United States v. Robinson (In re Robinson)

Aug

2014

Ruling

Enforcement of criminal restitution order was not subject to the automatic stay.

Issue(s)

Could the government bypass the automatic stay by invoking 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a), which provides that the government may enforce a judgment imposing restitution "notwithstanding any other Federal law?"

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of United States v. Robinson (In re Robinson) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :

Judge or Jurisdiction information not available

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on August 22, 2014 , LexisNexis #0914-076

LexisNexis Article

Learn More

11 U.S.C.
- § 1325
- § 1325(b)

Baud v. Carroll

Feb

2011

Ruling

Applicable commitment period of 60 months for above median debtors applies to debtors with negative projected disposable income.

Procedural posture

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held the applicable commitment period (ACP) was 60 months for above-median-income debtors, but the requirement did not apply because the debtors had negative projected disposable income. It reversed a bankruptcy court order sustaining a Chapter 13 trustee's objection that it should be extended to 60 months, and remanded to allow the debtors to modify their plan. The trustee appealed.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Baud v. Carroll Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :

Judge or Jurisdiction information not available

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on February 04, 2011 , LexisNexis #0211-134

LexisNexis Article

Learn More

11 U.S.C.
- § 707
- § 707(b)

Schultz v. United States

Jun

2008

Ruling

BAPCPA did not violate Bankruptcy Clause as median income calculations based on state and county of debtor's residence did not result in non-uniform law.

Procedural posture

Plaintiffs, a husband and wife who had filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy, challenged the decision entered by the District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee that granted defendant government's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the couple's complaint that sought declaratory judgment, alleging that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) violated the Bankruptcy Clause.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Schultz v. United States Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :

Judge or Jurisdiction information not available

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on June 02, 2008 , LexisNexis #0708-013

LexisNexis Article

Learn More

Subscribe to %1