In re: Robert Scholz & Carolyn Scholz, No. 11-60023 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDebtors filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 13. At issue was whether debtors could exclude an annuity debtor received under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (RRA), 45 U.S.C. 451m(a), when calculating their "projected disposable income," which determined the amount they must repay creditors to qualify for Chapter 13 relief. The court concluded that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's decision was reviewable. Applying a trust law understanding of the statute pursuant to Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, the court held that the RRA's anti-anticipation clause, which provided that the payment of an annuity shall not be "anticipated," referred to premature receipt of payment, and thus did not preclude the inclusion of the RRA annuity payments in Chapter 13 debtors' projected disposable income.
Court Description: Reversing a decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the panel held that debtors could not exclude a Railroad Retirement Act annuity when calculating their “projected disposable income,” which determined the amount they were required to repay creditors to qualify for chapter 13 relief. The panel held that even though the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s decision remanded the case to the bankruptcy court and therefore was not final as a technical matter, the decision was reviewable because judicial efficiency weighed in favor of the assertion of appellate jurisdiction, and the panel’s resolution of the issue would not interfere with the bankruptcy court’s fact-finding role. Applying a trust law understanding of the statute pursuant to Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (1979), the panel held that the Railroad Retirement Act’s anti-anticipation T clause, which provides that the payment of an annuity shall not be “anticipated,” refers to premature receipt of payment, and thus does not preclude the inclusion of Railroad Retirement Act annuity payments in chapter 13 debtors’ projected disposable income.
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.