Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ana Flores v. Rod Danielson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 29, 2013No. 11-55452Published

1DissentPregerson, Circuit Judge

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge joins:

The majority overrules our holding in Maney v. Kagenveama that the Chapter 13 “applicable commitment • period” does not mandate a five-year plan length for above median debtors with no projected disposable income. 541 F.3d 868, 876 (9th Cir.2008). The majority’s interpretation of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B) promotes goals that are at odds with Congress’s purpose when it enacted Chapter 13 to “provide the debtor with a fresh start.” H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 117 (1977), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5963, 6079. The majority also reads language into Chapter 13…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Maney v. KagenveamaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  2. Coop v. Frederickson (In Re Frederickson)Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2008
  3. Baud v. CarrollCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2011
  4. Whaley v. Tennyson (In Re Tennyson)Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2010
  5. In Re GreenUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · 2007

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