Skip to main content

§ 1325(b)(1)(B)

In re Risher

Ruling
Debtor with plan distributing less than 100% to creditors was required to submit tax refunds to chapter 13 trustee.
Procedural posture

The debtors in several chapter 13 cases filed motions in support of provisions in their chapter 13 that sought to exclude tax refunds as part of any distribution to unsecured creditors in their chapter 13 plans. The chapter 13 trustee objected to these provisions as contrary to Bankr. W.D. Ky. R. 13.5(b) and 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).

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

opinion summary, case decided on July 12, 2006 , LexisNexis #0906-115

In re Pattison

Ruling
Court sustained trustee's confirmation objection since debtor had more monthly income available as disposable income.
Procedural posture

Movant chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation of respondent debtor's plan.

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

opinion summary, case decided on July 06, 2006 , LexisNexis #0806-067

In re Fuger

Ruling
Trustee's objection to confirmation was denied and section 1325(b)(1)(B)'s "applicable commitment period" language was interpreted as serving as both temporal and monetary requirement.
Procedural posture

The matter before the court was the continued hearing on confirmation of the debtors'proposed chapter 13 plan. Specifically, the court was called upon to determine whether the "applicable commitment period"in 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B) was a monetary or temporal requirement.

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

opinion summary, case decided on June 29, 2006 , LexisNexis #0706-120

In re Barrantes

Ruling
Creditor's objection to plan confirmation was overruled since proposed plan properly applied all of debtor's projected disposable income.
Procedural posture

Debtor filed a voluntary petition under chapter 13. Concurrently with the filing of the petition, debtor submitted a proposed chapter 13 plan. Creditor filed objections to confirmation of the plan.

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

opinion summary, case decided on June 28, 2006 , LexisNexis #0806-104

In re Lara

Ruling
Plan was not confirmed since debtors needed to reduce certain expense allowances.
Procedural posture

Chapter 13 bankruptcy debtors, a husband and wife, sought confirmation of their proposed chapter 13 plan of reorganization. The bankruptcy trustee objected to confirmation of the plan on the grounds that the plan failed to satisfy the disposable income test of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).

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

opinion summary, case decided on June 28, 2006 , LexisNexis #0706-080

In re Grady

Ruling
Plan was confirmed over objections since debtors were allowed to pay projected disposable income under Schedule J.
Procedural posture

Movant bankruptcy trustee filed objections to confirmation of non-movant debtors'chapter 13 plan and requested dismissal of the debtors'case.

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

opinion summary, case decided on June 21, 2006 , LexisNexis #0706-081

In re Fuller

Ruling
Court withheld ruling on confirmation objection until it could determine if plan committed all of debtors'disposable income calculated under Form B22C rather than Schedule I.
Procedural posture

Before the court was the chapter 13 trustee's objection to confirmation of debtors'chapter 13 plan on the basis that the plan did not commit all of debtors'disposable income to the plan as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).

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

opinion summary, case decided on June 21, 2006 , LexisNexis #0806-117

In re Wilbur

Ruling
Court, in denying plan confirmation, held that "unsecured creditors" in section 1325(b)(1)(B) referred to non-priority unsecured creditors only.
Procedural posture

Debtors moved for confirmation of their proposed chapter 13 plan. The chapter 13 trustee filed an objection. The issue was whether the term "unsecured creditors" in 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B) referred to non-priority unsecured creditors only. The debtors'position was that the term "unsecured creditors," as found in section 1325(b)(1)(B) included unsecured creditors holding both priority and non-priority claims.

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

opinion summary, case decided on June 21, 2006 , LexisNexis #0706-049

Mangum v. Marshall ( In re Mangum)

Ruling
Discharge was granted since creditors and trustee could not require debtor to pay more than debtor's plan required.
Procedural posture

Chapter 13 debtor filed an adversary proceeding against the standing trustee, seeking a discharge in her case and a refund of funds the trustee was holding from the sale of her residence. Debtor asserted that she had made all required plan payments and that she was thus entitled to a discharge and the return of the excess sale proceeds. The parties moved for judgment on stipulated facts.

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

opinion summary, case decided on May 18, 2006 , LexisNexis #0606-135

In re Kibbe

Ruling
Plan was denied confirmation since debtor incorrectly calculated projected disposable income based on Official Form B22C rather than Schedules I and J.
Procedural posture

The chapter 13 trustee filed a motion to dismiss the debtor's bankruptcy case. The issue presented was whether "projected disposable income," as used in 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B), was determined from Official Bankr. Form B22C or whether "projected disposable income" was determined by Schedules I and J, when the debtor's "current monthly income," as defined by 11 U.S.C. § 101(10A), was significantly lower than her actual current income.

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

opinion summary, case decided on April 14, 2006 , LexisNexis #0606-115