Mean's Test:
Schultz v. U.S., No. 07-5618
(U.S.
6th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 02, 2008)
In an action against the government challenging the
constitutionality of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and
Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), and alleging that
it is not a "uniform law" since median-income calculations
under the act are based in part on the state and county
where the debtor is located resulting in different relief,
summary judgment and dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is
affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs have standing to challenge the
mean income calculations under Chapter 13 and Chapter 7
since the same calculation is used under both schemes; 2)
BAPCPA is a uniform law since Congress is allowed to
distinguish among classes of debtors and to treat them
differently through incorporation of varying state laws; 3)
employing federal income standards does not enable
preferential treatment of debtors in some states over those
of another; and 4) the heightened scrutiny standard applied
in United States v. Ptasynski, 462 U.S. 74 (1983), is not
dispositive in the area of bankruptcy.
The district court granted the
Government’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the
Schultzes’ complaint. For the following reasons, we
AFFIRM the judgment of
the district court.
Read more...
BACK TO BANKRUPTCY CASE LAW
Index
OPINION
SUMMARIES ARCHIVE FindLaw archives case law summaries of
opinion issued since September 2000 by the U.S. Supreme Court,
all thirteen Federal Circuit Courts, the California Supreme
Court, the California Appellate Courts, and the New York Court
of Appeals.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casesummary/index.html
