.jpg)
In re Flores (decided today)
It was a great holding while it lasted!
So longKagenveama!
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
________________________________
To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:21 AM
Subject: [cdcbaa] In re Flores (decided today)
In Maney v. Kagenveama (In re Kagenveama), 541 F.3d 868, 875 (9th Cir.imumduration for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan if the debtor has no "projecteddisposable income," as defined in the statute. Today, sitting en banc, we overrulethat aspect of Kagenveama and hold that the statute permits confirmation only ifthe length of the proposed plan is at least equal to the applicable commitmentperiod under 1325(b)(4). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the bankruptcycourt.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charseto-8859-1
In Maney v. Kagenveama (In re Kagenveama), 541 F.3d 868, 875 (9th Cir. 2008), we held that 11 U.S.C. 1325(b)(1)(B) does not impose a minimum duration for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan if the debtor has no "projected disposable income," as defined in the statute. Today, sitting en banc, we overrule that aspect of Kagenveama and hold that the statute permits confirmation only if the length of the proposed plan is at least equal to the applicable commitment period under 1325(b)(4). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the bankruptcy court.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.