Arizona Bank v. Carroll (In re Carroll)
In Re Michael Harris CARROLL and Josie Carroll, Debtors. the ARIZONA BANK, Appellant, v. Michael Harris CARROLL and Josie Carroll, Appellees
Opinion
OPINION HERBERT KATZ, Bankruptcy Judge:
Before KATZ, HUGHES and LASA-ROW, Bankruptcy Judges.
Under the facts in this case the Arizona Bank held a valid security interest in a pickup truck owned by the debtors herein and valued at $2,400.00. In the court below the debtors applied for a redemption of the truck in installment payments. On January 1, 1981, Judge Maggiore ordered that a redemption under 11 U.S.C. § 722 can be made in installment payments. 7 B.R. 907 (Bkrtcy.).
11 U.S.C. § 722 provides:
“An individual debtor may, whether or not the debtor has waived the right to redeem under this section, redeem tangible personal property intended primarily for personal, family, or household use, from a lien securing a dischargeable consumer debt, if such property is exempted under Section 522 of this title or has been abandoned under § 554 of this title, by paying the holder of such lien the amount of the allowed secured claim of such holder that is secured by such lien.”
(Emphasis added).
After reviewing Section 722 and the applicable legislative history this court finds that a redemption must be made through a lump sum payment. See also In re Zimmerman, 4 B.R. 739 , 2 C.B.C.2d 650 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.1980). To hold otherwise would frustrate the clear meaning of the section.
REVERSED.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Schweitzer (In re Schweitzer)
- In re Lair
- Dennis v. W.S. Badcock Corp. (In re Dennis)
- Thomas Howard Bell and Margaret Louise Bell, Debtors. General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Thomas Howard Bell and Margaret Louise Bell
- Geico Financial Services, Inc. v. Cordes (In re Cordes)
- In re Chavarria
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.