NEGATIVE EQUITY ISSUE NOT RULED UPON IN 1327 CASE
In re Kuhasz, Case No. 07-20282
November 2008, Judge Somers
Court noted split within the district. Judge Karlin excluded negative equity from PMSI claim in In re Padgett, 389 BR 203, while Judge Nugent included it. In re Ford 387 BR 14827 but declined to rule on the issue [...]
Topeka Attorneys Helping You Get The Fresh Start Only The Federal Bankruptcy Laws Can Give You
Tag Archive: Judge Nugent
Negative Equity
How Much Is My Attorney Paid to Defend Dismissal?
WICHITA NO LOOK FEE FOR DEFENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS MAY BE $350.00
In re Kiser, Case No. 06-11453
January 2009, Judge Nugent
Debtor filed a motion to modify plan to increase monthly payment and to pay attorney fees of $500.00. Court allowed $400.00. Judge Nugent quoted Judge Karlin in Beck in supporting its conclusion that a presumptive fee [...]
How Much Are Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Fees in Wichita?
13 ATTORNEY FEES IN WICHITA
In re Mayer, Case No. 06-10013
October 2006, Judge Nugent
This is Judge Nugent’s fee decision. The “presumptive” fee in Wichita is $2500, without prejudice to fee applications, based upon the language of 330, testimony and the various factors recited.
Digest by: Jan Hamilton, Trustee
Reconversion Fails, No Discharge Bankruptcy Dismissed
CONVERSION CONFUSION
In re Fry, Case No. 04-16887
October 2008 Judge Nugent
Debtor converted from 13 to 7 and then learned she was not eligible for a 7 and attempted to converted back to 13. Case dismissed as an “end run” around 7 discharge.
Digest by: Jan Hamilton, Trustee
Foreclosure No Excuse for No Credit Counseling Before Bankruptcy
FAILURE TO OBTAIN CREDIT COUNSELING—EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES
In re Thomas, Case No. 06-10242
March 2006, Judge Nugent
Pro se case dismissed for failure to obtain credit counseling. Certificate of exigent circumstances which recites pending foreclosure insufficient, case dismissed. 109(h)(1).
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 [...]
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 [...]
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 [...]
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 [...]
Car Deduction Allowed on Means Test, Reversed by District Court
CAR DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED EVEN THOUGH NO LIEN
In re Thomas, Case No 06-21108
In re Camacho, Case No. 06-20729
October 2007, Judge Berger
UST Motion To Dismiss under 707(b) for presumed abuse based upon totality of circumstances was denied. The Court concluded that the debtors are entitled to claim vehicle ownership for expenses, even though debtors did not have [...]
My Wife Didn't File Bankruptcy, Can I Deduct Her Car Payment on My Means Test?
NON DEBTOR EXPENSES NOT ALLOWED ON B22C
In re Shahan, Case No. 06-11638
April 2007, Judge Nugent
Above median debtor filed 13; wife did not. Trustee objected to confirmation on basis of various B22C deductions. Debtor was allowed to take a marital deduction on Line 19 from his paycheck, which represented mandatory withholdings from her paycheck and, as [...]
My Car Is Paid For, Can I Deduct Ownership Expense on Means Test?
OWNERSHIP EXPENSE NOT ALLOWED IF VEHICLE PAID FOR
In re Howell, Case No. 06-11652
April 2007, Judge Nugent
Trustee objected to 13 confirmation under 1325(b)(1)(B) on basis that debtors projected disposable income was too low because they were deducted an ownership expense on Line 28 of B22C even though vehicle was fully paid for and even though they [...]
-
Jill Michaux & Mark Neis
Attorneys at Law
Bankruptcy Law Office
Neis & Michaux, P.A.
825 Bank of America Tower
534 S. Kansas Ave., Ste. 825
Topeka, KS 66603-3446
T: 785-354-1471
F: 785-354-1170
lawyers@neismichaux.com
Board Certified in
Consumer Bankruptcy Law
by the American Board of
Certification