# Shaw v. Aurgroup Financial Credit Union

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 9, 2009 · 552 F.3d 447

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9578914

## Case

- **Full name:** Fannie L. SHAW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. AURGROUP FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION and Margaret A. Burks, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 9, 2009
- **Citations:** 552 F.3d 447; 60 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1705; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 336; 2009 WL 48214
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Merritt
- **Judges:** Boggs, Merritt, Griffin
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9578914

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a creditor's failure to timely object to plan confirmation may be construed as acceptance of the plan
- acknowledging “the general maxim that the Bankruptcy Code and Rules [are to] be construed so that their provisions are harmonious with each other”
- noting that the provisions in § 1325(a) are “mandatory requirements for confirmation”

## Opinion text

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result.
I have previously set out my views with respect to the “hanging paragraph” and the handling of auto retention cases in Chapter 13 proceedings, and I adhere to the views set out there which lead to the affirmance of the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court in this case. See In re: Long, 519 F.3d 288 (6th Cir.2008).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9578914. Public record. Not legal advice.