<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Lawyers USA Online &#187; Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/tag/bankruptcy-abuse-prevention-and-consumer-protection-act/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com</link>
	<description>Your Business Partner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 20:39:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Chapter 13 plan satisfied ‘good faith’ standard&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/01/chapter-13-plan-satisfied-good-faith-standard/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/01/chapter-13-plan-satisfied-good-faith-standard/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:15:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CHAPTER 13]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92171</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act prohibited the consideration of debtors’ Social Security income in determining whether their Chapter 13 plan was proposed in good faith, the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals has ruled in affirming judgment.</p> <p>The case involved a husband and wife who are “above median” <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/01/chapter-13-plan-satisfied-good-faith-standard/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/01/chapter-13-plan-satisfied-good-faith-standard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chapter 11 debtors subject to ‘absolute priority rule’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/18/chapter-11-debtors-subject-to-absolute-priority-rule/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/18/chapter-11-debtors-subject-to-absolute-priority-rule/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:53:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[This Month's Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[absolute priority rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 11]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=90690</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code did not exempt individual Chapter 11 debtors from the application of the absolute priority rule, the 10th Circuit has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>The absolute priority rule bars junior claimants, including debtors, from retaining any interest in property when a dissenting class of <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/18/chapter-11-debtors-subject-to-absolute-priority-rule/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/18/chapter-11-debtors-subject-to-absolute-priority-rule/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Divorce obligation can’t be discharged in bankruptcy&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/02/divorce-obligation-cant-be-discharged-in-bankruptcy/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/02/divorce-obligation-cant-be-discharged-in-bankruptcy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:23:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BAPCPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 7]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Bank]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=90319</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A divorced man’s obligation to pay off a marital debt in the form of a line of credit was not discharged in his bankruptcy case, the Missouri Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>At the time of the divorce, the parties owed $18,400 on a U.S. Bank line <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/02/divorce-obligation-cant-be-discharged-in-bankruptcy/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/02/divorce-obligation-cant-be-discharged-in-bankruptcy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chapter 7 case dismissed for ‘abuse’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/17/chapter-7-case-dismissed-for-abuse/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/17/chapter-7-case-dismissed-for-abuse/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:12:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 7]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[means test]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=89954</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Chapter 7 debtors could have their case dismissed based on a finding that they “abused” the process by attempting to retain certain luxury items they could have sold to help satisfy their debts, the 11th Circuit has ruled in affirming judgment.</p> <p>The debtors are married. After they filed for Chapter <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/17/chapter-7-case-dismissed-for-abuse/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/17/chapter-7-case-dismissed-for-abuse/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Divorce obligation wasn’t discharged in bankruptcy&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/11/divorce-obligation-wasnt-discharged-in-bankruptcy/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/11/divorce-obligation-wasnt-discharged-in-bankruptcy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:11:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 7]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=89847</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A divorced woman’s obligation to pay 50 percent of her ex-husband’s federal income taxes was not discharged in her Chapter 7 case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>The parties divorced in 2007. The divorce decree required the wife to pay 50 percent of the husband’s <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/11/divorce-obligation-wasnt-discharged-in-bankruptcy/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/11/divorce-obligation-wasnt-discharged-in-bankruptcy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Debtor’s kids didn’t count as full ‘household’ members&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/07/13/debtors-kids-didnt-count-as-full-household-members/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/07/13/debtors-kids-didnt-count-as-full-household-members/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:33:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CHAPTER 13]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=85990</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A debtor could not count each of her children and step-children as full members of her “household” when calculating her disposable income under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, the 4th Circuit has ruled.</p> <p>Under the Act, the calculation of a Chapter 13 debtor’s projected disposable income takes <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/07/13/debtors-kids-didnt-count-as-full-household-members/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/07/13/debtors-kids-didnt-count-as-full-household-members/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Absolute priority’ survived bankruptcy reform&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/06/21/absolute-priority-survived-bankruptcy-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/06/21/absolute-priority-survived-bankruptcy-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:08:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[This Month's Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bankruptcy reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cram down]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=85389</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The latest reform of the Bankruptcy Code did not eliminate the long-standing rule protecting dissenting creditors when there’s a “cram down” under the Chapter 11 plan of an individual debtor in possession, the 4th Circuit has ruled in affirming judgment.</p> <p>The so-called “absolute priority rule” predates the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/06/21/absolute-priority-survived-bankruptcy-reform/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/06/21/absolute-priority-survived-bankruptcy-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Debtor understated projected disposable income&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/03/09/debtor-understated-projected-disposable-income/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/03/09/debtor-understated-projected-disposable-income/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:01:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CHAPTER 13]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/03/09/debtor-understated-projected-disposable-income/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A Chapter 13 debtor’s projected disposable income should not have been reduced by monthly installment payments that she in fact would not be making, the 4th Circuit has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>The debtor listed two all-terrain vehicles as personal property in her bankruptcy. She was obligated to make monthly <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/03/09/debtor-understated-projected-disposable-income/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/03/09/debtor-understated-projected-disposable-income/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bankruptcy filings down in 2011&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/02/09/bankruptcy-filings-down-in-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/02/09/bankruptcy-filings-down-in-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:09:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/02/09/bankruptcy-filings-down-in-2011/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-11966" title="bankruptcy3" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files//srv/www/lwusa/releases/20091210164057/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files//2009/12/bankruptcy3.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="150" />WASHINGTON – The number of new bankruptcy filings fell during the 2011 calendar year.</p> <p>Though quarterly data released in November showed the first drop in filings since the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 took effect, the latest <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/02/09/bankruptcy-filings-down-in-2011/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/02/09/bankruptcy-filings-down-in-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bankruptcy filings fall for first time since abuse act of 2005&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/11/16/bankruptcy-filings-fall-for-first-time-in-six-years/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/11/16/bankruptcy-filings-fall-for-first-time-in-six-years/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:47:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bankruptcy filings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/11/16/bankruptcy-filings-fall-for-first-time-in-six-years/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-77067" title="market-stethescope" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files//2011/02/market-stethescope.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />WASHINGTON – The number of bankruptcy cases filed in fiscal 2011, the 12-month period that ended in September, dropped 8 percent over the year before – the first decline since the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 took <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/11/16/bankruptcy-filings-fall-for-first-time-in-six-years/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/11/16/bankruptcy-filings-fall-for-first-time-in-six-years/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
