AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number

IN RE DECAMP.

Bankruptcy Reform Act — Reaffirmation — Best Interest of Debtor — Necessary for Preservation of Collateral

PASKAY, Bankruptcy Judge.

Reaffirmation of an obligation was denied as not being in the best interests of the debtors pursuant to Section 524(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. The reaffirmation of the loan was not necessary for the preservation of the automobile, but more importantly, the effect would be to expose these debtors to a non-dischargeable debt should they default. See Sec. 524(c) at ¶ 9241.

[ Opinion of the Court]

THIS CAUSE came on for a duly scheduled hearing called pursuant to Sec. 524(d) of the Code. At said hearing, the Debtors submitted for approval a reaffirmation agreement entered into with Ford Motor Credit Company. The Court heard the statement of counsel for the Debtors, considered the record and finds that the Debtors seek to obtain an approval of an agreement to reaffirm an obligation owed by them to the Ford Motor Credit Company, a loan which is secured by a 1978 Ford Granada. The record further reveals that the Debtors are current in their monthly payments and they only want to reaffirm this obligation in order to assure that they will not lose their automobile.

Considering the foregoing, this Court is satisfied that the reaffirmation of this obligation would not be in the best interest of the Debtors which is a condition precedent to the approval of any reaffirmation agreement by virtue of Sec. 524(c)(2)(ii), for the following reasons:

The reaffirmation of this obligation is not necessary for the preservation of the automobile, for as long as the Debtors are current on their contractual obligation, Ford Motor Credit Company, the lienholder, cannot deprive the Debtors of the use of the automobile. Most importantly, the effect of reaffirmation would be to saddle these Debtors with the potential exposure of a non-dischargeable and reaffirmed unsecured obligation in the event that they default on the loan, their automobile is repossessed and the lienholder obtains an in personam deficiency judgment.

In light of the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that the reaffirmation agreement cannot be approved.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN RE DECAMP, (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1980)
(Apr 4, 1980)