Legal Opinion
Ana Flores v. Rod Danielson
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 29, 2013No. 11-55452PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GRABER, Circuit Judge:
In Maney v. Kagenveama (In re Kagenveama), 541 F.3d 868, 875 (9th Cir.2008), we held that 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B) does not impose a minimum duration for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan if the debtor has no “projected disposable income,” as defined in the statute. Today, sitting en banc, we overrule that aspect of Kagenvea-ma and hold that the statute permits confirmation only if the length of the proposed plan is at least equal to the applicable commitment period under § 1325(b)(4). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the bankruptcy court.
I. Background
Debtors…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Grogan v. GarnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Miller v. GammieCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Hamilton v. LanningSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- In Re: Nanette SiskCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Joe Pliler v. Richard StearnsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2014
- In re EscarcegaUnited States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- In re PautinUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · 2014
- Institute of Imaginal Studies v. Christoff (In Re Christoff)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.