In re Wright
Decision Date | 03 July 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 07-1483.,07-1483. |
Citation | 492 F.3d 829 |
Parties | In the Matter of Craig WRIGHT and LaChone P. Giles-Wright, Debtors-Appellants. Santander Consumer USA Inc., Creditor-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Marilyn O. Marshall, Chicago, IL, pro se.
William T. Neary, Chicago, IL, pro se.
David J. Frankel (argued), Sorman & Frankel, Chicago, IL, for Drive Financial Services.
Xiaoming Wu (argued), Ledford & Wu, Chicago, IL, for Debtors-Appellants.
James J. Haller, Mueller & Haller, Belleville, IL, for National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and MANION and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Bankruptcy judges across the nation have divided over the effect of the unnumbered hanging paragraph that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 added to § 1325(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Section 1325, part of Chapter 13, specifies the circumstances under which a consumer's plan of repayment can be confirmed. The hanging paragraph says that, for the purpose of a Chapter 13 plan, § 506 of the Code, 11 U.S.C. § 506, does not apply to certain secured loans.
Section 506(a) divides loans into secured and unsecured portions; the unsecured portion is the amount by which the debt exceeds the current value of the collateral. In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, consumers may retain the collateral (despite contractual provisions entitling creditors to repossess) by making monthly payments that the judge deems equal to the market value of the asset, with a rate of interest that the judge will set (rather than the contractual rate). See Associates Commercial Corp. v. Rash, 520 U.S. 953, 117 S.Ct. 1879, 138 L.Ed.2d 148 (1997); Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465, 124 S.Ct. 1951, 158 L.Ed.2d 787 (2004). This procedure is known as a "cramdown"—the court crams down the creditor's throat the substitution of money for the collateral, a situation that creditors usually oppose because the court may underestimate the collateral's market value and the appropriate interest rate, and the debtor may fail to make all promised payments, so that the payment stream falls short of the collateral's full value.
The question we must decide is what happens when, as a result of the hanging paragraph, § 506 vanishes from the picture. The majority view among bankruptcy judges is that, with § 506(a) gone, creditors cannot divide their loans into secured and unsecured components. Because § 1325(a)(5)(C) allows a debtor to surrender the collateral to the lender, it follows (on this view) that surrender fully satisfies the borrower's obligations. If this is so, then many secured loans have been rendered nonre-course, no matter what the contract provides. See, e.g., In re Payne, 347 B.R. 278 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2006); In re Ezell, 338 B.R. 330 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn. 2006); In re Kenney, 2007 WL 1412921, at *5-6, 2007 Bankr.LEXIS 1646 at *16-17 (collecting cases). The minority view is that Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code plus the law of contracts entitle the creditor to an unsecured deficiency judgment after surrender of the collateral, unless the contract itself provides that the loan is without recourse against the borrower. See, e.g., In re Particka, 355 B.R. 616 (Bankr. E.D.Mich.2006); In re Zehrung, 351 B.R. 675 (W.D.Wis.2006). That unsecured balance must be treated the same as other unsecured debts under the Chapter 13 plan.
Craig Wright and LaChone P. Giles-Wright, debtors in this proceeding, owe more on their purchase-money automobile loan than the car is worth. Because the purchase occurred within 910 days of the bankruptcy's commencement, the hanging paragraph in § 1325(a)(5) applies. This paragraph reads:
For purposes of paragraph (5), section 506 shall not apply to a claim described in that paragraph if the creditor has a purchase money security interest securing the debt that is the subject of the claim, the debt was incurred within the 910-day [sic] preceding the date of the filing of the petition, and the collateral for that debt consists of a motor vehicle (as defined in section 30102 of title 49) acquired for the personal use of the debtor, or if collateral for that debt consists of any other thing of value, if the debt was incurred during the 1-year period preceding that filing.
Debtors proposed a plan that would surrender the car to the creditor and pay nothing on account of the difference between the loan's balance and the collateral's market value. After taking the minority position on the effect of bypassing § 506, the bankruptcy judge declined to approve the Chapter 13 plan, because debtors did not propose to pay any portion of the shortfall.
Normally the next step would be an appeal to the district court, followed by an appeal to this court once a final decision had been rendered. But the 2005 Act amends 28 U.S.C. § 158 to allow a direct appeal from a bankruptcy court to the court of appeals, bypassing the expense and delay of litigation before a district judge. Section 158(d)(2)(A) now provides:
The appropriate court of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals described in the first sentence of subsection (a) if the bankruptcy court, the district court, or the bankruptcy appellate panel involved, acting on its own motion or on the request of a party to the judgment, order, or decree described in such first sentence, or all the appellants and appellees (if any) acting jointly, certify that—
(i) the judgment, order, or decree involves a question of law as to which there is no controlling decision of the court of appeals for the circuit or of the Supreme Court of the United States, or involves a matter of public importance;
(ii) the judgment, order, or decree involves a question of law requiring resolution of conflicting decisions; or
(iii) an immediate appeal from the judgment, order, or decree may materially advance the progress of the case or proceeding in which the appeal is taken; and if the court of appeals authorizes the direct appeal of the judgment, order, or decree.
