BAPCPA Provisions Declared Unconstitutional as Applied to Minnesota Attorneys
Yesterday, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota entered its final order in the Milavetz case, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and declaring that:
1. Sections 526 (a) (4), 528 (a) (4) and 528 (b) (2) are unconstitutional, "as applied to attorneys in the District of Minnesota".
2. Attorneys in the District of Minnesota are excluded from the term "debt relief agency" as defined in 11 U.S.C. section 101 (12A) and, as such, are not subject to any of the duties relating to BAPCPA defined debt relief agencies.
The Minnesota law firm of Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A., along with two unnamed prospective clients, was among the first to file Constitutional challenges to BACPA, commencing this case in November of 2005, just weeks after the new law took effect. In December of 2006, the Court made extensive findings declaring various provisions of BAPCPA unConstitutional and unenforceable as applied to attorneys. Nonetheless, the United States opposed plaintiff's motion for summary judgment at a hearing in February.
1. Sections 526 (a) (4), 528 (a) (4) and 528 (b) (2) are unconstitutional, "as applied to attorneys in the District of Minnesota".
2. Attorneys in the District of Minnesota are excluded from the term "debt relief agency" as defined in 11 U.S.C. section 101 (12A) and, as such, are not subject to any of the duties relating to BAPCPA defined debt relief agencies.
The Minnesota law firm of Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A., along with two unnamed prospective clients, was among the first to file Constitutional challenges to BACPA, commencing this case in November of 2005, just weeks after the new law took effect. In December of 2006, the Court made extensive findings declaring various provisions of BAPCPA unConstitutional and unenforceable as applied to attorneys. Nonetheless, the United States opposed plaintiff's motion for summary judgment at a hearing in February.
