Coop v. Frederickson’s Empirical Analysis
545 F.3d 652 · 2008
Citation profile
12 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 158
Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Lamie v. United States Trustee · Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier · Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh · In Re Hardacre
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] negative disposable income number on Form B22C does not conclusively establish the debtor has no disposable income to be received in the Applicable Commitment Period. Indeed, a feasible plan payment proposal rebuts the presumption that Form B22C alone determines disposable income. A negative number on Form B22C indicates a plan is not feasible. However, if the debtor can propose a feasible plan payment, then the debtor has shown there is, in fact, disposable income, and the plan must last for five years if his income is above median. Debtors cannot have it both ways. If they want to rely exclusively on Form B22C with a negative disposable income number, then they cannot propose a feasible plan. On the other hand, a feasible plan payment commits debtors to a certain plan length, for the above-median income debtor, of no less than five years.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Thus, a distinction can be drawn between a debtor’s “disposable income,” which is calculated solely on the basis of historical numbers and regional averages, and a. debtor’s “projected disposable income,” which necessarily contemplates a forward-looking number. Under this interpretation, bankruptcy courts will continue to have some discretion over the calculations of each individual debtor’s financial situation, with the result that the debtor’s “projected disposable income” will end up more closely aligning with reality. This interpretation also comports with the congressional intent that above-median debtors pay the maximum they can afford.... Accordingly, we adopt the view shared by many bankruptcy courts that a debt- or’s “disposable income” calculation ... is a starting point for determining the debtor’s “projected disposable income,” but that the final calculation can take into consideration changes that have occurred in the debtor’s financial circumstances as well as the debtor’s actual income and expenses....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[W]e adopt the view ... that a debtor's 'disposable income’ calculation on Form 22C is a starting point for determining the debtor’s ‘projected disposable income,’ but that the final calculation can take into consideration changes that have occurred in the debtor’s financial circumstances .... This approach realistically determines how much a debtor can afford to pay his creditors and maximizes the amount the debtor must pay to his unsecured creditors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. In Re Wick · In Re Coffin
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.