Bankruptcy Chapters

 

When I sat down to write this month’s column for the Suffolk Lawyer, I was prepared to discuss several recent cases interpreting the means test.  However, I could not get over the great number of splits of authority over almost every single issue.

 

The Means Test is the focal point of the drastic revisions that Congress made to the Bankruptcy Code in 2005.  That was when the legislature thought it was necessary to tighten the existing bankruptcy law and make it more difficult for consumers to eliminate debt, especially for those who Congress thought could afford to pay something to their creditors.

 

Unfortunately for bench and bar, the statutory wording of the Code provisions underlying the means test is anything but clear and unambiguous.

 

 

Congress Failed in Drafting a Clear-Cut Means Test Statute

 

Ironically, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005  (“BAPCPA”) was intended “to improve bankruptcy law and practice by restoring personal responsibility and integrity in the bankruptcy system and ensure that the system is fair for both debtors and creditors.”

 

Yet, when the new law was enacted in 2005, Bankruptcy scholars across the land declared that so many of the provisions of BAPCPA were so poorly worded that  bankruptcy court judges would be perpetually perplexed as they tried to interpret them.  They were right.  The relatively new statute contains typos, sloppy choices of words, hanging paragraphs, and inconsistencies. 

 

We now have bankruptcy courts, U.S. District Courts, and U.S