Supreme court changed the car allowance?

[ShooFly]

Hi... I'm waiting for my confirmation hearing and my lawyer told me that the supreme court changed the way cars are handled... specifically cars owned out right. I have a 10 year old paid-off car. He said that the courts took away a $400 credit (that I never knew I had) and that money would be re-directeed to my unsecureds. He suggested that I should look at getting a new vehicle so that the $400 would be going towards a better car and not my unsecureds.

Does anyone know specifics on this? Thanks in advance.

[RunningMan]

I had my 341 hearing a couple of weeks ago. My attorney had put in a "phantom car payment" that was a little more than $400 (almost $500) a month. The trustee disallowed it saying it was no longer allowed. I missed it it when I signed the paperwork or I would have questioned it. He also did not like us claiming our 18 year old daughter (living at home) as a dependent. As a result, my payment is going up $500 a month. I wish our attorney had suggested buying a new car before we filed. My truck has nearly 140,000 miles on it and it is going to be tough making it last 5 years.

[papie]

RunningMan- I wish my attorney would have suggested we buy a car before filing also. To anyone else out there reading this, I would highly suggest you talk to your attorney about your vehicles before you file. Or if you have already filed and suspect you'll be needing a vehicle in a few months, get started NOW.

We are 13 months into our plan and need a vehicle (transmission went out on an old vehicle and it has so many issues it's not worth replacing, has over 200k miles.) We can work it into our budget, know what kind of vehicle we need, and even know where we can go to get financed, and we also have a downpayment saved. The major hurdle is that we're waiting for trustee approval.....and I've been told it could take him 3 to 4 weeks to approve it. It is a major pain. I've been told by my attorney that the trustee will more than likely come back and tell us the specifics of what we can get.....age, mileage, etc. It's became a major pain in the ass going through the trustee for approval. Have to do what we have to do, I guess...

[RunningMan]

Good luck papie. I will probably be in the same position as you in a couple of years.

[ShooFly]

Is it possible to get any details on this?

[despritfreya]

Is it possible to get any details on this?

Shoofly,

There is a link to the Ransom decision (you can read the entire case) on the thread I started "US Supreme Court Decides Ransom v. FIA". It is posted in the bk & credit news forum and was recently responded to (last night) so you should be able to find it.

Des.

[ShooFly]

Shoofly,

There is a link to the Ransom decision (you can read the entire case) on the thread I started "US Supreme Court Decides Ransom v. FIA". It is posted in the bk & credit news forum and was recently responded to (last night) so you should be able to find it.

Des.

So why can't others respoond here? I noticed you started a debate thread about this topic 10 minutes after I started this thread. I was looking for answers from people who may have had with experience with this, not a legal document to read, thanks.

[ValleYum]

I don't think you will get many responses since this decision was just handed down about 3 weeks ago and not many people have actual experience with it yet.

[despritfreya]

So why can't others respoond here? I noticed you started a debate thread about this topic 10 minutes after I started this thread. I was looking for answers from people who may have had with experience with this, not a legal document to read, thanks.

Since the decision is what, less than a month old no one will be able to give you examples of the effect of the decision. That will take months and months. As to the "debate thread", since there are no cases that interpret the Supreme Court decision, I was looking for input from those who have read the decision and understand (or think they understand) the ramifications and the possibility that its ramifications are zilch in the context of a Chapter 13 due to the July Supreme Court decision. It is an intellectual exercise, nothing more, nothing less, and was posted as a direct response to at least 4 separate threads on this topic posted by folks such as yourself since the decision came out.

Now, you mention that you are not looking to read the decision. Might I ask why? You have asked what it means and if it effects your case. If you have not read it you should as it may answer some of your questions, or, like many USSC decision, may add more confusion.

Des.

[RunningMan]

Des,

My 341 hearing was on the 18th and this decision was on the 11th. Does that mean the phantom car payment my attorney tried to put into the plan would have been allowed if my hearing had been a week or so earlier?

[despritfreya]

Des,My 341 hearing was on the 18th and this decision was on the 11th. Does that mean the phantom car payment my attorney tried to put into the plan would have been allowed if my hearing had been a week or so earlier?

My guess, and it is purely a guess: Cases that are not 14 days post 341 could be caught with the implications of Ransom. I am positive that there will be no impact on cases that have moved past the deadline for the UST to file a POA and/or cases that have been discharged.

Only time will tell.

Des.