Law on Rice

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Hamilton v. Lanning (In re Lanning), No. 08-998, on March 16, 2010.   In Lanning, the question presented is “[w]hether, in calculating the debtor’s ‘projected disposable income’ during the plan period, the bankruptcy court may consider evidence suggesting that the debtor’s income or expenses during that period are likely to be different from her income or expenses during the pre-filing period?”

Put simply, should a bankruptcy court look forward to consider changes the debtor expects in her income, or should the court apply a strict mechanical test?  The mechanical test’s argument, submitted by the chapter 13 trustee in the case, is available here.

The only other brief available at this time comes from the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (“NACBA”).  NACBA submitted its brief as favoring neither party, but when I skimmed it briefly, it looked like NACBA argues in favor of the mechanical test.

In the Chrysler bankruptcy case, I wasn’t all that surprised that some creditors appealed from a recent adverse Second Circuit decision to the Supreme Court. I was a little surprised, however, that Justice Ginsburg had the power to suspend the transaction all by herself. Maybe it’s because I’m still in law school.

Anyway, I briefly looked up the Supreme Court Rules. The debtors sent their motion to Justice Ginsburg because she is the Justice who “has authority to grant relief” under Rule 22. Rule 23(1) states that a “stay may be granted by a Justice as permitted by law.” Rule 23 also sets out details that must be met in the application for the stay. The application is embedded below:
Chrysler Stay Application