Skip to main content

In re Stenstrom

In re Stenstrom

Ruling
Confirmation denied due to "phantom expenses" claimed in vehicles controlled by co-debtor.
Procedural posture

A debtor sought confirmation of her chapter 13 plan. The trustee objected, arguing the plan, which was not paying unsecured creditors in full, violated 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(b)(1)(B), which required that all projected disposable income be paid to unsecured creditors under her plan. The trustee argued the debtor improperly claimed expenses for a motor home or a fifth wheel as a second vehicle while a co-debtor was using and paying for those vehicles.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Stenstrom Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on March 25, 2010 , LexisNexis #0610-027