Today the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case of Baud v. Carroll, which raised the issue of the appropriate applicable commitment period for an above-median income debtor with no “projected disposable income.” The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held below that above-median income debtors with no projected disposable income must propose five year plans if the trustee or unsecured creditor objects to a shorter plan period. See 634 F.3d 327 (6th Cir. 2011). Attention will now turn to Flores v. Danielson, No. 11-55452 (9th Cir.), where the Ninth Circuit will consider whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hamilton v. Lanning, 130 S.Ct.2464 (2010), abrogated the Ninth’s Circuit prior ruling on the applicable commitment period in Kagenveama v. Maney, 541 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2008).
