Henry Hildebrand, III v. Ralph Kimbro, Jr., et al, No. 08-5871 (6th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 11a0086n.06 No. 08-5871 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT In re: RALPH HARTFORD KIMBRO, JR.; PATRICIA ANN KIMBRO, ) ) ) Debtors. ) __________________________________________) ) HENRY E. HILDEBRAND, III, ) Standing Trustee for Chapter 13, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) RALPH HARTFORD KIMBRO, JR.; ) PATRICIA ANN KIMBRO, ) ) Appellees. ) __________________________________________) FILED Feb 08, 2011 LEONARD GREEN, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE SIXTH CIRCUIT BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OPINION Before: MOORE and WHITE, Circuit Judges, and OLIVER, District Judge.* PER CURIAM. This case squarely presents a question of statutory interpretation that had split courts nationwide and has recently been resolved by the United States Supreme Court: whether, under a provision of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), an above-median-income debtor calculating his or her projected disposable income for purposes of a Chapter 13 plan confirmation may, when using Chapter 7 s means test, deduct for a vehicle s ownership expense even when the debtor owns the vehicle outright and is no longer * The Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. making payments on it. This circuit s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) concluded that abovemedian-income debtors may claim such an expense without regard to whether they are still making payments or they own their vehicle free and clear. In re Kimbro, 389 B.R. 518 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008). The dissenting judge would have held that a vehicle ownership expense may only be claimed if a debtor is in fact incurring such an expense. Id. at 532 (Fulton, J., dissenting). The Supreme Court resolved the circuit dispute against the interpretation favored by the BAP. Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N.A., 131 S. Ct. 716, 79 USLW 4020 (2011). We REVERSE and REMAND to the BAP for reconsideration in light of Ransom. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
