By Nancy B. Rapoport, Garman Turner Gordon Professor of Law, Boyd School of Law, and Affiliate Professor of Business Law & Ethics, Lee Business School, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Dear Readers: My guardian angel, Regina Logsdon has asked a great question:what should you do when your “Spidey sense” tells you that your client...
Critical Case Comment: In re Reed
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Trustee, Middle District of Tennessee
In re Reed, 2011 WL 3801859 (Bank. D.Or., Aug. 9, 2011) (Perris)
In the Ninth Circuit, when an above-median income Chapter 13 debtor has no (or negative) projected disposable income as calculated using the mechanical approach, there is no applicable commitment period for a debtor’s Chapter 13 plan, so the plan need not last five years.
Case Summary
The Reeds’ income exceeded Oregon’s median income for a family of their size, and their Chapter 13 plan . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
Critical Case Comment – Present Tense in § 544(b)
Tax Projections and the Means Test – Part II
From the Editor – Attorney Sanctioned
Members of the Armed Forces Are Entitled to Certain Tax Benefits
Why Junk the Whole System When Minor Remedies Would Suffice?
Delaware Trustee Michael Joseph to Retire
Substantial Contribution Claims
A Salute to the Consumer Litigation Five Star General
Chapter 13 Trustee Duties, Powers, And Limitations – Part 6
Ms. Ps & Qs