U.S. Supreme Court

Kagan’s First Opinion Rejects Consumer's Bankruptcy Argument; Scalia Is Dissenter

Justice Elena Kagan ruled against a consumer seeking to shield some income from creditors in her first decision for the U.S. Supreme Court.

There was only one dissenter: Justice Antonin Scalia, according to the Associated Press, Bloomberg News and SCOTUSblog.

Kagan wrote that debtor Jason Ransom can’t shield $471 in monthly income from creditors by claiming an allowance for a Toyota Camry he owns outright.

Ransom was paying a portion of his income to creditors under the bankruptcy provisions of Chapter 13. A formula allows him to deduct car-ownership costs and other expenses from his monthly income, with the rest representing his disposable income available to reimburse creditors. A standardized table prepared by the Internal Revenue Service had set $471 as the ownership costs of a first car.

Kagan said Ransom can’t claim the $471 as an expense under a provision that says a debtor may claim “applicable” expense amounts. Under a contrary reading, Ransom could purchase a “junkyard car” and claim the allowance, she wrote.

Scalia claims the majority gives a “strained interpretation” to the law and says the junkyard car hypothetical can be matched with this one: Under the court’s new interpretation, a debtor could buy a junkyard car for a song and a $10 promissory note, payable over several years, that would entitle him to the allowance.

The decision (PDF) is Ransom v. FIA Card Services.

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy and the ABA Code of Conduct.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.