In re Penrod
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
611 F.3d 1158 (2010)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Marlene Penrod (debtor) purchased a car from a dealership in California. The car’s price was $25,600. During the transaction, Penrod traded in an older vehicle with a negative equity—the amount that Penrod owed that exceeded the value of the vehicle—of $7,000. Penrod took out a loan of approximately $31,700, including the negative equity, to purchase the car. The dealership assigned the loan to AmeriCredit Financial Services (AmeriCredit) (creditor), which retained a security interest in the car. Penrod filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy 523 days after purchasing the car. Penrod still owed AmeriCredit over $25,000, including the negative equity. Penrod proposed to bifurcate AmeriCredit’s claim into secured and unsecured portions. AmeriCredit opposed the bifurcation, arguing that it had a purchase-money security interest in the entire amount of the loan, including the negative equity. Under the hanging paragraph of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(9), a debtor was prohibited from bifurcating a secured creditor’s claim if the creditor had a purchase-money security interest in a vehicle purchased within 910 days of the debtor’s filing for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court held that AmeriCredit had a purchase-money security interest in the portion of the loan that reflected the remaining balance on the car’s purchase price, but not in the portion that reflected the negative equity of the trade-in vehicle. The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed the bankruptcy court. AmeriCredit appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mills, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.