In re Richall, 470 B.R. 245, 249–50 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2012) (Deasy)

Disposable income test in § 1325(b) is satisfied by debtors with CMI greater than applicable median family income when plan pays unsecured creditors in full in less than five years using less than all projected disposable income. Schedules I and J showed monthly net income of $886.42. Form B22C showed monthly disposable income of $1,756.21. Plan proposed to pay unsecured claims in full with monthly payments of $855 over 60 months. “After the enactment of BAPCPA, the Bankruptcy Code differentiated the minimum and maximum term for a chapter 13 plan, based on the amount of a debtor’s disposable income. . . . In the case of above median debtors, § 1322(d)(1) now proscribes that ‘the plan may not provide for payment over a period that is longer than 5 years.’ . . . In effect, BAPCPA eliminated any minimum term of a plan for above median debtors. All above median debtors are now subject to a uniform term of five years for a chapter 13 plan with only one exception: the term of the plan, or the commitment period, may be less than five years if creditors are paid in full. 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(A) and (b)(4). However, BAPCPA did not change the minimum or maximum plan term for below median debtors not paying creditors in full. It remains a minimum of three years, absent cause for a longer term, which cannot exceed five years, unless creditors can be paid in full in a shorter period of time. 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322(d)(2) and 1325(b)(1)(B) . . . . Consequently, after BAPCPA, courts may deny confirmation of a chapter 13 plan proposed by a below median debtor, which stretches beyond a three year period and pays creditors in full but does not commit all disposable income, because a court could find that no cause exists to extend the plan longer than three years when a debtor can pay[ ]off creditors within the commitment period. See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(d)(2)(C). After BAPCPA, the same is not true for above median debtors. . . . Section 1325(b)(1) requires compliance with subsection (A) or (B), but not both. . . . [A]bove median debtors now have an election to either pay all of their disposable income for five years, or until creditors are paid in full, § 1325(b)(1)(B), or to pay less than their disposable income over five years, if such lower payments will pay unsecured creditors in full. 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(A). The Debtors’ Plan provides for payment of all unsecured claims in full during a five year term through payments of approximately one-half of their disposable income. Thus, the Debtors’ Plan complies with § 1325(b)(1)(A). While the Debtors could pay off their unsecured creditors in a shorter period of time if they contributed all of their monthly disposable income to plan payments, they are not required to do so under the plain unambiguous language of the Bankruptcy Code. . . . [T]his result is contrary to the intent of Congress in enacting BAPCPA. . . . [I]t is the responsibility of Congress, not the courts, to correct the statute.”

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

December 20, 2020
By James M. Davis, Staff Attorney to Chapter 13 Standing Trustee Henry E. Hildebrand, III (Nashville, TN) Bankruptcy Courts take determinations from the Supreme Court seriously. And rightfully so. But sometimes, some bankruptcy courts are guilty of reading too much into the Court’s statements. The latest example is the soul searching around “nunc pro tunc” (“now for then”) orders. Earlier...
June 26, 2022
Consumers have burned through their stimulus cash and are now drawing down their savings to satisfy pent up spending sprees and to cover the increasing cost of living. This cannot continue. From 2015 through the end of 2019, consumers held a consistent average of $1.1 trillion in savings. However, with the commencement of the COVID pandemic and the first of...
March 17, 2019
By Wm. Houston Brown, United States Bankruptcy Judge (Retired) Confirmation - Trustee’s “double-dipping” objection to above-median confirmation denied. The trustee objected to confirmation based on above-median debtor deducting the IRS Local Standard housing deduction when the actual mortgage expense was on a marital residence owned by the debtor’s nonfiling spouse, while also claiming the marital adjustment for the spouse’s income...
March 7, 2021
By Chris Hawkins, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP (Birmingham, AL) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) published its debt collection final rule in the Federal Register on November 30, 2020, revamping the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for the first time since its enactment in 1977. Despite written comments submitted by several industry groups requesting clarity in areas where...
March 17, 2019
By Cathy Moran, Esq. (Redwood City, CA) Because its treatment varies so, we need to be asking more pointed questions of clients about both insurance policies and the debtor as beneficiary. Unmatured life insurance Starting with exemptions, §522(d)(7) makes an unmatured life insurance policy exempt without limit. So, the insurance element of a policy owned by the debtor is exempt...
March 10, 2019
When someone legally changes their name, there are tax consequences they need to know about, especially at tax time. People change their names for several reasons: Taking their spouse’s last name after a marriage Hyphenating their last name with their spouse’s after getting married Going back to their former name after a divorce Giving an adopted child the last name...
January 28, 2024
Does § 523(a)(15) include claims by a spouse against the other spouse for fraud etc, i.e., §§ 523(a)(2), (4) and (6), in a chapter 7 case?
May 28, 2023
Retirement of Judge David Robert Duncan
March 20, 2022
"Finality" in Bankruptcy When is an order within a bankruptcy case "final"? When must a party to the proceeding appeal within 14 days? When may a party either seek interlocutory review or sit back and wait until something more occurs to make the order final? Final orders are appealable. In civil actions, this is a relatively easy proposition to apply...
October 3, 2021
By Jay Fleischman, Managing Attorney at Money Wise Law (Los Angeles, CA) When the world was forced to adjust to new routines in March 2020 due to the global pandemic, I was instantly struck by how little my professional life changed. I’d worked remotely for over a decade, and my systems and procedures didn’t change. Sadly, the same couldn’t be...