"Stringent execution" may be the watch phrase for implementation of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA"). The bankruptcy bar has lived with BAPCPA for well over a year, and if one common thread arises in the case law, it is judges dissatisfaction with what may kindly be referred to as "drafting flaws." Many courts have highlighted these flaws-and other perceived inadequacies in BAPCPA-by ruthlessly enforcing the statute's plain language. This has already led to the enactment of one amendment by Congress, as well as criticism from some of its members. Whether further amendments will follow remains to be seen.
Judges sitting in the Eleventh Circuit are no strangers to the frustrations of BAPCPA, as the case law demonstrates. Whether they expressed their vexation in rhyme5 or by more conventional means, they have created a wealth of material for this year's Article, which will review significant developments in Eleventh Circuit bankruptcy law from 2006. Although many of those developments involve BAPCPAparticularly the credit counseling requirement and the infamous hanging paragraph in § 1325(a)--there is other ground to cove as well.
Walker, James D. Jr. and Nickell, Amber
Mercer Law Review: Vol. 58:
4, Article 4.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol58/iss4/4