Capital One Auto Finance v. Osborn, 515 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2008): Surrendering Proper Interpretation of the “Hanging Paragraph” to Allow an Unsecured Deficiency Claim Following Surrender of a 910-Vehicle in Chapter 13—Further Evidence of the Need for Congressional Reform

[EDITOR’S NOTE: From time to time, the Bulletin will publish “white papers.”  These papers come from a number of student sources; they could be seminar papers, class papers, or case notes that have not yet been selected for publication.  The Bulletin‘s goal in publishing these materials is to provide practitioners with the background research that was done for the paper.  In other words, we hope to create a depository of research that was done for different purposes.  We hope that readers of the Bulletin will find these papers useful and interesting.

These papers have not undergone any substantial editing by the staff prior to publication.

There is no citation format for our white papers.  It is not our intention that they be cited.  We envision our white papers solely as a starting point from which practitioners and others can launch their own research.

This paper was a case note submitted to satisfy a candidate member’s writing requirement. It has not yet been selected for publication in the print journal.

The following is a summary of the article.  To read the full article, one must follow the (.pdf) hyperlink.]

In Capital One Auto Finance v. Osborn, the Eighth Circuit joined the growing list of circuit courts to decide that an undersecured creditor is allowed an unsecured deficiency claim after a Chapter 13 debtor surrenders a vehicle purchased within 910 days of filing to the creditor.  Prior decisions had allowed the debtor to surrender the vehicle in full satisfaction of the debt owed.  The difference in the result comes from two different plain meaning readings of the “hanging paragraph”—a provision added to the Bankruptcy Code through the passage of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.  This Note analyzes both positions’ reasoning and concludes that the Eighth Circuit, while coming to the likely intended result of Congress, used an incorrect interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code.  A true plain meaning reading of the “hanging paragraph” should result in surrender in full satisfaction.

Download Full Article (.pdf)

This entry was posted in White Papers. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*