Having a Milavetz for lunch
I’m skimming one of the long-awaited Supreme Court bankruptcy cases, Milavetz, Gallop, & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, no. 08-1119, a Justice Soyomayor opinion, for lunch at a Starbucks at Park Central Mall in Phoenix.
By now, far more intelligent pundits than I have surely commented on it. Hopeful they are not confused by one of it’s most important holdings like I am.
In ruling that BAPCPA prohibitions do not violate free speech, the Court argued that section 526(a) “prohibits a debt relief agency only from advising an assisted person to incur more debt when the impelling reason for the advice is the anticipation of bankruptcy.”
I’m still confused because I was hoping it would more clearly address the situation where a client says, “I’m thinking about filing for bankruptcy, should I pay my Visa bill considering they will charge a late fee and increased interest rates?”
Doesn’t that incur more debt?
Share on Facebook