In re Perkins
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
2013 WL 5863732 (2013)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Randy and Geneva Perkins (debtors) were a cattle farmer and a secretary, respectively. Diamond Feeders, LLC paid Randy to care daily for 262 cattle on Randy’s leased land, where Randy also cared for 37 of his own cattle. Cattle-related income was more than half of the Perkinses’ gross income on their 2010 and 2011 tax returns. The Perkinses filed for Chapter 12 bankruptcy in 2013. Farm Credit Mid-America, PCA (Farm Credit) (creditor) filed proofs of claim totaling $208,578.02 based on loans from Farm Credit secured by the Perkinses’ real property, farm equipment, and cattle. The Perkinses’ Chapter 12 plan proposed making $12,970.02 semiannual payments on Farm Credit’s claim—a 10-year amortization of the claim at 4.5 percent interest—followed by a roughly $124,000 balloon payment in 2018. The plan maintained Farm Credit’s liens on the Perkinses’ property during the plan but provided no additional security. The Perkinses proposed funding their plan with their cattle-related income, their Social Security benefits, and Geneva’s secretarial income. Although the Perkinses proposed making $22,454.25 semiannual payments to the Chapter 12 trustee, the Perkinses’ finances suggested possible inability to make those payments and still pay their other expenses. Farm Credit objected to the Perkinses’ plan, arguing that they were not family farmers eligible for Chapter 12. Farm Credit further asserted that the Perkinses’ plan was unconfirmable because the plan did not provide Farm Credit with its claim’s present value.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stair, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.