In Re Pajot

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a portion of the claim representing negative equity may be bifurcated because it is not a purchase money security interest
• holding that the transformational rule did not apply
• rejecting application of other state statutes to define “price” because none were enacted with purpose of defining purchase-money obligation under U.C.C.
• “In enacting the hanging paragraph, Congress [sought] to ensure that debtors could not load up on vehicle-secured debt pre-petition only to cram it down to the collateral value in bankruptcy”
• “the fact that negative equity payoff is neither necessary nor compelled ‘cuts against’ its inclusion with the list of expenses contained in Official Comment 3. This is further reinforced by the fact that negative equity is of a different type and magnitude from the other listed items.”
• “The lender could just as easily pay off the debtor’s student loans and roll that amount into a secured claim on the second vehicle. The only possible nexus is that the purpose of the first debt was to acquire a vehicle, and the second debt is also to acquire a vehicle.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).