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

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

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

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 liens or leases on the vehicles. (See In Re Howell, 06-11652 for opposing view from Judge Nugent.). Judge Lungstrum subsequently reversed and remanded Thomas, 382 B.R. 793 (D. Kan. 2008).

Digest by:  Jan Hamilton, Trustee