Till v. SCS Credit Corp.

Last updated
Till v. SCS Credit Corp.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 2, 2003
Decided May 17, 2004
Full case nameTill et ux. v. SCS Credit Corp.
Citations541 U.S. 465 ( more )
124 S. Ct. 1951; 158 L. Ed. 2d 787; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 3385
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
PluralityStevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
ConcurrenceThomas (in judgment)
DissentScalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding a cramdown in the value of a loan during a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.


The "decision that had no majority opinion, four justices held that the proper rate was the 9.5 percent one arrived at by modifying the average national loan rate to make up for the increased risk of non-payment. While this would not give the creditors the same amount of money that they might have gotten had they seized the collateral for the loan, it nevertheless met the statutory requirement that the repayments equal the "total present value." Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate opinion that provided the fifth vote needed for judgment, found that the 9.5 percent rate was acceptable, but that it could be even lower because the Bankruptcy Code did not require the judge to accommodate for the risk of non-payment." [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Debt</span> Obligation that requires one party to pay agreed-upon value to another party

Debt is an obligation that requires one party, the debtor, to pay money or other agreed-upon value to another party, the creditor. Debt is a deferred payment, or series of payments, which differentiates it from an immediate purchase. The debt may be owed by sovereign state or country, local government, company, or an individual. Commercial debt is generally subject to contractual terms regarding the amount and timing of repayments of principal and interest. Loans, bonds, notes, and mortgages are all types of debt. In financial accounting, debt is a type of financial transaction, as distinct from equity.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that applied the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to state law. Prior to this decision, the clause, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", imposed limits only on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.

Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 365 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case about bad faith in bankruptcy.

Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 (1989), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court relating to the Internal Revenue Code § 170 charitable contribution deduction.

Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299 (1978), is a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that state anti-usury laws regulating interest rates cannot be enforced against nationally chartered banks based in other states. Justice William Brennan wrote that it was clearly the intent of Congress when it passed the National Banking Act that nationally chartered banks would be subject only to federal regulation by the Comptroller of Currency and the laws of the state in which they were chartered, and that only Congress or the appropriate state legislature could pass the laws regulating them.

Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning contract law and arbitration. The case arose from a class action filed in Florida against a payday lender alleging the loan agreements the plaintiffs had signed were unenforceable because they essentially charged a higher interest rate than that permitted under Florida law.

Loan modification is the systematic alteration of mortgage loan agreements that help those having problems making the payments by reducing interest rates, monthly payments or principal balances. Lending institutions could make one or more of these changes to relieve financial pressure on borrowers to prevent the condition of foreclosure. Loan modifications have been practiced in the United States since the 1930s. During the Great Depression, loan modification programs took place at the state level in an effort to reduce levels of loan foreclosures.

Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide civil claims brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC was a lawsuit brought in United States federal court June 2009 by several pension funds against Chrysler LLC and the United States Department of the Treasury, to block the planned sale of Chrysler LLC assets to a "New Chrysler" entity in the Chrysler bankruptcy.

Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that judges of the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals were judges created under Article III of the Constitution. As such, it was permissible for the Chief Justice of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 293(a) to designate judges from the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals to serve on district courts and courts of appeals.

Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555 (1935), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled the Frazier–Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act unconstitutional in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This unanimous decision was one of the Court's many rulings that overturned President Roosevelt's New Deal.

Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982, was a case decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that held that in copyright law, the first-sale doctrine does not act as a defense to claims of infringing distribution and importation for unauthorized sale of authentic, imported watches that bore a design registered in the Copyright Office. It is contrasted with Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U.S. 117 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a Maryland law prohibiting oil producers and refiners from operating service stations within its borders. The challengers, including Exxon, claimed that the law violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. Justice Stevens wrote for the majority, which disagreed with Exxon et al.: "Since Maryland's entire gasoline supply flows in interstate commerce and since there are no local producers or refiners, such claims of disparate treatment between interstate and local commerce would be meritless." Exxon challenged the Maryland statute in Circuit Court which ruled the statute invalid. The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed the ruling.

Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N. A., 562 U.S. 61 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the means test in Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The means test had been adopted by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, and Ransom is one of several cases in which the Supreme Court addressed provisions of that act.

United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co., 369 U.S. 134 (1962), is a United States Supreme Court case which vacated a lower appellate court decision, holding that federal courts should abstain from ruling on the constitutionality of a state tax issue that state courts should determine.

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court. It held that pharmaceutical sales representatives were not eligible for overtime pay. The court ruled in a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that sales representatives were classified as "outside salesmen" who are exempt from the Department of Labor's regulations regarding overtime pay.

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013), also known as Alliance for Open Society I, was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that conditions imposed on recipients of certain federal grants amounted to a restriction of freedom of speech and violated the First Amendment.

Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Colorado Republican Party challenged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as to whether the "Party Expenditure Provision" of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) violated the First Amendment right to free speech. This provision put a limit on the amount of money a national party could spend on a congressional candidate's campaign. The FEC argued that the Committee violated this provision when purchasing a radio advertisement that attacked the likely candidate of the Colorado Democratic Party. The court held that since the expenditures by the Committee were made independently from a specific candidate, they did not violate the campaign contribution limitations established by the FECA, and were protected under the First Amendment.

Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court was asked to determine if an American Indian tribal court had the jurisdiction to hear a civil case involving a non-Indian who operated a Dollar General store on tribal land under a consensual relationship with the tribe. The Court was equally divided, 4–4, and thereby affirmed the decision of the lower court, in this case the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, that the court had jurisdiction.

Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States struck down section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which limited the amount of money that candidates could be paid on personal loans to their campaign.