Now Playing in a Bankruptcy Court Near You

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. fishbane says:

    I do wonder if a certain Volokh resident might stop by…?

  2. tim zinnecker says:

    Here’s another quote, from bankruptcy judge (and part-time UNLV law prof) Bruce Markell: “Section 522(p) is one of many examples of poor drafting in the new bankruptcy law ….” In re Kane, 336 B.R. 477, 481 fn. 7 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2006).

  3. Seth R. says:

    Not to mention that a Federal District Judge in Texas recently held that section 523(a)(4) is unconstitutional. Same with a state judge in Georgia.

    The Brooks opinion was a hoot.

    What?! Changing the connector “or” to “and” in a list of statutory elements significantly alters the statute’s meaning?

    Impossible!

    I guess this is what happens when you let credit card lobbyists write your legislation for you.

  4. tim zinnecker says:

    File this under “so tell us how you REALLY feel about it.” In commenting on the “credit counseling” requirement now found in BC 109(h), oft-quotable Bankruptcy Judge Jay Cristol recently said this: “The Court fully agrees with the basic concept adopted by Congress in regard to credit counseling. It is a good thing and should be required for and provided to every high school senior as a prerequisite to graduation. So timed, the counseling would be of immense value to millions and would no doubt have a positive effect in reducing the number of bankruptcy filings of certain types of cases. Unfortunately, the requirement for creditor [sic] counseling immediately prior to and as a prerequisite to filing bankruptcy is similar to locking the barn after the horse is gone. The present statutory requirement is the equivalent of requiring a person who has suffered a heart attack to listen to a lecture on exercise, diet and the evils of cholesterol before allowing such person to undergo open heart surgery.” In re Petit-Louis, 344 B.R. 696, 701 (Bankr. S. D. Fla. 2006).