Bankruptcy Dismissed for No Tax Returns

DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO FILE RETURNS MANDATORY UPON
MOTION
In re McCluney, Case No. 06-21175
June 2007, Judge Somers

The Court sustained a motion to dismiss by the IRS for failure to file pre petition tax returns as required under the new 1308 provision. This is not an “automatic dismissal” provision, but once the motion was filed, Judge Somers reasoned that he had no other choice.

FAILURE TO FILE RETURNS CAN BE FIXED WITH 105
In re Novello, Case No. 06-21029
August 2007, Judge Berger

IRS motion to dismiss for failure to file tax returns under 1308 was denied because the tax returns are now filed. Alternative relief sought was to reopen the 341 meeting, which the Court granted. Debtors Motion to Ratify under 1325(a)(9) was granted. Although dismissal is mandatory, the debtor can ask for extensions under 1308(b) which is included by reference in 1307(e). The 341 was reopened under 105.

Negative Equity

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 because the plan had been confirmed and the elements of 1329 had not been met.

NEGATIVE EQUITY ROLLED INTO LOAN IS NOT PMSI
In re Padgett, Case No. 07-41284
May, 2008 Judge Karlin

Car creditor objected to debtor’s attempt to avoid paying the negative equity in a 910 case. After analyzing the UCC as it exists in Kansas, the Court confirmed its opinion in Vega, but disagreed with Judge Nugent’s decision in Ford.

NEGATIVE EQUITY IS PMSI FOR PURPOSES OF 910 CAR LOANS
In re Ford, Case No. 07-11561
May 2008, Judge Nugent

Court held that negative equity in a trade in vehicle, financed by lender, is a part of the price of the collateral and constitutes value given to enable debtors to acquire collateral. The entire balance was found to be a “910” obligation under the hanging paragraph of 1325.

NEGATIVE EQUITY IS NOT PMSI
In re Kellerman, Case No. 06-22028
August 2007, Judge Berger

Pre petition payments are to allocated between refinanced negative equity and the PMSI portion of a 910 vehicle claim under 1325(a)’s hanging paragraph by reference to KSA 84-9-103(c). Under Kansas law, PMSI is the purchase price, not negative equity. Start with the vehicle’s cash purchase price and the apply pre petition payments in accordance with the parties written agreement. If no agreement or other manifested intent, the prepetition payments are applied first to unsecured negative equity and then to PMSI.

Creditor Gets Deficiency Claim After Collateral Surrender

10th CIRCUIT ‘RULES’
In re Rule, Case No. 06-22145
July, 2008, Judge Berger

Judge Berger followed In re Ballard 526 F. 3d 634 (10th Cir. 2008), in finding that a 910 car loan may have a deficiency balance after sale of the vehicle. [Read more…]

Cramdown of Daughter’s Car Bad Faith

CAR OWNED BY CHILD CAN BE CRAMMED DOWN BUT NOT GOOD FAITH
In re Lewis, Case No. 06-20027
August 2006, Judge Somers

The vehicle the debtors proposed to cramdown in the plan was found to belong to the daughter, even though titled to debtors. Daughter made the payments. However, the Court found that the plan was not filed in good faith, citing Young and Flygare, and granted stay relief to the creditor.

910 Car Claims Get Interest

SURRENDER IN FULL SATISFACTION OF 910 AND PAYMENT IN FULL
WITH NOT INTEREST NOT ALLOWED
In re McClay, Case No. 07-20106
October 2008, Judge Berger

910 vehicle case. Plan provided for payment of full debt with no interest and option to surrender in full satisfaction. This was found to be an attempt to modify prospectively and Court opined that 1329 would have to be used. Court followed 10th Cir. In re Jones, 530 F3d 1284, (10th Cir. 2008). Debtor must pay interest. In re Ballard, 526 F3d 634 (10th Cir. 2008) holds that deficiency must be provided for if vehicle is surrendered. [Read more…]

Is Force Placed Insurance Part of 910 Vehicle Claim?

COST OF FORCED PLACED INSURANCE IS PART OF PMSI FOR 910 VEHICLE
In re Townsend, Case No 07-20956
April 2008, Judge Somers

Noting that BAPCPA does not define PMSI but that the phrase is a term of art under the UCC, the Court found that under Missouri law, 9-103 governs and forced place insurance falls within the Missouri definition of PMSI.

Debtor May Be Converted to 7 with No Discharge

DEBTORS MAY BE CONVERTED TO 7 EVEN THOUGH NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
7 DISCHARGE
In re Rogers, Case No. 08-21487
January 2009, Judge Somers

In a case in which assets may be liquidated, a 13 may be converted to a 7 even though debtors may not be eligible for a 7 discharge.

Digest by:  Jan Hamilton, Trustee

Surrendered Collateral Doesn’t Count on Bankruptcy Means Test?

22C EXPENSE NOT PERMITTED ON SURRENDERED COLLATERAL
In re Miller, Case No. 07-22927
December 2008, Judge Somers
This decision ties to the concepts enunciated in the various Lanning decisions, i.e., to
what extent may post petition changes in circumstances be considered in determining
what is to be paid by an above the line debtor.  Digest by Jan Hamilton, Trustee.

Income and Expenses After Bankruptcy Change Chapter 13 Means Test

REITERATION THAT INCOME AND EXPENSE CHANGES MAY BE
CONSIDERED POST PETITION IN 13.

In re Tholl, Case No. 07-22677
December 2008, Judge Somers
Court reviewed and followed the Melvin decision regarding changes of income and expenses after the filing of the chapter 13 bankruptcy but prior to confirmation of the chapter 13 bankruptcy plan.

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

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

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, debtor’s income is determined by B22C and expenses by Schedule J and must “run” for 36 months (The Applicable Commitment Period) or pay  100% of all allowed unsecured claims. B22C is temporal, rather than a multiplier. Read carefully.

Digest by:  Jan Hamilton, Trustee

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

Verified by MonsterInsights