Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

In Re: Jones, No. 08-2177

By FindLaw Staff on January 12, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In defendants' Chapter 7 proceedings, district court's judgment that plaintiff-creditor had the right to repossess their vehicle is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in holding that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) eliminated the ride-through option; 2) plaintiff had authority to repossess the vehicle pursuant to the contract's ipso facto clause without giving the defendants prior notice of a right to cure the default under state law; and 3) plaintiff was not required to give defendants notice of default and right to cure before repossessing the vehicle as both parties agree that the event that triggered default, the filing of a bankruptcy petition, cannot be cured.      

Read In Re: Jones, No. 08-2177

Appellate Information

Argued: September 23, 2009

Decided: January 11, 2010


Opinion by Circuit Judge Shedd


For Appellant:    Andrew Steven Nason, Pepper & Nason

For Appellee:  Stephen P. Hale, Hale Dewey & Knight, PLLC

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard