Philp Connor v. Krispen Carroll, No. 12-1139 (6th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0072n.06 No. 12-1139 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PHILIP S. CONNOR AND CAROLYN H. CONNOR, Debtors-Appellees, v. KRISPEN S. CARROLL, Trustee-Appellant. FILED Jan 15, 2013 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Before: NORRIS, GIBBONS and DONALD, Circuit Judges. JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. The debtors in this case, Philip S. Connor and Carolyn H. Connor, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court determined that proceeds from settlement of a personal injury lawsuit that was pending at the time the Connors filed their petition should be characterized as disposable income pursuant to 11 U.S.C. ยง 1325(b). The district court subsequently reversed that determination and this appeal followed. A district court s determination of whether funds should be considered disposable income is a conclusion of law, which we review de novo. See Hamilton v. Lanning (In re Lanning), 545 F.3d 1269, 1274 (10th Cir. 2008), aff d 130 S. Ct. 2464 (2010). The district court held that the personal injury proceeds in this case were neither known nor virtually certain at the time of -1- No. 12-1139 Philip S. Connor, et al. v. Krispen S. Carroll confirmation of the plan and that therefore they could not be considered to be disposable income in the aftermath of the Supreme Court s decision in Lanning, 130 S. Ct. 2464. Because the district court thoroughly articulated its reasoning for reversing the bankruptcy court on the record presented in this case, a detailed written opinion from this Court would be unnecessarily duplicative.1 We therefore AFFIRM the Order issued January 23, 2012, by the Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr., on the basis of the reasoning contained in that order. 1 At oral argument, the trustee appeared to argue that the amount of personal injury proceeds were, in fact, known at the time of confirmation. However, this contention lacks evidentiary support in the record on appeal. -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.
