You are here:Home Archives for Judge Karlin
1/7/10

Deviation from Bankruptcy Means Test for Expenses, Too

LANNING EXTENDED TO EXPENSE SIDE
In re Melvin, Case No. 07-22352
December 2008 Judge Somers

Court extended the Lanning analysis and found there was no binding precedent on the issue of whether actual of 22C expenses were mandated and found that 22C expenses may be deviated from also. This is consistent with dicta in Lanning, and Judge Nugent in In Re Hoss, 08-10365, and In re Arroyo, No. 07-12779. It may also be inconsistent with Judge Karlin in the bankruptcy court decision in Lanning.

Lanning has been appealed by the bankruptcy trustee and is currently pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.  Oral argument is expected in March 2010.

Digest by:  Jan Hamilton, Trustee

PrintFriendlyShare
Filed Under: Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Means Test Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,
1/6/10

How Do I Deduct My Non-Filing Spouse’s Expenses on the Bankruptcy Means Test?

HOW EXACTLY DO WE DEDUCT ‘MARITAL ADJUSTMENTS’?
In re Dugan, Case No. 07-40899
August, 2008, Judge Karlin
Chapter 13 Trustee objections to debtor’s attempts to include a marital adjustment on Lines 13
and 19 for a non-filing spouse and a deduction for transportation expenses. Court
allowed, in theory, the marital deduction, but found it had not been supported with any
detail. Debtor was given time to provide documentation. Digest by Jan Hamilton Trustee.

PrintFriendlyShare
Filed Under: Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Means Test Tagged With: , , , , ,
1/5/10

Cram Down Value Used for Means Test in Wichita Bankruptcies

A DEBTOR MUST USE THE STRIPPED/CRAMMED DOWN AMOUNT FOR
PURPOSES OF CURRENT MONTHLY INCOME (CMI) ON LINE 47 OF B22C
In re Hoss, Case No. 08-10365
In re Arroyo, Case No. 07-12779
August 2008, Judge Nugent
In above median income (AMI) cases, debtors sought to deduct contract payments, rather than the stripped off/crammed down amounts. The Court sustained the Chapter 13 Trustee’s objection to confirmation. This is a good analysis of the status of the law, as of the date of the issuance of the opinion. Judge Nugent applied the reasoning of Lanning, but on the expense side, rather than the income side, of the equation. He also disagreed with Judge Karlin’s decision in Allen, which would have reached an opposite result.

PrintFriendlyShare
Filed Under: Bankruptcy News, Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Means Test, Mortgages Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1/4/10

401(k) Withdrawal Is Income for Means Test

401(K) DISBURSEMENT PRE PETITION IS CURRENT MONTHLY INCOME BUT NOT PROJECTED DISPOSBLE INCOME
In re DeThample, Case No 07-11829
July 5, 2008, Judge Nugent

Under 1325(b)(1)(B), a singular, one time disbursement is “income” for purposes of
determining Current Monthly Income (CMI), but followed Judge Karlin’s Lanning decision in determining what constituted Projected Disposable Income (PDI). This is a good read of the status of the law in
this area of its date of issuance, according to a digest of the case by Jan Hamilton, Trustee.

PrintFriendlyShare
Filed Under: Court Rulings, Means Test Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,
12/26/09

Timeshare Debt Allowed on Means Test, Adult Child Disallowed

MORE LINE BY LINES OF B22C
In re Hays, Case No 07-41285
April, 2008, Judge Karlin

13 Trustee objections to debtor’s attempts to claim living expenses for non-dependent debtors as well as for secured debt on a timeshare. Court followed Law and disallowed adult child expenses. The Court allowed the debt on the timeshare to be deducted. The decision is very thorough and is a recommended read.

Digest by:  Jan Hamilton, Trustee

PrintFriendlyShare
Filed Under: Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Means Test Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
12/25/09

Nonworking Adult Son Not Counted in Household

B22C CASE, LINE BY LINE…
In re Law, Case No. 07-40863
April 2008, Judge Karlin

Court sustained 13 Trustee’s objection to confirmation as debtor included: adult son in household size, tax levy on Line 33 and duplicated it on Line 49 and unencumbered vehicle on line 28. The decision is a good analysis of the status of B22C case law as of the date of the decision.

