NACBA has filed an amicus brief in Hamilton v. Lanning, where the Supreme Court will decide whether an above median income chapter 13 debtor's projected disposable income can be something other than the current monthly income minus the expenses permitted by section 1325(b)(3).  NACBA's brief argues that the court must follow the plain language of the statute and that the debtor could have avoided having two large severance payments affect her current monthly income in a variety of ways, including seeking an alternate current monthly income calculation period under section 101(10A)(A)(ii), deferring the filing of her bankruptcy petition, or arguing that her severance payments were not derived during the six months prior to the petition. Therefore there was no reason for the lower courts to depart from the statutory language by adopting a "forward looking approach" that disregarded the debtor's current monthly income. NACBA's brief also argues, in the alternative, that if the Court does determine that it can look at the debtor's current circumstances, it should make adjustments only in those items that have changed, and not jettison the formula for determining current monthly income and the exclusion of certain types of income such as benefits under the Social Security Act. Finally, the brief argues that, because the case before the court does not involve any disputes about the debtor's expenses, the Court should not rule on how expenses should be calculated

In four consolidated appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit upheld the use of an optional form addendum that increased a mortgage creditor’s reporting and accounting obligations in Chapter 13 cases, rejecting creditor’s argument that the addendum was preempted by RESPA and violated §1332(b)’s prohibition against modification of the rights of creditors.  In re Herrera, 2010 WL 144402 (B.A.P. 9th Cir., Jan. 5, 2010).  The creditors have filed a notice of appeal in the Ninth Circuit. NACBA assisted on debtors’ consolidated appellate brief.

In the cases of Sticka v. Applebaum, 2009 WL 5206899 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2009) and Morantz v. Torjesen, No. 08-1266 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2009), the Ninth Circuit BAP decided that state bankruptcy-only exemptions statutes were constitutional.  The Supreme Court recently denied cert. on a similar Fourth Circuit case, which held the West Virginia’s exemption scheme was constitutional. Sheehan v. Peveich, 574 F.3d 248 (4^th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 2010 WL 58768 (Jan. 11, 2010), The issue is still being litigated around the country including the current case of In re Tarbutton, No. 09-12746, in the bankruptcy court for the W.D. Mich.