Meyer v. UST-United States Trustee (In Re Scholz)
699 F.3d 1167
9th Cir.2012Background
- Debtors Robert and Carolyn Scholz filed for Chapter 13 relief and disputed excluding Mr. Scholz’s Railroad Retirement Act annuity from income calculations.
- Current monthly income is the six-month average of all sources, with exclusions specified by statute; Scholzs excluded the RRA annuity from this figure.
- Current monthly income serves as the baseline for calculating disposable income under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(2), which in turn affects plan terms.
- Bankruptcy court approved the plan after excluding the RRA annuity from current monthly income; trustee objected and the BAP reversed, ruling there was no express exclusion for RRA income from current monthly income.
- The BAP reasoned that excluding RRA income from current monthly income would be impliedly required for projected disposable income, invoking 45 U.S.C. § 231m(a)’s anti-anticipation clause.
- This case reviews whether the BAP correctly held that RRA annuity income must be excluded from projected disposable income or whether it may be included for remand calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RRA annuity income is excluded from projected disposable income | Scholz | Scholz | RRA annuity must be included |
| Whether 45 U.S.C. § 231m(a) anti-anticipation clause bars inclusion | Scholz | Scholz | Clause does not bar inclusion |
| Whether the court should review the BAP decision now or remand for further fact-finding | Scholz | Scholz | Exercise of jurisdiction proper; remand for calculation on remand |
| What controlling standard governs interpretation of 'anticipated' for RRA in bankruptcy context | Scholz | Scholz | Trust-law meaning rejected; not anticipated under the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (Supreme Court, 1979) (anticipation defined in trust-law sense; premature payment barred)
- Hamilton v. Lanning, 130 S. Ct. 2464 (Supreme Court, 2010) (forward-looking approach to projected disposable income under bankruptcy)
- In re DeMarah, 62 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir., 1995) (jurisdictional approach in remand for calculation of amount to pay)
- Congrejo Invs., LLC v. Mann (In re Bender), 586 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir., 2009) (flexible jurisdictional approach in bankruptcy appeals)
- Saxman v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Saxman), 325 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir., 2003) (computational remand context for repayment calculations)
- Dawson v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. (In re Dawson), 390 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir., 2004) (central legal issue aids bankruptcy court on remand)