projected disposable income - Neis Michaux Law Office

401(k) Withdrawal Is Income for Means Test

Posted on January 4, 2010 Written by Jill Michaux

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 â€œincomeâ€ for purposes of
determining Current Monthly Income (CMI), but followed Judge Karlinâ€™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.

Filed Under: Court Rulings, Means Test Tagged: 1325(b)(1)(B), 401(k), DeThample, disposable income, income, Judge Karlin, Judge Nugent, Lanning, Means Test, projected disposable income

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

Car Deduction Allowed on Means Test, Reversed by District Court

Posted on December 23, 2009 Written by Jill Michaux

CAR DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED EVEN THOUGH NO LIEN
In re Thomas, Case No 06-21108
In re Camacho, Case No. 06-20729
October 2007,Â 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:Â Jan Hamilton, Trustee

Filed Under: Chapter 13, Court Rulings, Means Test Tagged: bankruptcy, Camacho, chapter 13 bankruptcy, Judge Lundstrum, Judge Nugent, Kansas City, Means Test, projected disposable income, Thomas, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas, Wieland

No Early Payoff, But Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Plan Modification Possible

Posted on December 22, 2009 Written by Jill Michaux

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:Â Jan Hamilton, Trustee

Filed Under: After Bankruptcy, Chapter 13, Court Rulings Tagged: applicable commitment period, bankruptcy, Chapter 13, chapter 13 bankruptcy, chapter 13 plan length, chapter 13 plan payment, Filing Bankruptcy, Judge Karlin, Kidd, projected disposable income, Topeka, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas

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 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

PLEASE READ INFORMATION HEREIN IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. The opinions expressed in this blog represent only the opinions of the author(s) and are in no way intended as legal advice upon which you should rely or recommendation regarding any legal issues or problems. Every person's situation is different and requires an qualified attorney to review the situation personally with you. You should consult with a bankruptcy attorney licensed to practice in your state for advice about your particular situation.

NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP CREATED. This site is provided for educational and informational purposes. Users of this site agree that accessing this site and the information contained on these

pages does NOT create an attorney-client relationship with Mark Neis, Jill Michaux, Neis Michaux Bankruptcy Law Office or Neis & Michaux, P.A. Such a relationship can only be created with a written agreement between you and us after personal consultation. Do not assume that we will be taking any action on your behalf for any legal matters unless we specifically state so in writing.

DEBT RELIEF AGENCY. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including, where appropriate, assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code.