Skip to main content

§ 1325(b)(1)

In re Pagan

Ruling
Confirmation denied due to debtor's improper deduction of employer's contribution to health insurance plan.
Procedural posture

The Chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation of the proposed plan by the debtor. At issue was whether was whether she was committing all of her projected disposable income to make payments to unsecured creditors under the plan as required by 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(b)(1)(B) when she included her employer's portion of her health insurance premium as a living expense deduction but did not correspondingly reflect that premium payment as income.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Pagan 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 24, 2010 , LexisNexis #1010-130

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

Ruling
Bankruptcy court erred in denying confirmation of chapter 13 plan because of ownership deduction in vehicles owned free and clear by above-median debtors.
Procedural posture

Appellant debtor challenged an order issued by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine, denying confirmation of his Chapter 13 plan because it included a deduction for an ownership expense on a vehicle which was neither leased nor encumbered. Appellees were an unsecured creditor and the Chapter 13 Trustee.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Coffin v. eCast Settlement Corp. (In re Coffin) 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 September 15, 2010 , LexisNexis #1010-065

In re Cranmer

Ruling
Social Security income was required to be included in projected disposable income calculation.
Procedural posture

The chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation of the debtor's plan on the grounds that the debtor could not exclude Social Security Income (SSI) from his projected disposable income (PDI) analysis.

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on June 28, 2010 , LexisNexis #0910-135

Hamilton v. Lanning

Ruling
Projected disposable income calculation should be presumed correct, but may be rebutted by evidence of a substantial change in circumstances.
Procedural posture

A bankruptcy court confirmed a chapter 13 plan, considering respondent debtor's actual income for "projected disposable income" (PDI) under 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(b)(1)(B). An appellate panel and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that evidence of a substantial change in the debtor's circumstances could be used under a forward looking approach. Certiorari was granted on petitioner trustee's petition.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Hamilton v. Lanning Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on June 07, 2010 , LexisNexis #0610-133

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

In re Tinsley

Ruling
Debtor was required to claim mileage reimbursement from employer as income but could also claim it as proof of expenses.
Procedural posture

Debtors, including an employee, filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, a reorganization plan, and an amended reorganization plan. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 1324, a confirmation hearing was held. The trustee objected to confirmation pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(b)(1)(B).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Tinsley 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 #0610-028

In re Cleaver

Ruling
Confirmation of above median debtor's plan denied due to failure to contribute all projected disposable income and improper deductions and expenses.
Procedural posture

Debtors submitted a first amended plan for confirmation. The trustee objected to the confirmation of the plan under 11 U.S.C.S. §§ 707(b)(2) and 1325(b).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Cleaver 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 22, 2010 , LexisNexis #0610-103

In re Martin

Ruling
Plan confirmation denied due to above median debtors' improvident decision regarding housing expense.
Procedural posture

Debtors filed a joint chapter 13 petition for relief. The chapter 13 trustee objected to the confirmation of the debtors' plan under 11 U.S.C.S. §§ 707(b)(2)(A) and 1325(b).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Martin 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 19, 2010 , LexisNexis #0610-132

Baxter v. Turner (In re Turner)

Ruling
Confirmation denied where above median debtors' plan proposed term of less than 60 months.
Procedural posture

Bankruptcy debtors were above-median-income debtors with negative disposable income and the debtors proposed a plan which provided for monthly payments for the benefit of unsecured creditors for a period of three years. The bankruptcy trustee objected to confirmation of the debtors' plan on the ground that the applicable commitment period under 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(b)(1)(B) was at least five years.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Baxter v. Turner (In re Turner) 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 17, 2010 , LexisNexis #0610-134

In re Rodger

Ruling
Below median chapter 13 debtors required to pay disposable income for full duration of plan.
Procedural posture

The court had before it debtors' Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 Motion for Relief from Order or to Alter/Amend Order. The Motion alleged that section III.C of the court's February 5, 2010 memorandum opinion contained a manifest error of law when it explained that the below median debtors in this case had to pay their disposable income not only during the first three years of their chapter 13 plan but for the duration of the plan.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Rodger 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 26, 2010 , LexisNexis #0510-065