§ 1325(b)

In re Gress

A chapter 13 trustee sought to deny confirmation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b) of a second amended plan proposed by the debtors.
Ruling: 
Trustee's motion to deny confirmation was sustained since plan neither outlined that all projected disposable income be paid for five years to unsecured creditors nor provided that all unsecured claims be paid.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Gress. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re McGuire

Chapter 13 trustee filed a motion to deny confirmation of debtors'chapter 13 plan, on the grounds that the plan was in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b).
Ruling: 
Chapter 13 plan was denied confirmation since it proposed repayment period for under 60 months and claimed vehicle ownership expense deduction on vehicle owned free and clear of liens.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re McGuire. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re Clemons

Chapter 13 trustee objected to the confirmation of debtors'amended plan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b).
Ruling: 
Court denied trustee's confirmation objection since debtors had to lower monthly payment due to debtor wife's loss of job.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Clemons. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re Schanuth

Debtors, husband and wife, petitioned for chapter 13 relief. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA") applied to debtors' petition. Debtors proposed a plan and sought confirmation. The chapter 13 trustee moved to deny confirmation of the plan.
Ruling: 
Plan was denied confirmation since plan was not feasible due to lack of disposable income and was too short in duration.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Schanuth. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Mangum v. Marshall ( In re Mangum)

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

In re Renicker

The debtors filed for protection under chapter 13. The debtors filed a chapter 13 plan proposing to pay what they determined to be all of their disposable income for 60 months. The chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation of the debtors'plan.
Ruling: 
Plan was denied confirmation since debtors were not entitled to extraordinary expenses claimed, and plan had to calculate disposable income prospectively, not historically.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Renicker. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re Kibbe

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

In re Barr

Debtor moved for confirmation of her chapter 13 plan and the chapter 13 trustee objected. The trustee contended that the debtor's plan did not comply with the good faith requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) based on the amount of the proposed plan payment. The trustee argued that the debtor failed to propose a plan in good faith because, based on her actual income and actual expenses, she had the ability to pay more than proposed in the plan.
Ruling: 
Objection to plan confirmation was denied since a determination of an above-median-income chapter 13 debtor's ability to pay and whether debtor's plan committed all of debtor's disposable income is determined under section 1325(b) not under section 1325(a)(3)'s good faith requirement.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Barr. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re Quarterman

The debtor filed for bankruptcy relief under chapter 13. The debtor filed a proposed plan and filed a motion for confirmation of the plan. The chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation of the plan.
Ruling: 
Trustee's objection to proposed chapter 13 plan was overruled, but court rejected debtor's argument that only debtors with monthly income above state family income median were required to contribute disposable income to plan.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Quarterman. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re Jass

The debtors moved for confirmation of their proposed chapter 13 plan and the chapter 13 trustee objected. The issue was whether the term "disposable income" was the same as "projected disposable income" as used in 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B). The debtors contended that their "projected disposable income" would be less than their "disposable income" due to the husband debtor's health problems.
Ruling: 
Court held that the debtors failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut a presumption that "disposable income" was the same as "projected disposable income" for purposes of confirming a chapter 13 plan.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Jass. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Pages

Subscribe to § 1325(b)