Philip S. Connor and Carolyn H. Connor v. KRISPEN S. CARROLL, Trustee-Appellant. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT…

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0072n.06
No. 12-1139
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
PHILIP S. CONNOR AND CAROLYN H.
CONNOR,
Debtors-Appellees,
v.
KRISPEN S. CARROLL,
Trustee-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Before: NORRIS, GIBBONS and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. The debtors in this case, Philip S. Connor and
Carolyn H. Connor, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy
Code. The bankruptcy court determined that proceeds from settlement of a personal injury lawsuit
that was pending at the time the Connors filed their petition should be characterized as “disposable
income” pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b). The district court subsequently reversed that
determination and this appeal followed.
A district court’s determination of whether funds should be considered “disposable income”
is a conclusion of law, which we review de novo. See Hamilton v. Lanning (In re Lanning), 545
F.3d 1269, 1274 (10th Cir. 2008), aff’d 130 S. Ct. 2464 (2010). The district court held that the
personal injury proceeds in this case were neither known nor virtually certain at the time of
-1-

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 12-1139
Philip S. Connor, et al. v. Krispen S. Carroll
confirmation of the plan and that therefore they could not be considered to be disposable income in
the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lanning, 130 S. Ct. 2464. Because the district
court thoroughly articulated its reasoning for reversing the bankruptcy court on the record presented
in this case, a detailed written opinion from this Court would be unnecessarily duplicative. We1
therefore AFFIRM the Order issued January 23, 2012, by the Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr., on
the basis of the reasoning contained in that order.
At oral argument, the trustee appeared to argue that the amount of personal injury proceeds1
were, in fact, known at the time of confirmation. However, this contention lacks evidentiary support
in the record on appeal.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --