PERSONAL VS. BUSINESS USE FOR 910 CAR CLAIMS
In re Lowder, Case No. 05-44802
August 2006, Judge Karlin

Creditor objected to confirmation as debtor sought to avoid the 910 car loan restriction by arguing that she used the car to get to and from work and, therefore, not “personal”.  Debtor contended that Toyota is entitled to no interest. Creditor sought the Till rate.  Judge Karlin restated her position from Vega. Additionally, she found that these facts supported “personal” use and not a “business” use. Further, Till applies, in order to provide the creditor with the present value of its claim.

“PERSONAL USE” NOT THE SAME AS “PERSONAL, FAMILY OR
HOUSEHOLD”
In re Humphrey, Case No. 06-20783
October 2006, Judge Berger

Debtors attempted to cram down a 910 motor vehicle. The Court determined that “personal use” is not the same as “personal, family or household use” used elsewhere in the code. A vehicle acquired for the debtor’s spouse is not subject to 1325(a)(5)(B) and 506 applies. Cramdown allowed.

CAR PURCHASED FOR COMMON LAW WIFE IS PERSONAL, NOT BUSINESS
In re Bolze, Case No. 06-40036
August 2006, Judge Karlin

Creditor objected to plan that sought to escape the 910 hanging paragraph. The Court restated the rules established in Vega and Lowder. Debtor attempted to distinguish amongst “household”, “family” or “personal”. Basically, the Court said “personal” is not “business” and vice versa. Therefore, a car purchased for Mr. Bolze’s common law wife was “personal”.