The NACTT Academy offers a comprehensive community for bankruptcy professionals seeking to advance their education in consumer bankruptcy.
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.
These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.
Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.
The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.
From the Editor – Confirmation and Effect
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)
Failure to include live-in girlfriend’s income on Schedule I was not bad faith. Declining to equate a live-in significant other with a non-filing spouse for purposes of the Code, Schedules and Form 22C, the debtor’s failure to include the person’s income on Schedule I did not establish bad faith in the plan proposal. The trustee did not show that the girlfriend was legally obligated to financially contribute to the joint household. Case law about such income is largely in the context of eligibility . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
Lawyers are People Too: An Interview with Aki Koyama, Staff Attorney to Chapter 13 Standing Trustee Kathy Dockery
In re Lazaro: Non-Monetary Default and § 1322(b)(5)
New Judge Appointed
The Government Shutdown and Chapter 13 Plan Arrearages – What Do We Do Now?
Word to the Wise: Failure to Properly Notice a Creditor Is Bad!
How to Manage Incompetent, Unprepared, and Unreasonable Creditor Bankruptcy Counsel
Avoidance Powers In Chapter 13 – Part 2 of 6
Hanging Paragraph, Cars for Non-Personal Use, and PMSI
Assumption of Auto Lease in Chapter 7 Requires No Court Approval Says the 9th Circuit: In re Bobka
Critical Case Comment – No Mulligans for Gardners