.jpg)
9th Circuit Ruling re Kangenveama and Lanning
Just to refresh your memory, we posted this news when it happen (9/10/12). Since then the tee has petitioned for an en banc rehearing. We are still waiting to hear from the 9th re: the en banc rehearing. I will let you know the result of the petition for re-hearing once we receive it. I do not believe they petitioned for a stay pending consideration of the rehearing. Therefore, it is binding on our bk judges (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong).
Thank you,
Nancy B. Clark
Attorney at Law
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791-1600
Tel: (626) 646-2555
Fax: (626) 332-8644
www.blclaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Hot off the email --
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirmed that its ruling in In re Kagenveama, 541 F.3d 868, 872 (9th Cir. 2008), that under 11 U.S.C. 1325(b) a debtor with no "projected disposable income" may confirm a plan that is shorter in duration than the "applicable commitment period" established by Section 1325, was not implicitly overruled by Hamilton v. Lanning, 130 S. Ct. 2464 (2010). In re Flores, 692 F. 3d 1021 (9th Cir. (Cal.) 2012). To read the full decision, click Flores.
Thanks to Travis Gall and the CalBar Business Law Section
The post was migrated from Yahoo.