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

February 17, 2019
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) PART II: More Supreme Court Action on Arbitration Introduction Click here for Part I Click here for Part III Click here for Part IV What is the effect of an . . . It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members....
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
October 15, 2023
A little bit for everyone in this case . . .In calculating above-median income debtor’s projected disposable income, Chapter 13 debtor may not deduct the “ownership allowance” for transportation expenses if the secured debt in question is secured by a nonpurchase money security interest in a motor vehicle.
Members
January 17, 2021
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) PART VII – CONSUMER CREDITORS' PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF FORECLOSURE AND OTHER ARTICLE 9 RULES Introduction In this space, we have looked at numerous topics involving the operation of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in bankruptcy; in the current series, we are reviewing Article 9's important rules...
Members
January 10, 2021
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) This legislation includes several bankruptcy-related provisions, in addition to government funding and other COVID relief. Consumer bankruptcy issues are addressed in Title X of the Act, section 1001, which amends Bankruptcy Code § 541(b)’s exclusions from property of the estate, adding subsection 11 for certain coronavirus relief, defined as “recovery rebates made under...
Members
January 12, 2020
By David Cox,1 Cox Law Group, PLLC (Lynchburg, VA) Click here for Part 1 of 3 C. Determining whether to file. Collection considerations outside of bankruptcy. Is the debtor judgment-proof? Are assets and income exempt? How active are creditors? Is the current situation likely to change? Has there been a previous filing, and if so, are there stay or exhausted...
Members
Academy Circle Logo Final
October 15, 2023
A question recently presented to the NACTT Emeritus Trustees is “the change to chapter 13 law I’d most like to see?” Here is a summary of their responses. This question was presented by a ConsiderChapter13.org reader. If you have a question for the Emeritus Trustees or Ms. Ps & Qs (ethics), please submit them here.
Members
March 14, 2021
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Exemptions are determined at the time the debtor files for bankruptcy. … This maxim is called the "snapshot" rule because the debtor's financial situation is frozen in time, as if someone had taken a snapshot of it.1 Recent Caselaw The First and Ninth Circuits On March 1, the Ninth Circuit...
Members
Academy Circle Logo Final
Recently, the Emeritus Trustees (“ETC”) commented on “How to Manage Incompetent, Unprepared, and Negligent Bankruptcy Counsel”. We now turn to ETC to share their collective wisdom when addressing the issues raised by incompetent, unprepared and unreasonable creditor counsel. CREDITOR ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION ISSUES Several ETC Trustees list the following as problematical during their tenure. Attorney claims lack of authority from creditor...
Members
NBR cropped 2
November 26, 2023
“ . . . how can I not write about an opinion that begins, “This is a case of sue first and ask questions later”? We all know that Judge Christopher Klein has a way with words and a precise and methodical way of approaching statutory analysis.”
Members
January 3, 2021
By Mark C. Leffler, Boleman Law Firm, PC (Richmond, Hampton, and Va. Beach, VA) Part I: Derby v. Portfolio Recovery Associates Recently, Hon. Keith L. Phillips of the Eastern District of Virginia Bankruptcy Court issued his fourth and final written opinion in the Derby v. Portfolio Recovery Associates adversary proceeding, Adv. Pro. No. 18-03097-KLP, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 2589 (Bankr. E.D.Va....
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: