Associates Commercial Corp. v. Rash
520 U.S. 953, 1997 U.S. LEXIS 3688, 138 L. Ed. 2d 148 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under § 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, when a debtor in a Chapter 13 plan exercises the 'cram down' option under § 1325(a)(5)(B) to retain and use collateral over a creditor's objection, the value of that collateral is its replacement value, not its foreclosure value. Replacement value is the price a willing buyer in the debtor's situation would pay to obtain a like asset from a willing seller for the same proposed use.
Facts:
- In 1989, Elray Rash purchased a Kenworth tractor truck for $73,700 to use in his freight-hauling business.
- Rash financed the purchase, pledging the truck as collateral on the unpaid balance of the loan.
- The loan and the lien on the truck were subsequently assigned to Associates Commercial Corporation (ACC).
- In March 1992, the Rashes still owed $41,171 to ACC on the truck loan.
- The Rashes intended to continue using the truck in their freight-hauling business after filing for bankruptcy.
Procedural Posture:
- Elray and Jean Rash filed a joint petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
- The Rashes' plan invoked the 'cram down' option to retain their truck, valuing it at $28,500.
- ACC, the secured creditor, objected to the plan, asserting its secured claim was $41,171 and moved to lift the automatic stay to repossess the truck.
- The Bankruptcy Court, as the court of first instance, held an evidentiary hearing and valued the truck at $31,875, representing its net foreclosure value, and confirmed the plan.
- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision.
- A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit initially reversed the District Court.
- On rehearing en banc, the full Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court, upholding the foreclosure-value standard.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals on the proper valuation standard.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under § 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, when a Chapter 13 debtor retains and uses collateral through the 'cram down' provision of § 1325(a)(5)(B), should the collateral be valued at what the creditor would receive from a foreclosure sale or at the cost the debtor would incur to replace the collateral?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
No. When a debtor exercises the cram down option to retain and use collateral, the collateral must be valued at its replacement value, not its foreclosure value. The plain language of § 506(a) states that value 'shall be determined in light of the purpose of the valuation and of the proposed disposition or use of such property.' In a cram down, the debtor's 'proposed disposition or use' is retention and use, not surrender and foreclosure. Therefore, the valuation must reflect the economic reality of that choice, which is the cost the debtor would incur to replace the asset to continue that use. This standard accounts for the benefit the debtor receives from retaining the property and the dual risks of default and depreciation the creditor bears, whereas a foreclosure-value standard ignores the debtor's actual choice to keep the property.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The collateral should be valued from the creditor's perspective, which means using the foreclosure value. The first sentence of § 506(a) focuses on the 'creditor's interest,' which is the right to repossess and sell the collateral. The purpose of the valuation in a cram down is to place the creditor in the same economic position as if it had exercised its foreclosure rights. Using a replacement-value standard provides a windfall to the secured creditor at the expense of unsecured creditors. Concerns about risk to the creditor are adequately addressed by other Code provisions, such as the requirement for present value payments (interest) and the ability to demand 'adequate protection' against depreciation.
Analysis:
This decision resolved a significant circuit split, establishing a uniform national standard for collateral valuation in Chapter 13 cram down cases. By prioritizing the 'proposed disposition or use' language in § 506(a), the Court created a debtor-action-dependent valuation model. The ruling generally favors secured creditors, as replacement value is typically higher than foreclosure value, thus increasing the amount they must be paid through the plan. Consequently, this raises the bar for debtors seeking to reorganize, as they must commit to larger payments to retain essential assets like vehicles or equipment, potentially making successful Chapter 13 plans more difficult to confirm and complete.
