UNITED
STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
COVINGTON
DIVISION
IN RE:
CHRISTOPHER A
CALDWELL and
LISA M CALDWELL CASE
NO. 09-21086
DEBTORS
ORDER
This
matter having come before the court on Debtors’ Objection to Proof of Claim
(DOC 26), and the matter having been heard on December 8, 2009, and the court
having taken the matter under submission, the court hereby issues this order.
This matter is submitted to the court on
the issue of whether Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43 (2002) is still
controlling law after the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection
Act of 2005. The parties agree that if Young is still controlling law
that debtors’ objection must be overruled, and they agree that if Young
is no longer controlling law that debtors’ objection must be sustained.
“The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and
Consumer Protection Act of 2005 added a new unnumbered paragraph at the end of
section 507(a)(8). The new paragraph provides for the
suspension of otherwise applicable time periods specified in the various
subparagraphs of section 507(a)(8).” 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 507.10[9] (15th ed. Rev.).
“The final paragraph after section 507(a)(8)(G) was
added by the 2005 Act which tolls the suspension of time periods during
requests for hearing and prior bankruptcy cases.” Id. at ¶ 507.LH[5]. “The legislative history of the section notes
that the unnumbered paragraph was intended to amend § 507(a)(8) to codify the Supreme Court’s ruling in Young v.
United States, 535 U.S. 43 (2002). H. Rept. No. 109-31, Part 1, p. 101
(April 28, 2005).” In re Steen, 2009 WL 982595 (Bankr. D.Or. 2009).
The court holds that the Bankruptcy Abuse
Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 does
not overrule Young; rather, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer
Protection Act of 2005 codifies Young. For that reason, Debtors’
Objection to Proof of Claim (DOC 26) is hereby OVERRULED.
Copies to:
Debtors
David
A. Kruer, Esq.
Christopher
J. Williamson, Esq.
Beverly
M. Burden