Baud v. Carroll, 2009 WL 2876899 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 3, 2009) (Edmunds)
Where the calculation of a debtor’s projected disposable income on Form 22C is negative, the “applicable commitment period” does not apply and an above-median income debtor need not propose a 60-month plan; the trustee bears the burden of proof to establish a change in circumstance to overcome the calculation of projected disposable income on Form 22C.
Summary of the Case
Richard . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below: