§ 1325(b)

Kibbe v. Sumski (In re Kibbe)

Appellant debtor challenged an order of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire denying confirmation of her chapter 13 plan. Appellee was the chapter 13 trustee.
Ruling: 
Bankruptcy court properly calculated "projected disposable income" in rejecting debtor's plan.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Kibbe v. Sumski (In re Kibbe). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re Strickland

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b), the trustee objected to the confirmation of the debtors'proposed chapter 13 plan of reorganization on the ground that one debtor was an above- median-income debtor and the length of the plan period was 55 months rather 60 months.
Ruling: 
60 month minimum plan period required for above median debtors where trustee objected to confirmation despite lack of disposable income.
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

Marshall v. Mangum (In re Mangum)

Appellant trustee appealed from the Bankruptcy Court, which ruled in debtor's favor, ordering the trustee to use the proceeds of the sale of debtor's personal residence to pay off the remaining payments under her chapter 13 plan and then release the excess proceeds to debtor. The bankruptcy court subsequently discharged debtor and denied a stay.
Ruling: 
Bankruptcy court properly allowed debtor to use proceeds of trustee's sale of debtor's residence to complete plan early with lump sum payment.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Marshall v. Mangum (In re Mangum). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re McDonald

Debtors filed a chapter 13 case. The trustee filed an objection to confirmation of debtors'plan, asserting among other grounds that their plan failed to meet the disposable income requirements appearing at 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).
Ruling: 
Objection to confirmation sustained since above median debtors could not deduct trustee's and attorneys'fees from projected disposable income.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re McDonald. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re Rayborn

Chapter 13 trustee objected to debtor's proposed plan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1).
Ruling: 
Debtor who routinely received tax refunds was not required to adjust withholding for plan to meet disposable income requirement.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Rayborn. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re Miller

Chapter 13 trustee in bankruptcy filed objection to the confirmation of debtors'proposed chapter 13 plan, on the ground that the debtors did not commit all of their projected disposable income to make payments to unsecured creditors as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B). At issue was the proper application of the disposable income test to above median income debtors under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.
Ruling: 
Above median income debtors'disposable income properly calculated using IRS standards and Form B22C.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Miller. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re Mitchell

The debtor moved for confirmation of her proposed chapter 13 plan and creditor filed an objection. The sole issue in dispute was whether, for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B), the debtor's "projected disposable income" was to be calculated by utilizing the means test in Official Bankr. Form B22C or by using the difference between Schedules I and J.
Ruling: 
"Monthly disposable income" is to be determined using Form B22C, not difference between Schedules I and J.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Mitchell. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re Daniel

The chapter 13 trustee objected to a plan proposed by debtor on the ground that it was proposed that the plan have an 18-month duration but no payments to unsecured creditors were proposed. At issue was whether such a plan was properly proposed where, as here, the debtor was a below-median income earner and whether it complied with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(A) or (B).
Ruling: 
Plan proposed by below median income earner was not confirmable as calling for termination in less than 36 months without dividend to unsecured creditors.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Daniel. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re Pak

A debtor sought confirmation of his amended chapter 13 plan, but the trustee and an unsecured creditor objected to the confirmation. The debtor contended that the plan should be confirmed because the payments constituted more than his "projected disposable income" under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).
Ruling: 
Confirmation denied due to debtor's failure to commit all projected disposable income to plan.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Pak. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re Bossie

The debtors moved to confirm their proposed chapter 13 plan. The chapter 13 trustee recommended against confirmation. The issue was the proper calculation of the debtors'"projected disposable income"for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(2).
Ruling: 
From 22C did not provide sufficient or accurate basis for determining debtor's "projected disposable income."
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Bossie. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Pages

Subscribe to § 1325(b)