By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction Since April 1, 2020, many unemployed people in the United States have begun to receive "a recovery benefit" in the amount of $1,200.1 These payments, under the CARES Act2 stimulus program, were intended to provide some relief to suffering Americans. However, the most financially distressed Americans, perhaps with existing,...
CRITICAL CASE COMMENT: In re Henderson
Print This Article
Link to Post:
In re Henderson, 2011 WL 1467934 (Bankr. D. Idaho, April 18, 2011) (Pappas)
A Chapter 13 debtor with no calculated projected disposable income, the applicable commitment period need not propose a minimum duration of a plan; Kagenveama still has some validity.
Case Summary
The Hendersons’ Schedules I and J revealed monthly net income of $1,140. The calculations on their 22C, however, yielded a negative disposable income of -$184. The difference between the I and J income and the 22C income was because the 22C “expenses” were greater than their actual expenses . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
Critical Case Comment – New Bankruptcy Term – “Sale Plan”
Critical Case Comment – The Now Infamous Castleman Case
Engaging a Non-Profit to Solve the Chapter 13 Trustees PSLF Conundrum
Critical Case Comment – Repeat: No Fee Splitting
Evidentiary Issues Arising from Attempts to Prove Alleged “Facts” Stated in The Monster Mash
Meet a New Trustee
From the Editor – Dismissal
Of Tax Refunds, Exemptions, Setoffs, and Roman Gods
Diane Cipollone
Is a CARES Act Stimulus Payment Exempt?