On August 15, 2022, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals restored its precedent In re Hammons notice, which discusses remedies for unconstitutionally lower quarterly fees charged to bankruptcy debtors in Alabama and North Carolina.[Fn. 1]
Points of opinion
Discover these points of the hammers opinion:
- “While increasing fees in Alabama and North Carolina may solve this problem, . . . we do not have the power to do so”;
- “We do not have authority over the quarterly fees assessed in . . . Alabama or North Carolina, . . . that is why the constitutional infirmity persists and we are having this debate today”;
- “But debtors are entitled to relief” and “[w]what we can do is repair the harm caused by unconstitutional treatment”;
- If the debtor paid the higher fee, the debtor “is entitled to a refund of the amount in excess of the fee it would have paid (in North Carolina or Alabama) during the same period” [translation: U.S. taxpayers are to foot the bill for Alabama’s and North Carolina’s unconstitutionality]; and
- “This decision is limited to the debtors in this appeal, who have standing to seek this reimbursement.”
Now . . . read these points and answer these questions:
- On how many levels is this whole situation troubling?
- How is this whole situation fair, just and fair. . . at any level?!
- Why should American taxpayers finance the fallout from the unconstitutionality of Alabama and North Carolina?
- Why is the remedy for unconstitutionality limited to a single debtor, since very many debtors are affected in the same way by the same unconstitutionality in the other 48 states and in all the American territories?
That’s all I have to say about it.