B22C - Neis Michaux Law Office

Deviation from Bankruptcy Means Test for Expenses, Too

Posted on January 7, 2010 Written by Jill Michaux

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.Â Oral argument is expected in March 2010.

Digest by:Â Jan Hamilton, Trustee

Filed Under: Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Means Test Tagged: 22C, Arroyo, B22C, bankruptcy means test, debtor's expenses, Hoss, Judge Karlin, Judge Nugent, Judge Somers, Lanning, Means Test, Melvin

Timeshare Debt Allowed on Means Test, Adult Child Disallowed

Posted on December 26, 2009 Written by Jill Michaux

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

13 Trustee objections to debtorâ€™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:Â Jan Hamilton, Trustee

Filed Under: Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Means Test Tagged: adult child, B22C, bankruptcy, chapter 13 bankruptcy, chapter 13 trustee, Hays, Judge Karlin, law, projected disposable income, secured claim, secured debt, timeshare, Topeka Kansas, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas

Nonworking Adult Son Not Counted in Household

Posted on December 25, 2009 Written by Jill Michaux

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

Court sustained 13 Trusteeâ€™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:Â Jan Hamilton, Trustee

Filed Under: Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Means Test Tagged: adult son, B22C, bankruptcy, chapter 13 bankruptcy, chapter 13 plan payment, household size, Judge Karlin, Lanning, law, projected disposable income, tax levy, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas, unencumbered vehicle

Means Test Form Controls Unless Significant Changes in Circumstances

Posted on December 21, 2009 Written by Jill Michaux

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

Over the Chapter 13 Trusteeâ€™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 Karlinâ€™s court, until, if and when, the decision is overturned.

Digest by:Â Jan Hamilton, Trustee

Filed Under: Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Means Test Tagged: above median income, ACP, B22C, B22C controls, bankruptcy, chapter 13 plan payment, disposable income, Judge Karlin, Lanning, Means Test, projected disposable income, significant change of circumstances, Topeka Kansas, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas

How Long Does Chapter 13 Last if My Income is Below Median?

Posted on December 20, 2009 Written by Jill Michaux

BELOW MEDIAN MUST RUN 36 MONTHS, B22C IS TEMPORAL
In re Daniel, Case No. 06-20714
December 2006, Judge Somers

In a Below Median case, debtorâ€™s income is determined by B22C and expenses by Schedule J and must â€œrunâ€ for 36 months (The Applicable Commitment Period) or payÂ 100% of all allowed unsecured claims. B22C is temporal, rather than a multiplier. Read carefully.

Digest by:Â Jan Hamilton, Trustee

Filed Under: Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Means Test Tagged: B22C, bankruptcy, chapter 13 bankruptcy, chapter 13 plan payment, Daniels, disposable income, Judge Somers, Means Test, projected disposable income, Schedules I and J, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas

Who Gets Paid Out of Chapter 13 Pool?

Posted on December 18, 2009 Written by Jill Michaux

WHAT GETS PAID OUT OF THE B22C POOL?
In re Puetz, Case No 0620756
June 2007, Judge Berger

B22C presumptively shows debtors projected disposable income, schedules I and J no longer determine plan payment for above median debtor, but, rather, demonstrate feasibility unless there are special circumstances justifying adjustments to B22C. This is not the plan payment but is what goes to â€œunsecured creditorsâ€, which are general unsecured claims, anticipated attorney fees but not Chapter 13 Trustee fees or priority claims as these are already netted out in the B22C calculations. Contributions and 401(k) loan repayments are not included in calculating disposable income.

Digest by:Â Jan Hamilton, Trustee

Filed Under: Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Means Test Tagged: above median income, B22C, B22C pool, chapter 13 plan payment, feasibiity, Judge Berger, plan payment, projected disposable income, Puetz, Schedules I and J, unsecured creditors

My Income Is Above Median, How Long Will My Chapter 13 Plan Run?

Posted on December 17, 2009 Written by Jill Michaux

B22C CONTROLS, OR IF DEBTOR USES I AND J, MUST HAVE A FIVE YEAR PLAN
In re Beckerle, Case No.06-20572
April 2007, Judge Berger

ACP is a time frame of either 3 or 5 years and not a multiplier. B22C is a starting place in determining projected disposable income to be received in the 5-year period. A negative number on B22C indicates the plan is not feasible. Debtor canâ€™t have it both ways. If the debtor relies upon I and J to prove feasibility, then the debtor must commit to a 5-year program.

Digest by:Â Jan Hamilton, Trustee

Filed Under: Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Filing Bankruptcy Tagged: ACP, applicable commitment period, B22C, Beckerle, Chapter 13, chapter 13 bankruptcy, chapter 13 plan length, feasibility, Judge Berger, Means Test, plan length, Schedules I and J

My Wife Didn't File Bankruptcy, Can I Deduct Her Car Payment on My Means Test?

Posted on December 15, 2009 Written by Jill Michaux

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 such, was not dedicated to household expenses. Debtor sought to deduct future payments on secured debts for wifeâ€™s debts on Line 47. Since these were not debtorâ€™s expenses, they were not allowed. Additionally, debtor sought to deduct $415.00 on line 59. This includes wifeâ€™s monthly recreational expenses, loan repayment to family, tax prep fees and $200.00 per month to help an adult daughter. These are to be actual expenses. None of these qualified, except for the tax preparation expenses as analyzed by the Court.

Digest By:Â Jan Hamilton, Trustee

Filed Under: Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Filing Bankruptcy, Means Test Tagged: above median debtor, above median income, B22C, debtor's expenses, household expenses, Judge Nugent, marital deduction, Means Test, Shahan

My Car Is Paid For, Can I Deduct Ownership Expense on Means Test?

Posted on December 14, 2009 Written by Jill Michaux

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 had claimed a standard vehicle operating allowance on Line 27. Objection Sustained, even though 707(b) (2) (A) (ii) (I) and B22C do not offer specific guidance.Â Judge Nugent rejected the other view on the basis that an expense is not â€œapplicableâ€ if it is not actually incurred.

Digest by:Â Jan Hamilton, Trustee

Filed Under: Court Rulings, Filing Bankruptcy, Means Test, Vehicles Tagged: 1325(b)(1)(B), 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I), applicable expense, B22C, Jan Hamilton, Judge Nugent, Means Test, ownership allowance, projected disposable income, Trustee, vehicle operating allowance

Call us today

785-354-1471

Deviation from Bankruptcy Means Test for Expenses, Too

Timeshare Debt Allowed on Means Test, Adult Child Disallowed

Nonworking Adult Son Not Counted in Household

Means Test Form Controls Unless Significant Changes in Circumstances

How Long Does Chapter 13 Last if My Income is Below Median?

Who Gets Paid Out of Chapter 13 Pool?

My Income Is Above Median, How Long Will My Chapter 13 Plan Run?

My Wife Didn't File Bankruptcy, Can I Deduct Her Car Payment on My Means Test?

My Car Is Paid For, Can I Deduct Ownership Expense on Means Test?

Topeka’s Only Consumer Bankruptcy Law Specialists – Mark Neis & Jill Michaux

FAQs