Chapter 13 debtor’s profligate, pre-petition spending and post-petition lack of candor, demonstrated that the plan was not proposed in good faith and the petition was not filed in good faith. (Frank) In re Ames, 2022 WL 2195469 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. June 17, 2022) Case Summary In April of 2018, after 10 years of marriage, Guy Ames initiated a divorce complaint...
From the Editor – Chapter 7 Issues
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)
Means Test: Current monthly income includes pay earned in six-month look-back, even though received afterwards. Concluding that the date of receipt of pay was not determinative, § 101(10A)’s definition of current monthly income included pay that “derived” during the six months. Also, reviewing what other courts had held, the debtor’s prepetition wage garnishment was not a deductible expense, since the automatic stay prevented the garnishment from being an ongoing expense. And, the debtors’ monthly student loan payments were not a special circumstance rebutting the presumption . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
CFPB Releases Report on Debt Settlements and Credit Counseling
Tax Form 1099 Needs A Closer Look: Chances Are It’s Wrong
In re Crocker: New Approaches to Discharge Enforcement and Student Loan Dischargeability?
Legal Aid and Who Are Our Chapter 13 “Customers”
Critical Case Comment – Hell Hath No Fury, Until It Meets the S.D. of PA
A Look at Setoff and Recoupment as Fourth Circuit Permits IRS to Grab Exempt Overpayment Refund
Federal Payments for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance in Bankruptcy
From the Editor – Dismissal
Is 1328(i) Ultimately Terrible for Debtors?
Critical Case Comment–IRS and the “Innocent Spouse”