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