In re Martin, 464 B.R. 798, 802–07 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2012) (Perkins)

Applicable commitment period is temporal; debtor with CMI greater than applicable median family income who has zero or negative projected disposable income must propose a five-year plan. “[U]nder BAPCPA, the applicable commitment period is 3 years for a below-median debtor and 5 years for an above-median debtor. Those periods may be shortened only to the extent that unsecured claims may be paid in full more quickly. . . . All four courts of appeal that have considered the issue agree that section 1325(b) is a temporal requirement that sets a minimum plan duration . . . of five years for above-median debtors who have positive disposable income . . . . The Sixth Circuit in [Baud v. Carroll, 634 F.3d 327 (6th Cir. Feb. 4, 2011) (Cole, Clay, Katz),] and the Eleventh Circuit in [Whaley v. Tennyson (In re Tennyson), 611 F.3d 873 (11th Cir. July 16, 2010) (Tjoflat, Wilson, Ebel),] have held that the five-year term applies equally to those above-median debtors who have zero or negative projected disposable income. The Eighth Circuit in [Coop v. Frederickson (In re Frederickson), 545 F.3d 652 (8th Cir. Oct. 27, 2008) (Wollman, Beam, Riley),] declined to decide the issue. The Ninth Circuit in [Maney v. Kagenveama (In re Kagenveama), 541 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. June 23, 2008) (Pregerson, Siler, Bea),] held that the requirement does not apply if the debtor has zero or negative projected disposable income. . . . [A] 0% plan may be permissible, but the 5-year duration requirement for above-median debtors is not affected. . . . A step-down in payments to $0 once secured and priority claims are paid based solely on a negative number on line 59 is a novel proposition that would run afoul of other applicable confirmation standards. . . . In agreement with Baud, Tennyson, Frederickson and Kagenveama, this Court holds that the ‘applicable commitment period’ as that phrase is used in section 1325(b) establishes a temporal or durational standard for plan confirmation purposes, once an objection is filed. In agreement with Baud and Tennyson, this Court also holds that a chapter 13 debtor who is above-median status under the means test calculation, is required as a condition of confirmation to propose a plan with a durational term of five years, without exception for zero or negative projected disposable income.”

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

Copy of Hildebrand-2016
December 4, 2022
Chapter 13 plan which provided a specific amount to be cured on a reverse mortgage under § 1322(b)(5) would be controlled by the specific term of the plan provision and not by the larger proof of claim filed by the creditor. (Baer) In re Edelstein, 2022 WL 16730027 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. November 7, 2022) Case Summary The Edelsteins filed Chapter...
February 17, 2019
By Veronica D. Brown-Moseley, Boleman Law Firm, P.C. (Virginia Beach, VA) Many things can, and often do, change between the time debtors file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and the end of their case. A variety of circumstances impact a debtor’s ability to afford their Chapter 13 plan payments, including but not limited to: medical problems, disability, loss of employment,...
April 18, 2021
Bankruptcy Courts Grapple with the “COVID-19 Discharge” APPENDIX A 11 U.S.C. § 1328 Discharge (Text added by CAA, effective: December 27, 2020 and subject to one-year sunset, appears in italics.) (Mandatory and precatory directions to the court, critical to the statutory analysis in In re Ritter, appears in bold.) (a) Subject to subsection (d), as soon as practicable after completion...
February 12, 2023
Previously the Emeritus Trustees (“ETC”) were asked to comment on “How to Manage Unprofessional and Discourteous Attorneys”. We now turn to ETC to share their collective wisdom when addressing the issues raised by incompetent, unprepared, and negligent bankruptcy counsel. Chapter 13 Trustees are required to administer cases in accordance with the duties set forth in 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1302 and...
November 22, 2020
By David Cox,1 Cox Law Group, PLLC (Lynchburg, VA) III. Providing for the Secured Mortgage Claim, as Modified. A. Does the requirement of § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii) for equal monthly payments permit the Debtor to propose a balloon payment in the payment of the creditor’s claim? Equal Monthly Payments Required By § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii) Does NOT Permit Debtor To Propose A Balloon Payment....
November 10, 2019
By William Houston Brown, Editor and Adviser, NACTT Academy for Consumer Bankruptcy Education, Inc. Several Official and Director’s Forms related to bankruptcy filings are revised and some are new, with some already taking effect on October 1, 2019, others to take effect December 1, 2019, and others taking effect February 19, 2020. Several forms have already been updated on April...
June 2, 2019
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III and Sloan Hastings Section 523(a)(1) excepts from discharge taxes that are priority claims under § 507(a)(8). One of § 507(a)(8)’s provisions makes debts not dischargeable for income taxes requiring the filing of a tax return due during the three years prior to filing bankruptcy. It is this “recent years taxes nondischargeable” moniker that leads many...
April 25, 2021
By Pardis Akhavan, Resnik Hayes Moradi LLP (Encino, CA) The bankruptcy court in In re Ritter, 2021 WL 864092 (Bkrtcy C.D. Cal, 2021)(J. Tighe),denied debtors’ motion for an immediate discharge under Section 1328(i) ruling that Congress apparently did not intend that a chapter 13 debtor who obtains a loan modification should also receive a discharge, on that basis alone at...
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...
March 28, 2021
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) Section 1328(i) requires the court to consider the discharge provisions of §§ 1328(a) through (h) and the fact that incomplete personal residence mortgage payments or a forbearance do not preclude but do not compel a COVID-19 Discharge. (Tighe) In re Ritter, 2021 WL 864092 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. March 5,...