In re: RALPH HARTFORD KIMBRO, JR.; ) PATRICIA ANN KIMBRO v. ) O P I N I O N ) Ralph Hartford Kimbro, Jr.; ) Patricia Ann Kimbro

The Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District*
of Ohio, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0086n.06
No. 08-5871
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
In re: RALPH HARTFORD KIMBRO, JR.; )
PATRICIA ANN KIMBRO, )
)
Debtors. )
__________________________________________)
)
HENRY E. HILDEBRAND, III, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE
Standing Trustee for Chapter 13, ) SIXTH CIRCUIT BANKRUPTCY
) APPELLATE PANEL
Appellant, )
)
v. ) O P I N I O N
)
RALPH HARTFORD KIMBRO, JR.; )
PATRICIA ANN KIMBRO, )
)
Appellees. )
__________________________________________)
Before: MOORE and WHITE, Circuit Judges, and OLIVER, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. This case squarely presents a question of statutory interpretation that had
split courts nationwide and has recently been resolved by the United States Supreme Court: whether,
under a provision of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005
(BAPCPA), an above-median-income debtor calculating his or her projected disposable income for
purposes of a Chapter 13 plan confirmation may, when using Chapter 7’s “means test,” deduct for
a vehicle’s “ownership expense” even when the debtor owns the vehicle outright and is no longer

-- 1 of 2 --

2
making payments on it. This circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) concluded that above-
median-income debtors may claim such an expense without regard to whether they are still making
payments or they own their vehicle free and clear. In re Kimbro, 389 B.R. 518 (B.A.P. 6th Cir.
2008). The dissenting judge would have held that a vehicle ownership expense may only be claimed
if a debtor is in fact incurring such an expense. Id. at 532 (Fulton, J., dissenting). The Supreme
Court resolved the circuit dispute against the interpretation favored by the BAP. Ransom v. FIA
Card Services, N.A., 131 S. Ct. 716, 79 USLW 4020 (2011). We REVERSE and REMAND to the
BAP for reconsideration in light of Ransom.

-- 2 of 2 --