United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
489 U.S. 235 (1989)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
In 1984 Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. (Ron Pair) (defendant) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The United States government (plaintiff) filed a prepetition claim of over $52,000 representing unpaid taxes, penalties, and postpetition interest, and a tax lien was placed on Ron Pair’s property. In 1985 Ron Pair paid off the government’s prepetition claim, except for the postpetition interest because the property that secured the claim was worth more than the principal debt Ron Pair owed, meaning the claim was oversecured. The government objected, arguing that it was entitled to the postpetition interest under § 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan overruled the objection. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court, holding that according to the plain language of § 506(b), the government was entitled to the postpetition interest. Ron Pair appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the district court. The court of appeals looked at the law before the Bankruptcy Code was enacted, which allowed postpetition interest on an oversecured claim only if a lien was consensual, and found that under this standard the government was not entitled to the postpetition interest, because the lien that had been placed on Ron Pair’s property was involuntary. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)
Dissent (O’Connor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 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.