This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-02-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the debtor's right to apply payment has been considered merely directory, and not mandatory,[21] following this Court's earlier pronouncement that "the ordinary acceptation of the terms `may' and `shall' may be resorted to as guides in ascertaining the mandatory or directory character of statutory provisions."[22] | |||||