Pak)
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DUNN, Bankruptcy Judge.
In this appeal, we address one of the most perplexing issues that has arisen in chapter 13 under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”) — interpretation of the term “projected disposable income” in § 1325(b)(1)(B).2 The debtor, John Pak (“Pak”), whose “disposable income” under the statutory definition was less than one third of his actual net income available to pay creditors, appeals the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his chapter 13 case after denying confirmation of Pak’s amended chapter 13 plan. We AFFIRM.
I. FACTS
The…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Lamie v. United States TrusteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- BFP v. Resolution Trust CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. JacobsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- In Re HardacreUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · 2006
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Maney v. KagenveamaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Hamilton v. Lanning (In Re Lanning)Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
- In Re LanningBankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit · 2007
- In Re WilliamsUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · 2008
- Hoopai v. HoopaiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.