By Robert G. Drummond, Chapter 13 Trustee for the District of Montana
In Danielson v. Flores (In re Flores)1, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled Maney v. Kagenveama (In re Kagenveama).2 In the 2008 case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion which, in part, found that the term “applicable commitment period” mandated a temporal measurement and that when the debtors have no projected disposable income, there is no minimum plan duration.
This affected the prior . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or sign in below:
