In defendants' Chapter 7 proceedings, district court's judgment that plaintiff-creditor had the right to repossess their vehicle is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in holding that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) eliminated the ride-through option; 2) plaintiff had authority to repossess the vehicle pursuant to the contract's ipso facto clause without giving the defendants prior notice of a right to cure the default under state law; and 3) plaintiff was not required to give defendants notice of default and right to cure before repossessing the vehicle as both parties agree that the event that triggered default, the filing of a bankruptcy petition, cannot be cured.
Argued: September 23, 2009
Decided: January 11, 2010
Opinion by Circuit Judge Shedd
For Appellant: Andrew Steven Nason, Pepper & Nason
For Appellee: Stephen P. Hale, Hale Dewey & Knight, PLLC