Bankruptcy Lawyers Dallas

Whitney v. Drummond (In re Whitney), Nos. 04-62483-13, 07-35-H-CCL, 2008 WL 227868, at *3 (D. Mont. Jan. 28, 2008) (unpublished) (Lovell) (To shorten confirmed 60-month plan by prepayment, debtor must file motion for modification. “‘[T]here is nothing inequitable or contrary to the Bankruptcy Code, in requiring that debtors go through the plan modification process in order to pay their chapter 13 plans off early without paying allowed creditor claims in full.’”).

In re Tozer, 392 B.R. 758 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2008) (Martin) (Debtor’s attorney is holder of allowed unsecured claim and has standing to modify confirmed plan to pay attorney’s administrative expense claim.).

In re Gresham, No. 06-60027-MHM, 2008 WL 3484318 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Aug. 12, 2008) (Murphy) (Since debtor can amend petition at any time under FED. R. BANKR. P. 1009, postconfirmation amendment to add creditor and to modify plan is granted absent timely objection under § 1329(b).).

March 4, 2010

Disposible Income Test for Bankruptcy Filing

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 9:28 am

In re Sanchez, 394 B.R. 574 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2008) (Brooks) (Rejecting Money v. Kagenveama (In re Kagenveama), 527 F.3d 990 (9th Cir.), amended, 541 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2008), Chapter 13 debtors must propose three-year or five-year plan without regard to whether there is any disposable income; projected disposable income is forward-looking concept that is inconsistent with “snapshot” adopted by Ninth Circuit in Kagenveama.). Accord In re Pfeiler, 395 B.R. 464 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2008) (Brooks).

In re Roberts, No. 07-15653DWS, 2008 WL 4279549, at *3 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Sept. 17, 2008) (Sigmund) (Not necessary to decide whether projected disposable income test is “forward looking” or a mathematical formula because disposable income on Form B22C would be negative even if expense deduction is disallowed for pension loan repayments that will complete during second year after confirmation.).