In Re Devilliers’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 1322 · 11 U.S.C. § 1325 · 11 U.S.C. § 707 · 26 U.S.C. § 403 · 26 U.S.C. § 414 (§ 1015 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 26 U.S.C. § 457 · 28 U.S.C. § 1408
Relies on Cannon v. University of Chicago · Lamie v. United States Trustee · BFP v. Resolution Trust Corporation · Negonsott v. Samuels · Rousey v. Jacoway
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Not all sources of income need be committed to a Chapter 13 plan.... Debtors are also permitted to shelter certain contributions to employee benefit plans (EBPs). “[A]ny amount” that is either “withheld by” or “received by” a debtor’s employer for qualifying EBPs, deferred compensation plans, tax-deferred annuities, or state-law-regulated health insurance plans “shall not con stitute disposable income, as defined in section 1325(b)(2).” 11 U.S.C. § 541 (b)(7)(A) & (B) (emphasis added). Furthermore, in addition to sheltering EBP contributions, the Code also protects repayments of loans from EBPs, including loans from 401(k) plans. [See ] 11 U.S.C. § 1322 (f).... Sections 541(b)(7) and 1322(f) both plainly state that these contributions “shall not constitute disposable income.” Congress has placed retirement contributions outside the purview of a Chapter 13 plan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Seafort v. Burden“Section 547(b)(7) instructs that contributions to a qualified plan do not constitute disposable income for purposes of § 1325(b)(2). As excluded income, the contributions are not a deduction because they were never included in the first instance. Further, unlike the provisions of § 707(b)(2) and § 1325(b)(2) or (3), § 541(b)(7) does not modify excluded contributions based on reasonableness or necessity____ The Code simply contains no requirement that contributions to a retirement account be “reasonable or necessary.” Perhaps more accurately, Congress has determined that contributions to a qualified retirement account are, by their very nature, reasonable and necessary. By providing for a debt- or’s eventual retirement, retirement contributions become part of a debtor’s fresh start.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Seafort v. Burden“The exclusion of social security benefits from disposable income might appear counter intuitive at first. However, because creditors had no right to seize these benefits pre-petition, their exclusion from disposable income post petition is not a drastic change in a creditor’s position. Decisions regarding credit advances could not, or perhaps should not, have been based on the existence of social security income. As a result, their exclusion leaves creditors in no worse a position than existed pre-petition, with two important exceptions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Scholz
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.