Skip to main content

§ 101(10A)(B)

Isaacs, In re--DeHart v. Isaacs

Aug
26
2019
Ruling
Payments under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 were benefitsreceived under the Social Security Act and were excludable from current monthly income,disposable income and projected disposable income calculations. (Bankr. M.D. Pa.)
Issue(s)
Definitions; “Current Monthly Income”; Amounts Paid For Debtor by Another

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on August 26, 2019 , LexisNexis #1019-075
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

Adinolfi v. Meyer (In re Adinolfi)

Jan
19
2016
Ruling
Adoption assistance payments are "benefits received under the Social Security Act" and covered by the exclusion from current monthly income.
Issue(s)
Whether the bankruptcy court erred when it held that Adoption Assistance payments received by the chapter 13 debtor were not "benefits received under the Social Security Act" within the meaning of 11 U.S.C.S. § 101(10A)(B).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Adinolfi v. Meyer (In re Adinolfi) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
Consumer opinion summary, case decided on January 19, 2016 , LexisNexis #0216-071
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

In re Gentry

Dec
19
2011
Ruling
Confirmation denied due to failure to include unemployment compensation in current monthly income calculation.
Procedural posture

The chapter 13 trustee objected to the debtors' proposed plan. The parties disputed whether the debtors, a married couple, had to include unemployment compensation in their calculation of "current monthly income" (CMI) on Form 22C.

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on December 19, 2011 , LexisNexis #0112-071
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

In re Cruz

Oct
07
2010
Ruling
Auxiliary Social Security benefits received by debtors' children and used for education were excluded from the estate and not a basis to prevent confirmation.
Procedural posture

This case was before the court upon the Chapter 13 Trustee's motion objecting to the confirmation of debtors' Chapter 13 plan based upon the allegedly excessive educational expenses for debtors' two children.

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on October 07, 2010 , LexisNexis #1110-036
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

In re Winkles

Jul
06
2010
Ruling
Unemployment compensation funds are not SSA payments and must be included in current monthly income calculation.
Procedural posture

The United States Trustee (UST) filed a motion to dismiss the chapter 7 debtors' case pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 707(b)(1) and (b)(2). The sole issue was whether unemployment compensation benefits received from the State of Illinois prior to filing bankruptcy were benefits received under the Social Security Act (SSA) and therefore excluded from the current monthly income calculation under 11 U.S.C.S. § 101(10A)(B).

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on July 06, 2010 , LexisNexis #1010-001
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

In re Charles

Sep
18
2007
Ruling
Contributions of non-debtor spouse limited to actual household expenses paid for debtor's benefit so that no step up in payments was required once spouse paid off auto loan.
Procedural posture

A debtor filed for relief under chapter 13 and submitted a proposed plan. A chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation of the plan on the grounds that the debtor was not applying all of her projected disposable income for the first three years of the plan, in contravention of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on September 18, 2007 , LexisNexis #0108-001
LexisNexis Article
Learn More
Subscribe to %1