Actions

  Print Article
  BookMark Article

Author Login    Author Login

Important
Existing members will have to use the lost password facility to get new username and new password

Welcome Guest! Please login or create an account.

Username:

Password:



If you do not have an account yet, you can register ( Here ), or you may retrieve a lost user/pass ( Here ).

Navigation    Navigation

   10 newest articles RSS

Author Highlights    Featured Author

Brian Moses
Will clayton

View My Bio & Articles


Karen Burby
Will clayton

View My Bio & Articles


Ralph Lutisa
Niagara Falls

"I am a freelancer writing articles about health, medication, marketing, news and all kinds..."

View My Bio & Articles


Other Websites    Websites of Interest

Kagan Sides With Credit Card In Supreme Court Decision; Bad News For Debtors, Bankruptcy Attorneys

Author : Jim Brown


Bankruptcy attorneys anxiously waited for Justice Elena Kagan to write her first opinion in the Supreme Court last week. They weren't nervous because she provided clairty to the 2005 amendments to bankruptcy laws, but rather because she sided with a creditor.

"This case is about proper interpretation of the bankruptcy code," Kagan wrote. The Court ruled against Jason Ransom, of Nevada, who argued that he should be allowed to take deductions exactly as the law was written, even if it may seem strange to his credit card company.

Like many legal issues, the argument stemmed from the phrasing. Ransom contested that he should be allowed to take advantage of $471 in deductions for monthly car payments and owner expenses. Generally, he would be allowed to do this based on both state and federal law without any problems. However, one of Ransom's creditors objected to this deduction—mainly because his car was fully paid off.

"Ransom may not deduct loan or lease expenses when he does not have any," Kagan wrote in her opinion. Under Ransom's Chapter 13 plan, he would pay back about $200 per month to his creditors. Ransom's credit card company argued that since Ransom owned the car, he shouldn't be able to take deductions mean for loan payments and maintenance, and should use the remaining $471 to pay back his unsecured creditors.

Makes sense, right? Wrong. And it's due to the fact that the rule they are debating is written as "vehicle owner's expenses".Now, way-back-when someone may have intended this for loan payments, but in this current form, it includes maintenance, expenses, gas, repairs, etc.

Not all members of the court agreed with Kagan. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion. He argued that the law was written in such a way that someone who owns a car is entitled to the car ownership deduction, and furthermore that owing money on the car is not a requirement to take it. He also claims Congress understood that there would be "occasional peculiarities," in cases like this when it adopted the new laws.

Ransom was fortunate that he had an attorney willing to defend his claim and take his appeal all the way to the top of the court system. Most bankruptcy cases aren't so complicated and lengthy (Ransom initially filed his Nevada Chapter 13 in 2006), but sometimes creditors will decide to challenge a repayment plan. When looking for a bankruptcy attorney make sure you pick one who will stick with you if your plan is changed.


Author's Resource Box

James Brown is a personal bankruptcy attorney in St. Louis, Missouri. He has filed over 30,000 bankruptcy cases and published many books and articles. You can request his free Missouri and Illinois bankruptcy guide for the best tips on how to prepare for your bankruptcy and find a great bankruptcy attorney.

Article Source:
Articlebliss

Tags:   Kagan, Credit Card Debt, Chapter 13 bankruptcy

Author RSS Feed   Author RSS Feed     Category RSS Feed   Category RSS Feed


 

  Rate This Article
Badly Written Offensive Content Spam
Bad Author Links Mis-spellings Bad Formatting
Bad Author Photo Good Article!
 

 

 

 

Submitted : 2011-01-22    Word Count : 1    Times Viewed: 165