Critical Case Comment

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III

Parks v. Drummond (In re Parks), 2012 WL 3193342 (9th Circuit BAP, August 6, 2012) (Jury)

Section 541(b)(7)(A) does not authorize Chapter 13 debtors to exclude voluntary post-petition retirement contributions in any amount for purposes of calculating their disposable income.

Case Summary

The Parks filed a Chapter 13 petition in January 2011. They were employed, had income above the applicable median income for their state, and had been contributing approximately $318 a month to their respective 401(k) retirement plans. In calculating their disposable income on Form 22C, the . . .

It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.

Or Sign In Below:

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

Academy Circle Logo Final
March 6, 2022
Diane Cipollone is an attorney and a qualified expert on mortgage servicing and loan origination matters. While Diane no longer provides expert testimony, she continues to consult with consumer attorneys; trains attorneys, court mediators, housing counselors and fair housing advocates on foreclosure prevention guidelines and federal mortgage regulations; and mentors pro bono attorneys and non-profit housing counselors. She has presented...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
February 12, 2023
Section 1329(c), as it currently exists, forecloses the ability of Chapter 13 debtor to modify a confirmed plan to alter the plan payment amount while maintaining an extended plan, previously approved under the CARES Act. (Hanan) In re Nelson, 2022 WL 6795096 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. October 11, 2022) Case Summary Immediately after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress sought...
Members
May 3, 2020
By Hon. Brian Lynch, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Western District of Washington, Tacoma Division When the Supreme Court issued United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa1 on March 23, 2010, commentators were perplexed.2 On the one hand, the Court upheld the 9th Circuit’s ruling allowing a hardship discharge of student loans in a chapter 13 plan. The Court held that...
Members
March 8, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Plan did not properly address 910 creditor’s liens. Finding that the plan did not satisfy one of the three options for addressing a secured claim under § 1325(a)(5), specifically failing to provide for the 910 creditor’s retention of lien, the Panel observed that in response to the creditor’s objection to confirmation, the debtors...
Members
June 9, 2019
By Jan Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee (Topeka, KS) Introduction Preliminarily, I recognize that many of those reading this do not need to. There are many fine trial attorneys in the bankruptcy bar. Those folks could well be writing this article. By way of defending myself in advance, this little piece does not consist of a series of war stories or...
Members
May 5, 2019
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Background Last year, the Ninth Circuit in In re Taggart1 ruled that an act in violation of the discharge injunction did not empower a court to find a creditor in contempt, if the creditor believed in good faith that the discharge injunction did not apply—even if the creditor's belief was...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
January 16, 2022
While a 13 trustee is partially insulated by the Barton doctrine from being dragged into state court, if a movant seeks authority from the Bankruptcy Court to pursue the trustee and satisfies the conditions of the Barton doctrine, the trustee may be subject to state court judicial proceedings. (Hall) In re Alexander Louis Bednar, 2021 WL 1625399 (Bankr. W.D. Okla....
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
I never set out to be a bankruptcy lawyer, much less a trustee. It was always my intent to be trial lawyer. The thrill of victory, the agony of defeat, and the captive audience of a jury; having to think fast on your feet was exciting. Facing jurors and witnesses with a modicum of confidence was what my view of...
William-1_print_2019
On June 6, the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Siegel v. Fitzgerald1 held that the increase in U.S. Trustee fees in Chapter 11 cases violated the uniformity requirement of the Constitution’s Bankruptcy Clause,2 because the fee increase in 2017 only applied to in the U.S. Trustee districts and didn’t apply to the Bankruptcy Administrator districts in Alabama and North Carolina....
Hale-Andrew-Antico
January 29, 2023
Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel finds no “eligibility” exception to right to dismiss a Chapter 13 bankruptcy Powell vs TICO Construction (In re Powell) 644 B.R. 181 (9th Circuit BAP, 2022) ISSUE Did the bankruptcy court err in granting Debtor’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 13? RULING No. FACTS This case tests the new “absolute right to dismiss” rule about...
Members

Looking to Become a Member?

ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.

Webinars

These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: