Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-2217 Petro v. Mishler

By: dmc-admin//January 14, 2002//

01-2217 Petro v. Mishler

By: dmc-admin//January 14, 2002//

Listen to this article

“The language of section 1325(a) sets forth the specific and limited universe of requirements that must be met by a debtor in his or her proposed Chapter 13 plan. If those requirements are met, and, as here, the Trustee fails to object to the plan pursuant section 1325(b), the statute states that the plan ‘shall’ be approved. The Supreme Court has consistently held that Congress’ use of the word ‘shall’ acts as a command to federal courts. See, e.g., Anderson v. Yungkau, 329 U.S. 482 (1947) (‘shall’ is the ‘language of command’). Furthermore, by creating a finite list of six affirmative requirements necessary for a plan’s confirmation, we assume that Congress intended to exclude other requisites from being grafted onto section 1325(a). See In the Matter of Aberegg, 961 F.2d 1307, 1308 (7th Cir. 1992) (‘The bankruptcy court must confirm the Chapter 13 plan if it meets the six requirements of section 1325(a).’). Absent exceptional circumstances, to permit a bankruptcy court to exercise undefined equitable powers to supplement the requirements of 1325(a) would alter that section beyond the scope that Congress intended, transforming the finite list of requirements a debtor must meet to receive bankruptcy protection into a potentially infinite list.”

Reversed and remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Miller, J., Flaum, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests