context: However, if, despite its protection, bankruptcy did occur, the debtor's protection and remedy remained under the Bankruptcy Act."). Because the Supreme Court has instructed that SS 1673 does not provide for an exemption in bankruptcy, that statutory provision has no bearing on this case.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 421 B.R. 513, 518
citation_a.parenthetical: "Stated simply, once the [debtors] sought bankruptcy protection, the Bankruptcy Code and applicable state and federal property exemption statutes governed their rights and remedies-not the limitation on garnishment of wages contained in 15 U.S.C. SS 1673"
citation_a.sentence: See Smith v. Frazier, 421 B.R. 513, 518 (S.D.Ill.2009) (“Stated simply, once the [debtors] sought bankruptcy protection, the Bankruptcy Code and applicable state and federal property exemption statutes governed their rights and remedies-not the limitation on garnishment of wages contained in 15 U.S.C. § 1673”); see also In re Riendeau, 293 B.R. 832, 838-39 (D.Vt. 2002) (relying on Kokoszka in denying the debtor’s claim that § 1673 provides an exemption in bankruptcy).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 293 B.R. 832, 838-39
citation_b.parenthetical: relying on Kokoszka in denying the debtor's claim that SS 1673 provides an exemption in bankruptcy
citation_b.sentence: See Smith v. Frazier, 421 B.R. 513, 518 (S.D.Ill.2009) (“Stated simply, once the [debtors] sought bankruptcy protection, the Bankruptcy Code and applicable state and federal property exemption statutes governed their rights and remedies-not the limitation on garnishment of wages contained in 15 U.S.C. § 1673”); see also In re Riendeau, 293 B.R. 832, 838-39 (D.Vt. 2002) (relying on Kokoszka in denying the debtor’s claim that § 1673 provides an exemption in bankruptcy).