Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Nobelman v. American Savings Bank

United States Supreme Court
508 U.S. 324 (1993)


Facts

Leonard and Harriet Nobelman (plaintiffs) purchased their home in Texas with a $68,250 loan from American Savings Bank (American Savings) (defendant). The loan was evidenced by an adjustable-rate note and its payment secured by the mortgaged property. The Nobelmans fell behind in their payments and filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. At the time of the filing, they owed $71,335 to American Savings but the property was valued at only $23,500. The Nobelmans proposed a plan under which they would make mortgage payments to American Savings only up to the fair market value of the residence. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 506(a), the Nobelmans argued that the bank debt was secured only to the amount of $23,500; the difference between that and the balance of the loan obligation was alleged to be an unsecured claim. Under the Nobelmans’ proposed plan, unsecured claimants would recover nothing. American Savings and the Chapter 13 trustee (defendant) opposed the Nobelmans’ proposal. The bankruptcy court withheld confirmation of the Nobelmans’ plan. The district court and court of appeals affirmed. The Nobelmans petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Stevens, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.