Digest by:  Jan Hamilton, Trustee

PrintFriendlyShare
Filed Under: Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Means Test Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
12/24/09

Deduct Full Secured Debt on Bankruptcy Means Test

OK FOR CHAPTER 13 DEBTORS TO TAKE B22C DEDUCTION FOR FULL PAYMENT
RATHER THAN CRAM DOWN AMOUNT
In re Allen, Case No. 07-41327
February 2008, Judge Karlin

Objected to confirmation on the basis that Debtor’s means test calculations erroneously included the full amount of the pre-petition car payments rather than the reduced or  crammed-down amounts. In analyzing 1325(b)(1), the Court found that 707(b)(2)(A)(iii) applies and that Debtors need not only list the amounts they will actually pay through the plan. There is a split of authority on this important issue. This case was not appealed so no appellate decision is in the immediate future for the 10th Circuit.  See the Hoss and Arroyo decision by Judge Nugent for the opposite result.

Digest by:  Jan Hamilton, Trustee

PrintFriendlyShare
Filed Under: Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Means Test Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,
12/22/09

No Early Payoff, But Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Plan Modification Possible

PLAN MAY NOT PROPOSE EARLY PAYOFF BUT 1329 MAY ALLOW POST
CONFIRMATION MODIFICATION
In re Kidd, et al, Case No. 06-41232
August 2007, Judge Karlin

The Court recognized changes in 1324(b)(4) and held that debtors may not propose an early pay off but may obtain the same in the right circumstances via 1329.

Digest by:  Jan Hamilton, Trustee

PrintFriendlyShare
Filed Under: After Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Court Rulings Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,
12/21/09

Means Test Form Controls Unless Significant Changes in Circumstances

B22C CONTROLS UNLESS SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES
In re Lanning, Case No. 06-41037
May 2007, Judge Karlin

Over the Chapter 13 Trustee’s objection, the Court confirmed the plan because of significant changes in circumstances at the time of filing that caused Line 58 on B22C to be higher than what the debtor could afford to pay. BAP and 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, Petition for Cert to U.S. Supreme Court pending. Lanning controls in Judge Karlin’s court, until, if and when, the decision is overturned.

Digest by:  Jan Hamilton, Trustee

PrintFriendlyShare
Filed Under: Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Means Test Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
12/13/09

My Income Is Below Median, How Long Do I Pay My Chapter 13 Payments?

BELOW THE LINE DEBTOR MUST RUN 36 MONTHS
In re Pohl, Case No. 06-41236
May 2007, Judge Karlin
The Court determined that a below the line debtor’s case must “run” 36 months, unless it
pays off all claims in full, citing 1325(b)(4). Below the line disposable income
determined by Schedule J, since the bottom half of B22C does not get filled out by a BMI
debtor. ACP is temporal and not a multiplier. Judge Karlin cited, with approval, Judge
Somers’ decision, In re Daniel and Judge Berger’s decisions, In re Beckerle and In re
Anderson on the ACP issue.

BELOW THE LINE DEBTOR MUST RUN 36 MONTHS
In re Pohl, Case No. 06-41236
May 2007, Judge Karlin

The Court determined that a below the line debtor’s case must “run” 36 months, unless it pays off all claims in full, citing 1325(b)(4). Below the line disposable income determined by Schedule J, since the bottom half of B22C does not get filled out by a BMI debtor. ACP is temporal and not a multiplier. Judge Karlin cited, with approval, Judge Somers’ decision, In re Daniel and Judge Berger’s decisions, In re Beckerle and In re Anderson on the ACP issue.

Source:  Jan Hamilton, Trustee

PrintFriendlyShare
Filed Under: Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Means Test Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
12/7/08

GAP Insurance Not In Car Lender's PMSI

GAP insurance, service contracts, administrative fees and the traded-in car payoff are not part of a car lender’s purchase-money secured claim in chapter 13 bankruptcy and can be crammed-down if the car is worth less than the loan balance, Judge Janice Miller Karlin ruled this week in In Re Miller, Case No. 08-40935, (Bankr. D.Kan. December 2, 2008).

Judge Karlin suggested the ruling may be different for service contracts in a future case if the creditor convinces her the contract enhances the value of the vehicle.  Creditors have the burden of proof to establish their purchase money security interest (PMSI) claim, she said.

Non-PMSI charges are still part of the creditor’s secured claim and must be paid in chapter 13 bankruptcy up to the value of the car. A debtor must pay the entire PMSI to retain a car even if the amount is greater than the car’s value if the loan was incurred within 910 days of bankruptcy.Continue Reading

PrintFriendlyShare
Filed Under: Chapter 13, Kansas Bankruptcy News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Newer Posts »