Lee M. Till, et Ux. v. SCS Credit Corporation (541 U.S. 465)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 17, 2004 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 541 U.S. 465 · 124 S. Ct. 1951
- Decided
- May 17, 2004
- Term
- October Term 2003
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Stevens
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Stevens announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join. To qualify for court approval under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, an individual debtor’s proposed debt adjustment plan must accommodate each allowed, secured creditor in one of three ways: (1) by obtaining the creditor’s acceptance of the plan; (2) by surrendering the property securing the claim; or (3) by providing the creditor both a lien securing the claim and a promise of future property distributions (such as deferred cash payments) whose total “value, as of the effective date of the plan, ... is not less than the allowed amount of such claim.” The third alternative is commonly known as the “cramdown option” because it may be enforced over a claim holder’s objection. Associates Commercial Corp. v. Rash, 520 U. S. 953, 957 (1997). Plans that invoke the cramdown power often provide for installment payments over a period of years rather than a single payment. In such circumstances, the amount of each installment must be calibrated to ensure that, over time, the creditor receives disbursements whose total present value equals or exceeds that of the allowed claim. The proceedings in this case that led to our grant of certiorari identified four different methods of determining the appropriate method with which to perform that…
Excerpt of a 36,224-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.