In re Espinoza

Ruling: 
Plan calling for two-tiered payments did not meet requirement of equal monthly payments on allowed secured claims and could not be confirmed.
Procedural posture: 
A creditor objected to the confirmation of the debtors' proposed chapter 13 plan on the ground that the plan's unequal monthly payments did not comply with 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(a)(4)(B)(iii)(I).
Issue: 
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Espinoza. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on August 01,2008, LexisNexis #1008-015