Skip to main content

§ 1325(b)(1)

In re Kalata

Ruling
Objection to confirmation sustained due to debtor's failure to commit all disposable income to plan.
Procedural posture

A bankruptcy debtor proposed a chapter 13 plan which had a negative monthly income after deducting future payments on a secured claim for the debtor's residence. The bankruptcy trustee objected to confirmation of the debtor's plan on the ground that the debtor surrendered his residence to the secured creditor and thus would not make the future payments.

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on February 27, 2008 , LexisNexis #0408-023

eCast Settlement Corp. v. May (In re May)

Ruling
Creditor's objection that plan did not utilize all of debtors'disposable income overruled given evidence of decrease in income after debtors originally prepared Schedule I.
Procedural posture

An unsecured creditor of chapter 13 debtors filed an objection to the confirmation of the debtors'plan, asserting that the debtors were not applying all of their projected disposable income towards payment to unsecured creditors for the applicable commitment period of the plan as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on January 28, 2008 , LexisNexis #0208-085

In re Strickland

Ruling
Vehicle expense dedcution from projected disposable income calculation limited to current acutal costs as of petition date.
Procedural posture

Creditor filed an objection to confirmation of the debtors' proposed chapter 13 plan contending that the debtors had not devoted all of their disposable income to unsecured creditors for the required period. The issue was whether the debtors, in determining their projected disposable income, could deduct the full Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Local Standard allowance for vehicle ownership when their actual costs were less than the allowance.

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on January 24, 2008 , LexisNexis #0508-020

In re Mulally

Ruling
Confirmation denied where above-median debtors incorrectly calculated monthly disposable income.
Procedural posture

The debtors filed for relief under chapter 13 and submitted a proposed chapter 13 plan. A creditor objected to the plan on the basis that it failed to include all of the debtors'projected disposable income, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Mulally 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, 2007 , LexisNexis #0208-018

In re Hughey

Ruling
Above-median debtors' plan payments did not need to be stepped up once car loan was paid off.
Procedural posture

A creditor of an above median income chapter 13 debtor objected to confirmation of the debtor's plan on the basis that it failed to include all of the debtor's projected disposable income as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Hughey 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 14, 2007 , LexisNexis #0208-056

In re Lanning

Ruling
Debtor's projected disposable income in plan could deviate from current monthly income as calculated on Form B22C.
Procedural posture

Appellant, a chapter 13 trustee, challenged an order of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas confirming a chapter 13 plan. At issue was whether an above-median debtor's projected disposable income (PDI) per 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B) could deviate from current monthly income ("CMI") per Official Bankr. Form B22C where a significant change in circumstances has been shown. The U.S. Trustee also appeared, urging affirmance.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Lanning 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 December 13, 2007 , LexisNexis #0108-059

In re Brunner

Ruling
Increase in disposable income during plan period does not require corresponding increase in plan payments.
Procedural posture

Debtors filed a petition under chapter 13 and a plan for repaying their creditors. The chapter 13 trustee and an unsecured creditor filed objections to confirmation of the debtors'plan, claiming that the plan could not be confirmed under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B) because the debtors had not dedicated all of their projected disposable income to their plan during the applicable plan period.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Brunner 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 07, 2007 , LexisNexis #0108-130

Pak v. eCast Settlement Corp. (In re Pak)

Ruling
Confirmation denied due to plan's failure to reflect positive change in debtor's circumstances.
Procedural posture

Appellant debtor filed a petition under chapter 7, but converted his case to one under chapter 13 after the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California granted a U.S. Trustee's (UST's) motion to dismiss the chapter 7 case. Appellees, two creditors, the UST, and a chapter 13 trustee, objected to confirmation of the debtor's chapter 13 plan, and the bankruptcy court denied confirmation. The debtor appealed.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Pak v. eCast Settlement Corp. (In re Pak) 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 November 07, 2007 , LexisNexis #0108-131

In re Echeman

Ruling
Debtors could not pay priority unsecured claims from projected disposable income from which their claims had already been deducted.
Procedural posture

A chapter 13 trustee objected to the confirmation of the debtors'plan, on the basis that the plan did not meet the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on November 07, 2007 , LexisNexis #1207-126

In re Williams

Ruling
Above-median debtor without disposable income was not required to propose five year plan term.
Procedural posture

A debtor filed a petition under chapter 13 and a plan for repaying his creditors. A creditor filed an objection to confirmation of the debtor's plan, claiming that it failed to commit all of the debtor's disposable income to the payment of unsecured creditors as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B). The chapter 13 trustee claimed that the plan should not be confirmed because it was not filed in good faith.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Williams 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 25, 2007 , LexisNexis #0208-057