Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re: Lee M. Till and Amy M. Till, Debtors-Appellants

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided October 10, 2002No. 00-4167Published

1DissentIlana Diamond Rovner, Circuit Judge

My colleagues hold that section 1325(a) (5) (B) (ii) entitles a creditor to the same interest rate that it would charge on a new loan to someone who is situated similarly (except for the bankruptcy) to the debtor. By its own account, the interest rate that SCS charges its customers for sub-prime, used car loans is whatever the market will bear. In re Till, No. 99-13425-13, Transcript of Continued Hearings on Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss, etc., at 34, 38 (Bankr.S.D.Ind. Feb. 29, 2000). In the Tills’ case, that was an eye-popping 21 percent. Compelling a debtor to pay such a burdensome rate of…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Local Loan Co. v. HuntSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. Nobelman v. American Savings BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Associates Commercial Corp. v. RashSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. Memphis Bank & Trust Company v. Linda Gail WhitmanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1982
  5. General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Alphonso Jones, Debtor, Robert M. Wood, TrusteeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993

10 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