Well, in the 9th Circuit, the answer appears to be ‘yes’. A decision handed down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has answered this question, for the time being. In the case of Dumont vs. Ford Motor Credit Case No. 08-60002, published on 9/15/09, ( http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/09/15/08-60002.pdf ) the appellate court held that the debtor could not rely upon CA state law, where she was current on her vehicle payments, to stop Ford from declaring a breach of contract and repossessing her automobile. ‘At least where the debtor has not attempted to reaffirm, our decision in Parker has been superceded by BAPCPA.

Accordingly, Ford did not violate the discharge injunction in repossessing Dumont’s vehicle.. The bankruptcy court rightly held that the propriety of Ford’s actions under state law was not before it.’ It appears, therefore, until such time as this case is likely appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the position of automobile creditors may become emboldened, for a time, as word of the pro-creditor decision becomes known. What lays beneath, however, is the practical consideration of a creditor who may still wish to receive regular loan payments, in lieu of the right to repossess the automobile. This practical outcome, notwithstanding the ‘requirement’ of the Dumont case, may still result in few reaffirmations being signed or approved by the bankruptcy court.

John C. Colwell, Debt Relief Legal Clinic San Diego, CA