The bankruptcy judge certified that this litigation satisfies both subparagraphs (i) and (ii). A motions panel of this court accepted the appeal because the issue not only has divided the bankruptcy courts but also arises in a large fraction of all consumer bankruptcy proceedings. A clear answer is needed—yet this issue appears to be "stuck" in the bankruptcy courts. No court of appeals has addressed the subject, and few district judges have done so. Lower litigation costs for thousands of debtors and creditors may be achieved by expediting appellate consideration of this case.
Like the bankruptcy court, we think that, by knocking out § 506, the hanging paragraph leaves the parties to their contractual entitlements. True enough, § 506(a) divides claims into secured and unsecured components. (Section 506 does other things as well, see Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, 112 S.Ct. 773, 116 L.Ed.2d 903 (1992), but these have no bearing on the question at hand.) Yet it is a mistake to assume, as the majority of bankruptcy courts have done, that § 506 is the only source of authority for a deficiency judgment when the collateral is insufficient. The Supreme Court held in Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 99 S.Ct. 914, 59 L.Ed.2d 136 (1979), that state law determines rights and obligations when the Code does not supply a federal rule. See also, e.g., Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Padilla, Bankruptcy No. 04-42708.
... ... Id ... Page 660 ... These rights "are rights protected from modification by § 1322(b)(2)". Id. at 329-30, 113 S.Ct. 2106; See also In re Wright, 492 F.3d 829, 832 (7th Cir.2007) (holding that, "by knocking out § 506, the hanging paragraph leaves the parties to their contractual entitlements", governed by state law); In re Campbell, 361 B.R. 831, 850 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2007) (holding that § 1322(b)(2) trumps § 506(b)) ... ...
-
Schweigert v. Schweigert
...of a secured claim must be ascertained by looking outside the bankruptcy code. Trejos , 374 B.R. at 220 ; see also In re Wright , 492 F.3d 829, 830 (7th Cir. 2007). The proper location of this inquiry is state law. Raleigh v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue , 530 U.S. 15, 20, 120 S.Ct. 1951, 147 ......
-
In re Cano
... ... In re Padilla, 379 B.R. at 659-60 (citing Nobelman v. Am. Sav. Bank, 508 U.S. 324, 328, 113 S.Ct. 2106, 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993)); In re Wright, 492 F.3d 829, 832 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that where a Code provision exempts economic rights from modification by the Code, the parties are left "to their contractual entitlements" governed by state law). Section 1322(b)(2) prohibits a plan from modifying a mortgage lender's contract rights ... ...
-
Shaw v. Aurgroup Financial Credit Union
...as required by section 1308 [11 U.S.C. § 1308]. 3. In other words, "the court crams down the creditor's throat...." In re Wright, 492 F.3d 829, 830 (7th Cir.2007). 4. 11 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1) provides: Determination of secured (a) (1) An allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on propert......
-
Hey, the Sun Is Hot and the Water's Fine: Why Not Strip Off That Lien?
...Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); Capital One Auto Fin. v. Osborn, 515 F.3d 817, 822-23 (8th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); In re Wright, 492 F.3d 829, 832-33 (7th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); cf. Santander Consumer USA Inc. v. Brown, 2013 WL 3198000, at *8-9, *11-12 (M.D. Ga. June 21, 20......
-
Chapter 9 Secured Claims in Consumer Bankruptcies
...Taranto, 365 B.R. at 90.[1123] Id.[1124] In re Jones, 530 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir. 2008).[1125] Taranto, 365 B.R. at 90.[1126] In re Wright, 492 F.3d 829, 830 (7th Cir. 2007).[1127] In re Adams, 403 B.R. 387, 396 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2009).[1128] In re Barrett, 543 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2008); In re......
-
Miyong Mary Kang, Is it Time to Hang the Hanging Paragraph, 11 U.s.c. Sec. 1325(a)?
...the hanging paragraph include "anti-cramdown," "anti-bifurcation," "910- vehicle," and "910-creditor." Id at Sec. 2. 5 See In re Wright, 492 F.3d 829, 830 (7th Cir. 2007) ("The majority view among bankruptcy judges is that, with Sec. 506(a) gone, creditors cannot divide their loans into sec......
-
Bankruptcy - Hon. James D. Walker, Jr. and Amber Nickell
...1301. 191. 543 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2008). 192. See id. at 1241. 193. See id. at 1247. 194. Id. at 1246. 195. Id. (quoting In re Wright, 492 F.3d 829, 832 (7th Cir. 2007)). 196. Id. (citing Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (1979)). 197. Id.; see Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer ......