Skip to main content

§ 1325(b)(1)(B)

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 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

In re McLain

Ruling
Failure to step up payments after vehicle loans were paid off was not grounds for denial of confirmation.
Procedural posture

Debtors moved for confirmation of their proposed chapter 13 plan. The chapter 13 trustee and a creditor both filed objections to confirmation on the grounds that the proposed plan failed to devote all of the debtors'"projected disposable income" to be received in the "applicable commitment period"within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re McLain 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 24, 2007 , LexisNexis #1107-123

In re Rains

Ruling
Above-median debtors not allowed fixed allowance of any expense in excess of reasonably necessary actual expenses.
Procedural posture

A creditor filed an objection to confirmation of a chapter 13 plan filed by debtors. The creditor asserted that the proposed plan did not dedicate all of the debtors' projected 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 Rains Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on October 02, 2007 , LexisNexis #1107-018

In re Bateman

Ruling
Objection to plan sustained where debtor failed to devote all projected disposable income as declared on schedules.
Procedural posture

A chapter 13 trustee filed an objection to the confirmation of a plan filed by a debtor, alleging that the proposed plan did not dedicate all of the debtor's projected disposable income to the plan in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Bateman 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 21, 2007 , LexisNexis #1007-131

In re Bardo

Ruling
Plan payments to unsecured creditors were sufficient given debtors' proper reliance on projected income based on historic figures set forth in schedules I and J.
Procedural posture

The debtors filed for relief under chapter 13, and submitted a proposed chapter 13 plan. The creditor filed an objection to the proposed plan, asserting that the debtors plan did not make a sufficient payment toward the unsecured creditors based on the amount of projected disposable income claimed by the debtors, subject to the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Bardo 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 07, 2007 , LexisNexis #0108-087

In re Sackett

Ruling
Chapter 13 means test objections are to be determined as of effective date of plan.
Procedural posture

Before the court in debtors'chapter 13 case was the chapter 13 trustee's objection to confirmation, which asserted that debtors' plan violated the 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B) disposable income test.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Sackett 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 28, 2007 , LexisNexis #1007-056

In re Kirsch

Ruling
Confirmation denied due to failure to address issue of tax redunds.
Procedural posture

The trustee objected to the confirmation of the debtor's plan, arguing that, by failing to address the issue of the debtor's tax refunds, the plan violated the requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B) that the plan devote all of the debtor's projected disposable income to be received in the applicable commitment period to payment of unsecured creditors.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Kirsch 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 13, 2007 , LexisNexis #1207-091

In re Arsenault

Ruling
Objection to confirmation sustained where debtors failed to include annual bonuses not received in the six months prior to filing on Form B22C.
Procedural posture

Chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation of the above-median-income debtors'plan on the grounds that it did not commit all of the debtors'projected disposable income to be received in the applicable commitment period to be paid to unsecured creditors over the term of the plan, as required under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).

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

opinion summary, case decided on July 03, 2007 , LexisNexis #0807-055

In re Meek

Ruling
Confirmation denied due to excess housing expense claimed by above-median debtors.
Procedural posture

The chapter 13 trustee filed objections to confirmation of the above median income debtors'proposed plan, raising issues of debtors'failure to either pay unsecured creditors in full or to pay their "projected disposable income," under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B), given the discrepancy between the calculations of net monthly amounts shown on Form 22C and on Schedules I and J.

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

opinion summary, case decided on June 27, 2007 , LexisNexis #0707-119