Henry Hildebrand, III v. Ralph Kimbro, Jr. ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
    File Name: 11a0086n.06
    No. 08-5871
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
    In re: RALPH HARTFORD KIMBRO, JR.;        )                                       FILED
    PATRICIA ANN KIMBRO,                      )                                    Feb 08, 2011
    )                              LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
    Debtors.                           )
    __________________________________________)
    )
    HENRY E. HILDEBRAND, III,                 )                 ON APPEAL FROM THE
    Standing Trustee for Chapter 13,          )                 SIXTH CIRCUIT BANKRUPTCY
    )                 APPELLATE PANEL
    Appellant,                         )
    )
    v.                          )                         OPINION
    )
    RALPH HARTFORD KIMBRO, JR.;               )
    PATRICIA ANN KIMBRO,                      )
    )
    Appellees.                         )
    __________________________________________)
    Before: MOORE and WHITE, Circuit Judges, and OLIVER, District Judge.*
    PER CURIAM. This case squarely presents a question of statutory interpretation that had
    split courts nationwide and has recently been resolved by the United States Supreme Court: whether,
    under a provision of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005
    (BAPCPA), an above-median-income debtor calculating his or her projected disposable income for
    purposes of a Chapter 13 plan confirmation may, when using Chapter 7’s “means test,” deduct for
    a vehicle’s “ownership expense” even when the debtor owns the vehicle outright and is no longer
    *
    The Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District
    of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    making payments on it. This circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) concluded that above-
    median-income debtors may claim such an expense without regard to whether they are still making
    payments or they own their vehicle free and clear. In re Kimbro, 
    389 B.R. 518
     (B.A.P. 6th Cir.
    2008). The dissenting judge would have held that a vehicle ownership expense may only be claimed
    if a debtor is in fact incurring such an expense. 
    Id. at 532
     (Fulton, J., dissenting). The Supreme
    Court resolved the circuit dispute against the interpretation favored by the BAP. Ransom v. FIA
    Card Services, N.A., 
    131 S. Ct. 716
    , 
    79 USLW 4020
     (2011). We REVERSE and REMAND to the
    BAP for reconsideration in light of Ransom.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-5871

Judges: Moore, White, Oliver

Filed Date: 2/8/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024