Supreme Court limits Chapter 13 bankruptcy deductions in first Kagan opinion

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] on Tuesday ruled [opinion, PDF] 8-1 in Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N.A. [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that debtors who apply for Chapter 13 bankruptcy cannot use a car payment as a deduction from their repayment plan if the debtor has paid off the automobile. The opinion was the first authored by Justice Elena Kagan [JURIST news archive], who joined [JURIST report] the court in August after serving as solicitor general in the Obama administration and as Dean of Harvard Law School. The case dealt with Chapter 13 bankruptcy under 11 USC § 1301 [text] where a debtor repays creditors according to a court-approved plan. The US bankruptcy code [11 USC § 707(b)(2)] uses a statutory formula called the "means test" which allows debtors deduct "applicable" monthly expenses from their monthly income to determine a disposable income to repay creditors. The debtor in this case, Jason Ransom, had attempted to mark as a deduction the maximum amount allowed for car payments for a car that he owned outright. In the opinion of the court, Kagan interpreted the term "applicable" in the bankruptcy code to mean a deduction is allowed "only if that deduction is appropriate for him" preventing Ransom from marking the car as a deduction since he was no longer making payments on it.

The court's opinion upholds the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled [opinion, PDF] that the bankruptcy court may not allow such deductions. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] in October. Counsel for Ransom argued that, "[i]n 2005 when Congress passed the Bankruptcy Act, it made a policy decision to limit judicial discretion on a case-by-case basis in the area of reasonable and necessary expenses." Counsel for the respondent argued that, "[t]he Bankruptcy Code precludes an above-median income debtor like Petitioner from shielding from his creditors $471 a month for a car payment that he does not have." The US government argued as amicus curiae on behalf of the respondent.

 

About Paper Chase

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible format.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.